J Robinson (Photo/David Peterson)While the details of the Xanax-for-sale scandal aren't quite clear, what has become evident is the reporting of the "essay writing" story by Joe Christensen and Amelia Rayno of the Minneapolis Star Tribune doesn't seem to pass journalistic tests for veracity of sourcing, and instead relies on the uncorroborated story of one source whose name, motivations and relationships to key players in the piece is not further specified.
For me, the story comes down to this quote, which cannot be verified and if J Robinson's letter is to be trusted, is false.
Robinson tried to handle the Xanax issue internally, the source told the Star Tribune. He ordered suspected users to undergo mandatory urine testing and had them write a one-page essay. On April 5, the coach texted some team members with a reminder about their assignment.
Robinson's letter states he didn't try to handle the situation "internally" and had instead contacted the administration, a claim he went so far in backing as to file a motion that the university email servers be protected from hampering or the deletion of files. Robinson believes that there is evidence in his correspondence with the school will exonerate him of wrongdoing, namely "handling it internally."
The issue with poorly reported stories from respectable news organizations is that no matter how flawed the reporting gets, the headline sticks. Often the juicy the gist of the story "DRUGS, COLLEGE SPORTS, COVER-UP" is regurgitated by blogs lacking original reporting but with massive followings like Deadspin and Bleacher Report. Now, other news outlets like the Washington Post who have also switched to a blog method of information dissemination wherein they just make snarky comments on the existing flawed story.
Here's a little ethical test for your Thursday morning.
Let's say you're the coach of a successful Division I wrestling program and you find out that some of your players are both abusing Xanax and dealing it to other students. What do you do?
a.) Call the police?
b.) Tell your bosses?
c.) Confiscate some of the drugs and have the players in question write a one-page essay in which they write about letting down the team.
If you answered a. or b., you are probably fit to coach Division I wrestling. If you answered c., you're probably Minnesota Coach J Robinson, who reportedly did exactly that. (Yes, that's his real first name.)
So … What then happens if J Robinson is shown to have done the right thing all along? What if the source ends up being someone with an axe to grind, who told falsehoods because he wanted Robinson to resign? Will those stories be broadcast in the same fashion as this piece? Will the larger media world apologize?
No.
Anonymous sourcing is an essential part of journalism, but it's also extremely risky for editors and papers. Leaks from the White House or State Department can help realign policy and inform the American people about what is going on in the world. However, an anonymous source must be corroborated in detail by an independent second source to ensure that the information isn't being offered up as a misdirection, or an outright lie. In general, quotes on personal feelings are acceptable without a second source, but an accusation (even in-quote) if stated as fact must have a second source.
Another wrestler who spoke to the Star Tribune on the condition of anonymity said he did not receive that same text message, but later received an e-mail from U police who were investigating the wrestling team.
I've been around J for a while, and this is the first time anything of that level has hit our program," the second source said. "Obviously we were a younger team last season, and this was more a younger issue. A few guys came in that maybe weren't ready for the college transition.
What the writers of the article failed to do with this attribution is to make the second source substantiate the story offered by the original source. That an investigation exists shouldn't provide the journalists the latitude to then publish the otherwise shallow claims of the source. Why not interview a third wrestler that can talk about the exact claims? Why not talk to someone in the administration off the record? A list of people unwilling to return your phone call is wonderful to show you did your due diligence, but it provides no additional veracity to the claims of the unnamed source.
There is no paper trail or printouts of sent text messages. There is no Xanax-addled youth telling of the wrestler's sweet deal via Coach Robinson. There are no photos or videos, Facebook chat, Snapchat story, or Instagram post. There is no administrator, no coach, no trainer. There is no wrestler on the record.
Assume for a moment that the wrestler is telling the truth and that Robinson had the students write a letter. How does that reflect on Robinson having told the administration? Those two things are mutually exclusive and the fact that the journalists here only consumed them together weakens their narrative, and the credibility of an otherwise (maybe) credible source.
Right now Coach Robinson is at the receiving end of what looks like journalistic malfeasance and an NCAA culture that tolerates no negative press.
It's no secret that Robinson and the Minnesota administration have a tense and challenging relationship. How much that played into their choices has yet to be seen, but in reading the letter posted by Robinson's lawyer there is at least some belief that the administration will do anything to ensure that they are pegged as having been responsible for some part of the initial response to the drug allegations.
I'd love to know the truth, but with the reporting so far the truth seems to be less important than the number of clicks received.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now