A Media Pet Peeve

[Brian Baldwin]

Often over the last few years I have seen the term "Did not immediately return our call" used in stories where something supposedly smacks of cover-up or worse. What in the blazes does that mean!? He eventually returned the call once he got off the phone with his wife? What could it prove? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Either the person eventually returned the call or didn't ever return the call. Only those two incidents could have impact upon the story. Anything else is a cheap parlor trick for trying to make something look shady.

We've come to expect this kind of tabloid non-sense out of the mainstream media on political and criminal fronts. Though honestly, neither should stoop to that level of juvenile reporting practices. But the real kicker that prompted me to jump on my soap box today is that I read it again in regards to a beneign football deal between a player and his agent. It can't even take on shady undertones in that instance! Please tell me my beloved sports journalism isn't turning into the same untrustworthy crap I have to wade through in the regular news. What next....? Obituaries? "The deceased did not immediately return our call." BAH!

[Brykovian]

I think it has more to do with (1) the tight time cycle between the reporting gathering info, writing, and publishing, and (2) the reporter doing some CYA work.

I don't read that phrase as a hint toward sleasy cover-up ... I read it as "I wanted to get the story out in a hurry and didn't leave enough time to get a reply from one of the key people" ... more about trying to get the "scoop", at the expense of more-detailed reporting work.

-Bryk