And now, some journalism talk

 Or in other words ...

This is the part where the Blob gets all schoolmarm-y. 

This is the part where y'all are allowed to cut class if you like, because we're gonna talk Journalism-With-A-Capital-J for a spell, and the Blob knows from experience nothing can clear a room faster than that. So, go on, get outta here, ya knuckleheads.

As for the rest of you, let's start here: ESPN reporter Adam Schefter, and the wages of what is apparently no longer considered a sin in the newfangled journalistic world of 2021.

Among the avalanche of e-mails that revealed Jon Gruden to be fireable pond scum, see, was one Schefter sent in 2011 to Bruce Allen, then the general manager of the Washington Football Team. In it, he sent along a copy of an NFL story he was about to publish so Allen could vet it first -- jokingly referring to Allen as "Mr. Editor."

This was a violation of basic journalism principles, in case you were wondering. The term for it is "prior restraint," and you're taught to never ever ever do this in, like, the first journalism class you take.

Some folks on social media immediately pointed this out. Some other folks (i.e., Schefter's former ESPN colleague Darren Rovell) doubled down, saying it was no big deal, people do this all the time.

Um, no, dude. Allow me to summon the ghost of one my mentors at Ball State, Ken Atwell, to box your ears for you.

No properly trained journalist ever lets a source read a story before it's published (see again: "prior restraint"). Or at least no properly trained journalist used to.

Me?

In almost four decades as a sports journalist, I never even considered doing it. I did, on occasion, call a source to make sure I quoted him or her correctly before submitting a piece, which is entirely appropriate and even fundamental. So it's a fine line, but it's also very clearly marked. 

Schefter, to his credit, admitted as much today, saying he kinda-sorta screwed up. But the essential dynamic remains that put him on the wrong side of that aforementioned line. And that's because the line, especially for alleged media conglomerates like ESPN, has become increasingly faint.

ESPN, after all, both reports on and is in business with the SEC as the broadcast home of the SEC Network. It both reports on and is in business with the NFL, which includes as a broadcast partner Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN. This is not solely an ESPN phenomenon, either. Media conglomerates with a foot in both the journalism world, and in the world of those they cover, sprout like crabgrass everywhere.

Even if that doesn't taint the way these conglomerates cover that world, it can give the appearance it does. It's why back in the day we were always leery of getting too close to the athletes and officials of the teams we covered -- an even finer line than the aforementioned one, and one far easier to inadvertently cross.

On the one hand, cultivating sources is how you do the job, and some level of familiarity is therefore necessary. On the other, getting too familiar could mess with your ability to properly do that job.

Me?

I always erred on the cautious side, probably to my detriment. I consciously kept sources at professional length as much as possible, a function perhaps of my personality -- I'm a natural introvert -- as anything. No doubt that cost me, though I like to think my work didn't suffer too much from it.

Of course, as with everyone in this business, the readers/viewers were the final arbiters of that. And these days they're arbit-ing a hell of a lot more pervasively then they used to.

One more changed dynamic, and a Blob for another day.