Next week the January issue of Philadelphia magazine hits newsstands. It will feature Eagles coach Andy Reid and wife Tammy as their cover story, discussing their five-year ordeal dealing with the drug problems of their now-jailed sons Garrett and Britt.
The timing is odd in that, after months of Reid asking the media to respect his family’s privacy and saying he wanted to concentrate on his football team, the interview took place earlier this month while the Eagles were still in the playoff picture. In fact, had the Vikings lost on Monday night the Eagles would still be alive for the playoffs as the advance publicity hit the local media.
What really bugs me, though, is that the interviewer (according to the Phila. Daily News) told WIP radio that the article was read over, edited and approved by the Reids.
I realize Andy Reid is a control freak, but he’s not discussing national security. If he doesn’t want to discuss certain things, then he shouldn’t do an interview at all — or he should set ground rules in advance and the interviewer can then decide whether or not to go ahead with the interview. I can’t help but wonder what information is missing from the story.
That a magazine would allow an interview subject to edit and approve an article prior to publication is shameful. – Joe Guckin
on Dec 24th, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Philadelphia Magazine is hardly a “News” Magazine; we’re not talking Time or Newsweek here…
It’s basically a “City” magazine that is published with “features” that more tourists read than locals. Every city has one and it ’s more of an outlet for the local Tiffany or Cartier Stores to buy print ads.
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 2:15 PM
The cover line is “Our Story,” and there was no attempt at all to misrepresent the piece. What happened to journalism is, it has resisted adopting the standards of blogging. So far.
Now, what a journalist would do in this case would be to actually check out the magazine, maybe make a call or two. Ask the editor to comment. But you’re a blogger, so instead, you just pulled something out of your ass and besmirched a few reputations along the way.
http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13028
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 2:27 PM
I’ve been a professional journalist for 20 years, at papers large and small, and don’t see what the flap is about letting sources read an article prior to publication. There’s nothing wrong with it, for certain types of stories.
What information is missing from the article? You should think that about every story you read.
A profile like this is reliant on the source, and letting the source read the article ensures it is accurate. That doesn’t mean it can’t be all inclusive and even critical … it just means it will be accurate, from the family’s point of view, which is why we’re reading the story.
What makes this entire thread laughable is that it occurs in the context of sports, where every one knows beat reporters routinely self-edit, in fear of being excluded by the athletes. Need an example? Steroids in baseball? How many sports journalists asked those hard questions and pushed for answers?
As long as the publication is honest, and it appears this mag was, the outcome can be better for the reader.
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 3:29 PM
The Reids went out on a limb telling their story. As for their decision to preview their story prior to publication, this isn’t exactly a new concept. If this option were not available, then many interesting, enlightening interviews might never be made accessible for public reading.
If Andy and Tammy Reid wanted to give an intractable, free-flowing interview, they would have gone on Larry King or some other live media venue.
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 4:59 PM
You haven’t even read the piece and you’re already ripping it? All in the name of “journalism”?
As explained by the editor (who you probably could have called or e-mailed before writing this hatchet job), they were letting the Reids give the story in their own words. They ran quotes by them to make sure they were accurate. That’s not only acceptable, it’s a good practice. Better to get it write than to have to retract it later, which is what you should do with this post.
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Correction: “Better to get it right…”
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Our blogger quoted what the interviewer himself said on WIP. This from Les Bowen:
“The question-and-answer format article, which [Robert] Huber said yesterday on WIP Radio was read over, edited and approved by the Reids, references several rehab stints for Garrett, 24, including the treatment in Florida for which Andy Reid took a 6-week leave-of-absence from the Eagles to attend with his son last spring.”
So, was Huber wrong? Did he misspeak? Did Bowen get it wrong?
on Dec 27th, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I edited the post to clarify that the mention of what Huber told WIP did in fact come from the Phila. Daily News article, which Jim quoted above.
on Dec 28th, 2007 at 2:21 PM
AOL’s FanHouse agrees with Joe.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/28/editor-defends-philadelphia-magazine-calls-andy-reid-interview/
As do I. It’s a “collaboration” with the Reids, according to the editor. Hasn’t the media been raked through the coals for “collaborating” with the Bush Administration on various issues in recent years? A puff-piece profile is one thing, but a newsworthy item about how a coach’s personal life is affecting his job? Seems odd at first blush to allow him to read it pre-publication and, shockingly, to allow him to make even minor edits.
The online excerpt of the article certainly includes conversation about Andy’s job, something of great public interest. Call me crazy, but I would never agree to allow any player, coach, owner, GM or anyone else to read an interview or article I’m writing that includes insight into their job, how they do it, etc….
I guess that’s the difference between bloggers and ‘journalists’. Bloggers seem to take things at face value; journalists, especially self-righteous ones like the editor of Philadelphia magazine, will ignore accepted journalistic practices to make nice with a subject. Thank the First Amendment that bloggers are here to stay.
on Dec 29th, 2007 at 7:03 AM
Philly journalist have run out of town some of the greatest names in sports.
(iverson, cunningham, lindros, barkley) city of brotherly love list
on Dec 29th, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Cyd, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about.
on Dec 29th, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Steve, clearly you know nothing about Philadelphia. Of the four players you mention, three of them WANTED to leave for reasons having NOTHING to do with the media. And Randall Cunningham certainly wasn’t run out of town by anyone. If the media were so powerful, Charlie Manuel never would’ve been hired to manage the Phillies, just for one example.