Manziel.JPG

Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel talks to press during the SEC Media Days on July 17, 2013. (Julie Bennett/jbennett@al.com)

John Carvalho is an associate professor of journalism at Auburn University where he teaches classes in reporting and sports journalism. You can follow his sports media Twitter feed at @JohnCarvalhoAU.

When ESPN's Joe Schad reported on the Johnny Manziel autograph allegations Tuesday, those who follow me on Twitter saw me tweeting a lot of questions.

These questions reflect the kind of issues we talk about in journalism, such as source credibility and anonymous sources. So here, with more than 140 characters, are the problems.

First, a complaint about reality. I recognize that ESPN is in a rush to stay ahead on this story. I am not suggesting that they gaze at their navels for days, meditating on principles while the story passes them by. But some additional steps would enhance their credibility and maybe help the reader understand the story better and trust the reporting more.

Now, on to the problems:

Problem #1: Source credibility. I do not know much about autograph brokers, but they don't seem to rate high on the respect scale. They seem to prey on the naivete of both young athletes and sports fans.

Journalists deal with this all the time. Perhaps a paragraph of discussion in the article, along with a link to a sidebar on these brokers, would enlighten the audience as to ESPN's awareness of whom they are dealing with.

Source credibility was a big issue in an important libel case, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967). You'll have to do your own Google search for the case details; it does involve allegations of cheating against Bear Bryant, to whet your appetite. One thing that worked against the Saturday Evening Post was that the main source for the article had served jail time for fraud.

Problem #2: Granting anonymity. Perhaps no ethical decision is abused more than this. Journalists recognize that granting anonymity immediately causes the audience to doubt the source, so we try to make sure the source has a good reason for requesting anonymity and the news outlet has a good reason for granting it.

This source would claim a valid reason for requesting anonymity. He (Schad identifies him as a male) could lose business if he is identified as the source for the video. But when a source in a shady business (see Problem #1) seeks protection, the cringe factor increases. Granting anonymity to the wrong source can make the reporter look like a dupe.

The responsible thing to do is, within the article, include a paragraph or two explaining the decision and explaining how the source fits in to the story and the situation. In other stories (granted, involving more credible sources), you frequently see a sentence like, "The sources requested to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to release information on the case."

Another responsible action, which I would wager Schad did, would be to identify the anonymous source to a superior. This is SOP for any journalist. Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee knew the identity of "Deep Throat" in All the President's Men. Which relates to the next problem.

Problem #3: Buying videos. While the cell phone video has what would be explosive content, if true, ESPN was correct in not paying the autograph broker for it. While some tabloid publications/websites might, most traditional media outlets do not pay for interviews or documents.

In essence, the autograph broker was damaging his own credibility here. Schad's story does not specifically say that the revelation of the video's existence set off some kind of bidding war, though I can imagine the broker got at least a few offers. In offering it for sale, he seems to be out for personal gain more than anything.

What is confusing, however, is who actually saw the cellphone video. Did Schad alone see it? Or did someone else see it? The story is unclear here, because it uses the terms "Schad" and "ESPN" interchangeably. (In these situations, I usually write a comment in the margin that says something like, "Networks don't view videos; people do," and have my student clarify.) In this case, some editing would also help

As with the anonymous source, it would be safest for two people -- Schad and someone else, preferably a peer or superior -- to view the video. That not only increases the story's credibility, but demonstrates ESPN's commitment to cover its bases.

I'm not claiming that these are situations where ESPN and Schad failed. I am saying that these are potential pitfalls that should be addressed in the presentation of such reports.

It's one reason investigative reporting is such an arduous and costly enterprise. In the classroom, we teach our students not simply to take such situations and run with them, but to evaluate and appraise and ask and decide, and then to communicate those decisions.

(Side note: Critics always claim that college students should not major in journalism. This is an example of why it is a good reason to do so. Better to cover this stuff in the classroom, before it runs you over in a job-related situaton)

I doubt ESPN reps or Joe Schad will answer these questions because of what I write here. Let's hope they answer these questions in their articles because it represents solid, responsible investigative journalism.