that is, indeed, bizarre

You know, I spent ten years in the media before changing industries to provide for my family, and I have to say that in the rush to get eyeballs on a story a lot of outlets seem to think their ethics and practices are negotiable. So much content these days is excused as “blog” or “editorial” or “column” – but that content is being shopped in areas that used to be reserved for so-called legitimate journalism. If you go to CNN.com for instance, you can’t tell from headline to headline which story is a researched, sourced story and which might be some random rant from a CNN staffer (or, even worse, an “iReport,” the pinnacle of journalistic laziness that adds Facebook/YouTube/Wikipedia-style “reportage” from random schmoes on the street who have never heard of the term “journalistic ethics”).

I took pride when I was in the biz in being a guy that people could trust with a story – someone who protected sources, researched my material, and could be respected even if my subject couldn’t agree with me. Where is that pride these days? It’s all about hits, exposure, and selling the brand so that advertisers will pay. It’s glorified marketing and spin-doctoring.

As for the AJ-C, it’s their own fault (and, in a larger sense, the fault of online media outlets everywhere) for opening up comments sections in the first place (“WE REPORT, YOU REACT!!”); but making a story out of a commenter? Honestly, I’d hope that there’s some hero dog or cranky retiree looking to shut down a nightclub or something else that at least has the barest sense of newsworthiness.

I love the smackdown that Levenson put on Ms. Swartz, but in all honesty I don’t think it’ll register.

Or, perhaps, simply read some of the comments from this Whammer fellow, most of which are incoherent ramblings, and deduce that it’s unlikely that a part owner of multiple pro teams is their source.

I agree wholeheartedly, but there are exceptions. =)

“i’ll post online. they’ll probably find out. i don’t care anymore.” —Whammerfan087

Now this is entertainment.

Here’s a response from the paper on this:

Some comments from the AJC public editor, who looked into this matter:

"Whammer" is a commenter who has repeatedly posted to AJC blogs, defending the Spirit ownership group, and most recently trashing Atlanta sports fans as the worst fans in the country.

The reporters were curious about the identity of the commenter, believing that if it was someone in a leadership position in the Spirit organization, that would be newsworthy. They did what journalists do – reported the story by asking questions, including asking Mr. Levenson whether he was the person anonymously posting as Whammer, or whether someone was doing it at the ownership group’s behest.

Once Mr. Levenson denied that he or other owners were behind the Whammer postings that criticized fans, there was no story. AJC reporters frequently pursue newsworthy angles that don’t prove true. They don’t write every story they report.

The reporting included one missed step that the AJC regrets. The IP address on the anonymous blog entries was checked and found to be affiliated with UCG, a publishing company in which Mr. Levenson and other Spirit owners are partners. Anyone who owns a blog knows how easy that kind of check is to make, but at the AJC its only done in rare circumstances, with approval from a top editor. The editor involved wasn’t aware of that policy and didn’t seek approval, nor had the reporters been informed of the policy. It’s my understanding that this was explained to Mr. Levenson when he contacted the newspaper. The policy has since been communicated to all newsroom employees.

Finally, as relates to Mr. Levenson’s contention that the AJC should screen blog comments, the AJC commenting process allows any member of the online audience to object to any comment online; an editor then reviews the comment for possible removal. As far as the editors here know, Mr. Levenson did not object at the time to the postings he cites as objectionable.

Shawn McIntosh
AJC Public editor