This "columnist" says he needs to ask the hard hitting questions for the fans. The question he asked was far from that. Does he think that the players don't know they played poorly? Does he think that the coaches won't address what happened? That hours wont be spent in the film room watching and analyzing? The question he asked and many other columnists ask are nothing more than trolling bait to try and get a response from either the player or coach. I agree that if he had asked a question that required a thoughtful response, perhaps about the coverage package or some insight into the blocking scheme that was successful against the Bills, but all he was trying to do was spin up the players and cause a scene.
I appreciate you posing this question, its a great topic. But I disagree vehemently with some of your conclusions. You said, "No one, however, should confuse it with journalistic inquiry because from that perspective, a question should be judged by the quality of answer it produces'. Apply that standard to questions posed to some former White House Press Secretaries. Would you truly judge the quality of journalistic inquiry by an answer or non answer from Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
I think the debate over how sports journalists treat teams and players in these situations is because of how often they contrast with the way journalists in other fields treat their subjects. Because of the unique power of leagues and teams to control access, it is often perceived by readers that the press is not nearly the "4th branch" serving as an arbiter of public accountability. It's not just fans who object to how the desire for access impacts the journalistic inquiry, I've seen plenty of great sports journalists call out a certain sports insider for scoops that appear little more than a newswire service for certain agents and GMs.
To be fair, there are plenty of niche branches of journalism where the need for access arguably impairs an otherwise impartial inquiry, from finance to even politics. And maybe a better criticism of the Sullivan-Hyde issue would be that it just seemed like a poorly executed 'gotcha' moment, with Sullivan stumbling on the words rather than asking a critical question that could lead to some insight.
This "columnist" says he needs to ask the hard hitting questions for the fans. The question he asked was far from that. Does he think that the players don't know they played poorly? Does he think that the coaches won't address what happened? That hours wont be spent in the film room watching and analyzing? The question he asked and many other columnists ask are nothing more than trolling bait to try and get a response from either the player or coach. I agree that if he had asked a question that required a thoughtful response, perhaps about the coverage package or some insight into the blocking scheme that was successful against the Bills, but all he was trying to do was spin up the players and cause a scene.
I appreciate you posing this question, its a great topic. But I disagree vehemently with some of your conclusions. You said, "No one, however, should confuse it with journalistic inquiry because from that perspective, a question should be judged by the quality of answer it produces'. Apply that standard to questions posed to some former White House Press Secretaries. Would you truly judge the quality of journalistic inquiry by an answer or non answer from Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
I think the debate over how sports journalists treat teams and players in these situations is because of how often they contrast with the way journalists in other fields treat their subjects. Because of the unique power of leagues and teams to control access, it is often perceived by readers that the press is not nearly the "4th branch" serving as an arbiter of public accountability. It's not just fans who object to how the desire for access impacts the journalistic inquiry, I've seen plenty of great sports journalists call out a certain sports insider for scoops that appear little more than a newswire service for certain agents and GMs.
To be fair, there are plenty of niche branches of journalism where the need for access arguably impairs an otherwise impartial inquiry, from finance to even politics. And maybe a better criticism of the Sullivan-Hyde issue would be that it just seemed like a poorly executed 'gotcha' moment, with Sullivan stumbling on the words rather than asking a critical question that could lead to some insight.