Henry Abbott is a sportswriter who started blogging at TrueHoop last year. I'm not a basketball fan, but I've been following Abbott's work over the last few weeks because of his ongoing experiment in what he's calling open source journalism.
Abbott has been looking into the identity and dealings of William "Wes" Wesley, a former shoe salesman described by ESPN's Scoop Jackson as "the most powerful man in sports." But despite Wesley's supposed influence, he remains a mysterious figure. According to Abbott, "the Detroit News, the Akron Beacon-Journal, the Oregonian, the New York Times, GQ, and reportedly Sports Illustrated and HBO" have all written about or investigated Wesley without being able to fully explain just what he does or how he earns a living.
Abbott's not making any allegations of wrongdoing against Wesley, but he's intensely curious about how someone becomes so influential at the highest levels of sport and society, with links to Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Jay-Z, Phil Knight and even Bill and Hilary Clinton, while remaining so far in the background.
Abbott decided he was going to learn as much as he could about Wesley, and he's done an impressive job of piecing the facts together. Here's his description of the process:
In 2006, we're going to find out who [Wesley] is... And we're going to conduct the investigation in a new way. Welcome to open-source investigative journalism (as discussed in The New York Times and carried out at TalkingPointsMemo).
It works like this: I'll keep blogging away as always, putting all of
the William Wesley news I can get my hands on in the new "Who is
William Wesley?" category you'll see on the right.I will also pick up the phone and even leave the comfort of my
office to conduct actual reporting. If the people I'm talking to will
go on the record, the interviews will be recorded and shared here in
podcasts and/or transcripts--so that you can judge the story for
yourself.But you will also do a lot of the work. I'm counting to readers of TrueHoop to help in a lot of important ways.
- Tips...
- Searching online and off...
- Photos...
- Chronology...
- Sightings...
- Fact-Checking...
So why do I care about all this if I'm not a basketball fan? And why should you? Because more and more journalism is going to be conducted according to this "open source" model, and the absence of an editorial apparatus constraining the journalist is going to create unique opportunities and challenges.
The opportunities are obvious: Engaging readers as fellow journalists and leveraging their collective knowledge, and having the freedom to pursue stories simply because they're fascinating top the list. I'm sure you can think of a few more.
The challenges are more subtle. One issue Abbott's running into right now is knowing when to stop, when to let go of a story and move on. In a recent comment on TrueHoop, UNC-Greensboro economics professor and occasional blogger Dan Rosenbaum raised some thought-provoking questions:
When Henry began this, I think William Wesley was such a "black box"
that this reporting arguably struck the proper balance between the
public's desire for information and some respect for Wesley's privacy.But at this point, I think Henry has uncovered a lot about Wesley
and now we know more about him than we do many public figures. Are
there holes in what we know? Of course, but what has been uncovered is
substantial.Thus, for me personally, this has turned from the justified
investigative reporting that it started out as to an invasion of
privacy that serves few interests other than our prurient curiosity.It appears that in this guy's line of business, keeping out of the
limelight is an important part of what he does. That is perfectly
understandable. (To a certain extent, that is true in my line of
business, as well.)So now that Henry has reported a great deal about Wesley, has this
project crossed the line that divides justified investigative reporting
from paparazzi-like hounding of a semi-public figure?Despite the tremendous respect that I have for Henry, I worry that it has.
Not suprisingly, Abbott disagrees. My point isn't that we're better off when our individual freedom to investigate is curtailed by an editorial apparatus, but rather that in unscrupulous hands, that freedom can and will be abused. (And some people already feel that Abbott's investigation has crossed that line. I disagree, but I think he's come pretty close.)
Given the ever-lower barriers to entry in online publishing, and the inevitable development of attention-based services that will help individual authors find their niche audience, the question isn't whether we should adopt open source journalism; it's how we will best support this new model, take advantage of its strengths, and address its shortcomings.
tags: open source journalism journalism blogging truehoop henry abbott attention attentiontrust
4 Responses
Ed-
This is a great synposis.
Clearly, you have examined what we're doing at TrueHoop patiently, and described it carefully. Thanks. Thanks for taking the time.
Maybe your readers will have some good thoughts about guidelines for such a process. Believe me, I care a lot about doing this the right way, but it's always hard when you are working without precedent.
One of the biggest challenges I have encountered so far is that this approach inspires a lot of people to tell me things without attribution--sometimes on background, sometimes in the comments with fake names, and sometimes off the record. A good chunk of what I have heard about William Wesley has not been published on TrueHoop because of this. (I could use a whole team of investigative reporters to chase down every lead.)
In the meantime, it is dawning on me that this is a process that relies heavily on readers' media savvy. Readers need to know the difference between "The New York Times says x happened" and "The New York Times quotes Jim saying x happened."
For example, in our investigation of William Wesley, the key thing we have discussed that has not really been in the media before is the theory that Wesley might be steering players to a certain agent.
There is public evidence connecting Wesley and the agent in various ways, admissions they have worked together in other capacaties for years, close physical proximity, photos of them together, etc. The agent has also made a curiously quick rise to prominence that has coincided with the signing of players known to be close to Wesley.
We have two stories, from essentially anonymous sources, saying that the agent is paying Wesley handsomely. Those stories are on TrueHoop. I do not think that their presence there proves in any way that the agent pays Wesley. We simply have not proved that. (People might read this hastily and think TrueHoop is claiming to have these facts cold, when in fact what we have cold, like so often in journalism, is the stories.)
I trust that readers grasp it that way, but realize that somewhere in this scenario is both the weak point and the strong point of open source investigative journalism. The good part is it gives everyone a voice. The bad part is it gives everyone a voice.
Of course, the beautiful thing to consider is that anyone who may know of untruths in these stories is free to comment away. So far, although practically every aspect of this investigation has been debated in some fashion in the comments, and plenty of people have made pro-Wesley comments (he's a popular guy!) not one person has said this agent does not pay William Wesley.
One idea I have had for a labor-intensive, technology-based fix to this problem: Perhaps we could color code things. Maybe indepenently verified information should be in black, and one person's unconfirmed story should be blue. Just a thought.
I'm not anxious for new legal constraints on this kind of work, yet I fear anyone with a blog invading privacy willy-nilly. Professional standards would fill the void nicely.
Thanks for the feedback, Henry. I think it shows that you, too, are putting a lot time and effort into considering what "open source journalism" means, as well as its strengths and weaknesses.
You're also right to note that a key strength is that your critics are free to make their concerns and complains known right on your blog. And the thoughtful comments I've seen you post in response lead me to believe that you take them very seriously.
In the end, of course, your readers will each have to decide for themselves. Dan Rosenbaum and I have expressed some concerns, although I think it's clear that we both also have great respect for you and what you're trying to accomplish. At a certain point, we may say, "Hey, Henry's sincere and we've learned some important information, but he's going too far and abusing peoples' privacy," at which point we'll stop reading.
A strength and a weakness of open source journalism is that it's driven much more by the writer's personal interest in the story than by the story's ability to attract a large audience. That allows you to pursue an important but obscure issue without worrying about ratings or circulation figures. But it also means that you could wind up beating this story to death, with an audience of a few morbidly curious rubberneckers.
Thanks for your pioneering efforts, and I wish you the best both in pursuing this story, and in knowing when to let it go.
Ed
I will continue to be as responsible and fair-minded as I possibly can be. I will, as necessary, refine my approach as we go so as to be sensitive to these kinds of issues as they arise.
But I won't stop investigating until we've answered the basic questions we started with.
If I wasn't sure this was important, I never would have started.
But as long as the underlying facts don't change, my conviction to uncover the truth won't either. Some of them are as follows: ESPN's Scoop Jackson knows William Wesley well, and calls him the most powerful man in sports. NBA players Damon Stoudamire and T.J. Ford told a reporter that Wesley is running the whole NBA. He has access to just about every locker room and player in the NBA. He sits courtside, sometimes in Nike's seats.
He's very closely associated with three of the biggest names in the NBA: Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, and LeBron James.
We don't need to know all the ins and outs of the man's life. But we ought to know the basics, like what his job is. (If he's the most imporant man in the NBA... and I cover the NBA but don't even know what he does, that's me not doing my job.)
Everything TrueHoop has done so far--including creating the lengthy chronology that prompted Dan Rosenbaum's alarm--is just steps along the path to figuring out the answer to that basic question: what do you do? When we have it answered on the record, by Wesley himself or those close to him, then I'll feel that the job has been completed.
Thanks, Henry. I believe you're sincere in simply wanting to get at the truth about Williams, and it appears that this is a story the public has a right to know more about.
But let me play devil's advocate for a minute. What if there's nothing nefarious in Williams' dealings, and he simply is a "runner," albeit a very highly placed one, who needs to operate outside the public eye to be effective? What if Jackson and Stoudamire and Ford are just talking hyperbolic trash? And what if your investigation undermines Williams effectiveness and prevents him from going about his business?
I'm not saying that any of those things are true, or even that you should curtain your investigation at this point because they might be true. Williams has chosen to operate in a very visible and high-profile arena, and he has apparently become a powerful person in a very big business, which means that he's going to attract curious inquiries (which is why a number of publications decided to write about him prior to your investigation, as you've made clear all along.)
But to act responsibly, you still have to ask yourself the questions I posed above. And you're the only one who can decide how to proceed based on the answers you dig up (which will surely evolve over time.)
I don't mean to give you a hard time. At this point, if I had to choose between you and the commenters on TrueHoop who are telling you to lay off (even one who does it as respectfully as Rosenbaum), I'd go with you. The chance that there is something not kosher about Williams' dealings means that this is a story that's worth exploring further.
But I also think it's important for every journalist--particularly an "open source" journalist operating outside the constraints of an editorial apparatus--to regularly ask him- or herself, "Why am I pursuing this story? Is it worth my audience's time and attention? And is it worth the invasion of my subject's privacy?"
There's a reason that public respect for the media has sunk lower and lower since its post-Watergate high, and that's because we see all too clearly that many journalists are pursuing their own glory while wrapping themselves in the mantle of "truth-teller." I'm not accusing you of doing that, Henry, but the challenge you face is that no one but you will know when you've crossed that line.
But I really do wish you the best in your efforts--I think you're a model for journalism in a post-blog world, and a lot of people should be watching to see what happens (if they aren't already.)
Ed