CNN debate format was an enormous blunder

PHOTO CREDIT: AUSTIN STEELE/CNN

The flaws in how CNN conducted the first presidential debate Thursday night were foreseeable and then magnified by actual events.

As a result, everyone is talking about the donkey in the room and barely about the elephant.

A brief review of the good and the awful of CNN’s format:

• No studio audience: Smart move.

• Muted microphones when the other guy spoke: Smart move.

• Order of topics: Abysmal judgment. The questions about the main concerns particular to each candidate needed to come first, not last. Order conveys importance. It is not bias to recognize that Donald Trump’s past and planned efforts to establish authoritarian rule are an abnormally important issue.

• No real-time fact checking: A completely irresponsible decision. This wasn’t a heat-of-battle failure by the moderators, either. It was a derelict plan adopted beforehand. This would be a mistake no matter who the candidates were. To do this with Trump is mind boggling.

Moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash did well at repeating questions when a candidate’s first answer was evasive. But that’s not fact checking. Leaving it to candidates to accurately correct each other is fantasyland. The audience needs the credibility of a detached journalist. CNN eventually did provide detailed fact checking -- after the debate. Too late.

In a poll published Saturday by Data For Progress, 53% of 800 likely voters who watched or read about the debate said the moderators did not do enough to fact check the candidates.

The troubling consequence of CNN’s format is that Trump’s deranged statements and torrent of lies – three times as many falsehoods as Joe Biden – floated uninterrupted into the public consciousness. Recognizing that he wasn’t going to get called out, Trump got more deranged and the lies more torrential as the debate went on.

To compound the problem, most media conversations after the fact focused not on Trump but on Biden’s oral coherence. (For both of them, mental competence is a legitimate issue to evaluate; you just have to decide if you think 90 very bad minutes of spontaneous thinking and speaking sufficiently measures Biden’s mental competence.)

TV networks shouldn’t produce debates that have no method for real-time accountability. Networks need off-stage fact checkers who feed information to moderators, plus designated minutes for moderators to confront candidates about their falsehoods. Even if it means one candidate gets more questions than the other. Even if it means a longer debate.

Another proposal is one I advocated a year ago and that drew more than normal disagreement from readers: Record debates live but show them hours later. This allows for addition of on-screen graphics that address any misstatements not adequately remedied during recording.

I’m aware some number of viewers liked the minimalist moderation Thursday night. Don’t care. CNN is not excused.

Missing piece of Trump case coverage: The jurors

No one has published any interviews so far with members of the Manhattan jury that found Donald Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying records last week, but I’m certain multiple media outlets are trying.

Juror names and addresses were shielded from the media and the public but I think it’s inevitable that enterprising reporters will eventually find a juror or two who is willing to talk. That’s usually what has happened with high-profile court cases in the past.

A juror might be willing to allow publication of their name, but it should be a slam-dunk decision by any media organization to allow anonymity if that’s a condition of getting the interview. That’s because – sadly but unsurprisingly – some people outraged by the verdict have posted threats of harm against the jury on fringe social media sites. Example: “We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal.” Posts have also included names and personal information of individuals believed by posters to have served on the jury.

It's reasonable to think the media horde should just back off of the 12 individuals who had their lives disrupted by this civic obligation and who showed impressive courage to render this verdict in such a high-profile and divisive case. But the news value justifies the reportorial effort. And candidly, if Trump had been found not guilty of everything, then I’d really want to know why, so I can’t very well argue to leave the jury alone in the present circumstance.

Keep in mind that “reportorial effort” doesn’t mean harassment and browbeating of jurors, though they might consider it that. It simply means making contact to see if and when they want to talk, and respecting whatever that decision is.

Surely, no ethical media organization would reveal a juror’s identity against their will, even if it unfortunately happens on social media. I don’t think even Fox News would do that.

Student journalists shine in campus protest coverage

one of two gaza war rallies at the university of alabama on wednesday. (photo: riley thompson of the crimson white)

A student reporter at the Columbia Journalism School who is covering the campus protests there tweeted Wednesday that she was so overwhelmed that she had to quit … giving interviews to professional media.

On this story playing out around the nation, it’s the campus media that are leading the way.

There are reasons for that. Several universities in the midst of pro-Palestinian rallies and police countermeasures closed the grounds to everyone except students and faculty. Student journalists are also more likely to know the activists, who in turn are more likely to talk to fellow students than to the professional media whose coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza they haven’t liked. It also helps that staffs of campus media probably are more demographically similar to the protesters than the professional media are.

This has led to outstanding work by many student media outlets, both print/online and radio. (The Crimson White gave prominent coverage to Wednesday’s peaceful double rallies at the UA Student Center Plaza.)

Producing these vital stories hasn’t been easy. At Columbia University, police told student reporters they would be arrested if they left the journalism building to report on the arrests being made in a nearby building occupied by protesters. (This was a comically ironic moment as next week Columbia will announce the Pulitzer Prizes. I look forward to the new category “Breaking News Reporting From A Distance That’s Acceptable To Us.”)

At New York University, police pepper sprayed a student newspaper photographer. At UCLA, the student paper tweeted early this morning that police forcefully clearing an encampment had threatened to arrest reporters. On Tuesday night, pro-Israel counter protesters sprayed and assaulted multiple reporters for The Daily Bruin, sending one to an ER.

On Wednesday, five national media associations wrote an open letter to college administrators: “Right now, the nation is turning to student journalists – people who know and live in these communities – for accurate and timely information. They are raising hard questions, verifying reports and supporting each other. What they are doing is essential to our democracy and embodies the values institutions like yours aim to instill in each and every student.

“We are horrified and dismayed to see student journalists and their advisers physically attacked, intimidated by police, and unfairly restricted in their access to their own buildings. Each of them is exercising the lessons imparted to them in their classes and student media operations. This maltreatment cannot continue.”

Do you solemnly swear to smile for the camera?

PHOTO CREDIT: THE FUND FOR MODERN COURTS (NEW YORK)

Very misleading subtitle on MSNBC a few days ago: “World watches Trump hush money trial.”

No, the world isn’t. Because TV news cameras aren’t allowed in the courtroom. And they should be.

Whatever you think of the merits of the Manhattan case against Donald Trump, this is a historic trial – the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president. And while the public relies on reporters’ accounts and a few still photos, Trump uses televised statements in the hallway to distort the courtroom events taking place. I’d also like to witness his reported napping, since age and energy have become a 2024 campaign issue.

The extraordinary circumstances of this case aside, there are good reasons to allow TV cameras in most courtrooms.

Currently, federal courts do not allow them. Except in the few states where cameras are prohibited by law – and New York is one of them -- state courts usually leave the decision to local presiding judges or individual trial judges. Restrictions are intended to limit distractions, protect the comfort of participants, and prevent showboating by lawyers and witnesses. For decades, proponents’ best evidence has been the O.J. Simpson trial. But more significantly, many criminal defense attorneys believe cameras work against the fair trial rights of their clients.

That’s all reasonable, but the public benefits of courtroom cameras outweigh the concerns, especially since the concerns aren’t inevitable and could be mitigated if necessary.

Open courts are a foundational principle, and to extend that principle only to the limited number of seats in a room seems artificial. Broader exposure would help to educate the public about the process and presumably increase trust in it.

And if the process isn’t working as it should in particular cases, transparency provides the chance for accountability, a chance to call out and fix the failures and injustices. I suspect that’s why some judges and lawyers oppose cameras. It’s an additional, probably uncomfortable, level of public scrutiny. But with the high stakes of any trial, judges and lawyers should understand the necessity.

It can work. Put a stationary camera facing the judge and witnesses and another one facing the attorneys and defendant. A single feed for all media. Cameras seemed not to cause any big problems during the high-profile trials of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in 2021 and South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh in 2023, for examples. (The former occurred during the pandemic. For a different opinion on the latter and on courtroom cameras in general, read this.)

If the camera skeptics continue to prevail, live audio, as the U.S. Supreme Court does, would be better than nothing. But nothing may be all the public gets from three of the four pending Trump criminal cases, with the Georgia election interference case as the exception.

The news media want more, for the news value and for the ratings. To defend against claims of partisanship and favored treatment, the U.S. judicial system should want more, too.

Did a reporter really ask that question?

BALTIMORE MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT, FAR RIGHT, RESPONDED TO A CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION AT THIS MARCH 26 EARLY-MORNING PRESS CONFERENCE, FIVE HOURS AFTER THE FRANCIS SCOTT KEY BRIDGE COLLAPSED

It’s about five hours after a cargo ship hit the Key Bridge in Baltimore, collapsing it and sending six construction workers on the bridge into the water. The city’s mayor is holding a press conference when a reporter asks him: “How long is it going to take to rebuild the bridge?”

Calmly and immediately, the mayor responds: “We shouldn’t even be having that discussion right now. The discussion right now should be about the people, the souls, the lives that we’re trying to save. There will be a time to discuss about a bridge and how we get our bridge back up but right now there are people in the water that we have to get out.”

On social media, the mayor got mostly applause. The reporter got mostly ripped apart. One X poster wrote: “Shoutout to our mayor Brandon Scott for focusing on the people and showcasing empathy, because the nerve of that reporter to ask about the bridge repair. Like, sir read the (expletive) room.”

I understand why many people saw the reporter’s question as disrespectful to the victims. But I don’t have a problem with it. How about you?

It may have been an impossible question to answer so soon after the event, and perhaps a mayor isn’t the right person to ask. And knowing the press conference is a live broadcast, an acknowledgment of the loss of life from the reporter would have shown a sense of understanding.

But that question had to be asked. It’s a fundamental part of the story, with long-term implications for thousands of people. Pursuing all aspects of a major breaking news story does not mean indifference to the human tragedy. Nor does it prove backward news priorities. (And I’d say that regardless of the demographics of the victims.)

If that moment -- five hours in -- was too soon to ask about the bridge, I’m hard-pressed to pick the moment when it becomes OK. When everyone is known to have died? That was already certain. When each body is recovered from the river? That might never happen.

Clearly, though, much of the public thought that moment was completely wrong. It’s a reminder that journalists and the public often have different values. And one more example, even if not justified, of why so many people hold the news media in such low regard.

Photo fraud happens in journalism too

in this 2003 photo from the iraq war, the photographer combined PARTS of two photos so that the civilian FACED THE SOLDIER AS THE SOLDIER GESTURED. WHEN THIS WAS DISCOVERED AFTER PUBLICATION, THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS FIRED FOR VIOLATING POLICY AGAINST PHOTO MANIPULATION.

I’m taking a stand on the hottest media story going right now: I prefer “KateGate” over “WaterKate.”

Multiple international news organizations told their affiliates last Sunday to kill a Kensington Palace photo of Kate Middleton, the princess of Wales, with her children on British Mother’s Day because of telltale signs that the photo had been digitally altered.  Almost all instances of photo alterations go against newsroom policy, but what I think really spooked the news agencies was the possibility that Kate, who at that point hadn’t been seen in public since a surgery two months ago, was added to the photo by use of Adobe Photoshop.

This, of course, ignited rather than quelled speculation about Kate’s life at the moment, causing followers of the royal family to draw the obvious conclusion that Kate was still physically recovering, or the victim of domestic violence, or divorcing her husband, or dead. (A more recent, bystander video seems to eliminate at least a couple of these possibilities.)

The photo manipulation in this case came from the originating public relations source, but over the years some staff photographers and freelance photographers have been caught doing it. The forms vary, such as staging a scene or coaching a subject for photos that are later presented to the audience as spontaneous and authentic (as opposed to obviously posed photos). It also includes adding or subtracting objects after a photo is shot. News organizations have written guidelines that almost universally prohibit such actions as unethical distortions of truth.

Some infamous cases from history:

from june 1994: Time’s darkened cover of ACCUSED KILLER o.j. simpson, contrasted with newsweek’s unaltered version. the original photo for both was simpson’s police mugshot.

• Civil War photographers such as Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner moved dead bodies around for greater visual impact.

• In the Pulitzer Prize winning photo of a slain student at Kent State University in 1970, an editor airbrushed out a background fence post that seemed to protrude from the head of an anguished student in the foreground.

• For a cover photo in 1994, Time magazine darkened the police mugshot of accused murderer O.J. Simpson, bringing an avalanche of public criticism that the magazine wanted Simpson to look more menacing and in the process committed a racist act. Time eventually apologized but initially defended the computer enhancement by saying it wanted to portray a mood reflective of the headline, “An American Tragedy.” The cover, indeed, was labeled in small letters as a “photo illustration.”

• A Los Angeles Times photographer offered a photo from the Iraq War in 2003 that was actually a combination of two photos snapped seconds apart. The photo, which was widely published, showed a British soldier ordering a civilian with a baby to take cover from Iraqi fire. The photographer, who was fired, said he transported a different pose of the civilian from another shot to create a more dramatic composition.

• A freelance photographer hired by The Associated Press took a photo of a fighter taking cover during the Syria war in 2013. Before transmitting to the AP, the photographer cloned a piece of natural background in the photo and placed it over another photojournalist’s video camera that was visible in a corner of the shot. The freelancer said he thought the camera was distracting. He had helped the AP win a Pulitzer for its Syria coverage the previous year, but the news agency nonetheless cut ties with him.

• The New York Daily News erased a woman’s gory wound in a front-page photo from the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Editors decided it was too graphic (disturbing image warning if you click). This angered their own staff photographers, who wondered why the paper didn’t simply pick a different photo.

For a better sense of the boundaries, I consulted former colleague Tamika Moore, a longtime photojournalist and now a managing producer for Red Clay Media, who said only “minor editing techniques” such as cropping or removing dust are acceptable. She pointed to the code of ethics of the National Press Photographers Association, which says to “respect the integrity of the photographic moment.”

“Most of the time, when photojournalists who have manipulated their photos outside of that integrity come under fire, it’s for mediocre photos that are not made more compelling by the manipulation,” Moore wrote in an email. “It’s simply not worth having your integrity compromised or to not be taken seriously for something so minor.”

Some aspects of journalism have looser standards. It’s generally understood that photos provided by institutions for PR purposes will have undergone some “retouching” (sounds so much more innocent than “manipulation,” doesn’t it?).

It’s also understood that photos get manipulated frequently for beauty and fashion magazines and webpages. That may be changing, though, as more publishers become aware of the psychological harm done to consumers, especially young ones, who stress over their inability to match the (phony) physical perfection they see in such publications. Moore said some celebrities, such as Zendaya, Lupita Nyong’o and Kate Winslett, have protested or forbidden digital alterations to photos of them because the practice “perpetuates unrealistic standards of beauty.”

It would be great if journalists never again engage in photo manipulation. But lots of other people are. Advancements in photo editing software and artificial intelligence in general make it ever easier to alter photos for a political or PR purpose. Yes, news organizations should worry about internal cases of manipulation, but the bigger challenge is to remain constantly on guard against the blatant and subtle infractions of others.

“I’m old-school, but the standard is (do) nothing outside of things that you wouldn’t normally do in a darkroom.”

— Photojournalist Tamika Moore

DEI paranoia comes to Alabama

SOME UA STUDENTS AND FACULTY PROTEST PENDING ANTI-DEI LEGISLATION ON UA’S CAMPUS ON FEB. 27. (PHOTO BY CANDACE JOHNSON, COURTESY OF WVUA-TV)

Update (March 21): This bill is now law, effective Oct. 1, 2024. The UA System said it will begin assessing what actions it must take to comply but remains committed to providing “welcoming and supportive environments that foster open thought, academic freedom and free expression.”

The supporters of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts on college campuses are mostly students, teachers and others who are actually on college campuses. The opponents are mostly politicians.

That ought to tell you everything you need to know about the relative merits of the arguments.

DEI in its various forms is under attack. Twenty-three states have considered anti-DEI legislation in the past approximate year, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Five states – Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas and South Dakota – have adopted such legislation, and more plan to do so. They are copying a road map laid out by two national right-wing think tanks.

Today, a committee of the Alabama House of Representatives will hold a hearing on a bill that passed the Senate last week and that would outlaw DEI programs and administrative offices at public universities in the state. (It also restricts teaching of “divisive concepts.” I shared my disdain for that in a blog post in March of last year.)

DEI shows itself in different formalized ways in higher education: designated administrative offices, awareness programs, gathering spots, faculty training, diversity pledges by job candidates and mandatory inclusion on syllabi, among others. At UA, the Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion offers events, speakers and other educational resources. It operates the Intercultural Diversity Center and the Safe Zone Resource Center for members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

DEI initiatives are not what its critics claim they are. The Florida governor thinks the acronym stands for “Discrimination, Exclusion and Indoctrination.” In other words, DEI is forcing conservative white students to be quiet about the conservative part and ashamed about the white part. And it’s supposedly granting some unexplained kind of privilege to everyone else.

DEI in reality means seeking a campus that reflects the enriching demographic diversity of the rest of the world and fostering enough tolerance and understanding that everyone can get along and focus on education. It means offering support for students who feel out of place and mentally stressed. And not just Black students. DEI programs serve Asian and Hispanic students, women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, religious groups, military veterans and others.

The best argument against formalized DEI efforts is that they add (marginally) to the surge in administrative costs in higher education in recent decades. But some costs are worth it, and I’m not sure that informal commitments to DEI among grassroots individuals such as professors could succeed as well without official structures and locations to support the concept.

Anti-DEI laws, which have already shut down some offices and programs in states where they have passed and even preemptively in states where they’re pending, will have consequences. They’ll affect student and faculty recruitment and retention, which in turn will diminish classroom education. I’ve witnessed the value of diverse demographics, life experiences and viewpoints in the classroom. Every course I have is made better by it.

I’ve also witnessed the stress faced by many students – whether members of a diversity community or not – in coping with the academic and social challenges of college life. There’s more of that out there than you might think. Taking away any source of support would be a foolish disservice. Especially to address a problem that some politicians have simply made up.

Balance in journalism is good ... until it isn't

WORD IMAGE BY JOHN HAIN

Two alarming recent headlines:

• “Why the age issue is hurting Biden so much more than Trump” (New York Times, Feb. 10)

• “Public equally concerned about Biden’s and Trump’s classified documents, new poll finds” (nbcnews.com, Jan. 29)

In politics, public perceptions like these arise because many people magnify events that support their existing views and distort or ignore those that don’t. That’s not the fault of the mainstream news media. But in some cases when perception does not match reality, the media are very much to blame.

Political journalists canonize the principles of balance and fairness. Especially after years of negative reporting about one political candidate or party, they don’t wish to open themselves up to criticism that they aren’t willing to get critical about the other side. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem comes when the compulsion to appear even-handed causes equal coverage of unequal events. Or if not that, then coverage that is disproportionate to what it deserves.

The most notorious recent example from politics: Coverage of Hillary Clinton’s email practices in 2016. It was a legitimate story, sure. But decisions of volume and prominence matter greatly, and several major news organizations later expressed regret over those decisions.

Now it seems to be happening again. According to Popular Information, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal published 81 stories in the four days following release of the special counsel’s report on Joe Biden’s mishandling of government documents, including attacks on Biden’s mental sharpness.

Biden and Donald Trump’s ages are valid concerns. But Biden’s forgetfulness and verbal stumbles are not the same as Trump’s incoherence and delusion. Their handling of government records is a valid concern. But Biden’s carelessness is not the same as Trump’s willful obstruction. And yet we get headlines like the ones mentioned earlier.

It gives rise to an amusing phenomenon: The media make a big deal out of Event X. Then they start writing stories analyzing why the public thinks Event X is a big deal.

Editors and producers need to judge events by their particular facts, and determine the deserved degree of attention in proportion to the attention already given to related events. And for those stories that will spur contentious “but what about” political debates, it is crucial to repeatedly highlight the factual differences between events.

Justifying unwarranted amplification of a piece of news by noting that one political side is making a campaign issue out of that news simply makes the press a pawn of that side. And if the press then argues that it’s merely calling out that manufactured campaign issue, well, it’s still a pawn.

Journalists are not obligated to appear 50-50 when facts are not 50-50. To create artificial balance as a defense against accusations of political favoritism is a consequential blunder.

Update 3/13/24: Public disclosure of the Biden interview transcript showed the special counsel’s report exaggerated Biden’s mental failures. That makes what the media did even more damaging.

Journalists can’t let horrors on the job get to them

This post about the mental health effects of reporting on awful news stories kept getting delayed in favor of other timely topics because I figured another news peg would be right around the corner. A risky assumption it was not. Thursday, five journalists witnessed the state-administered suffocation death of an Alabama Death Row prisoner.

Few reporters go a career without having to report on a horrific event, such as a war, a mass shooting or even a violent crime with a single victim. According to the Columbia Journalism School’s Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, the psychological toll of seeing and hearing about the heinousness that people are capable of can include sleeplessness, unwelcomed recurring thoughts of the violence, a sense of impending doom, and anger.

I can’t even imagine what it was like for journalists who viewed Israel’s video compilation of atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7. Some reporters had to walk out. Some cried.

It’s not just intentional violence that can take a mental toll. So can coverage of natural disasters, accidents, court cases and hate groups.

These experiences are often called “secondhand trauma” or “vicarious trauma.” Journalists don’t necessarily witness the events, but they still can suffer effects as sources recount the events to them, or they visit the scenes, or they view photos and videos. That’s why potential trauma is not limited to reporters at a scene. Being a photo or video editor, for instance, can sometimes be brutal, even miles away.

Secondhand trauma is bad enough for the individual. But left unrecognized or untreated, it can create numbness and cold-heartedness that show up in how a journalist treats others. “It is not only a matter of mental health; emotional detachment leads to some of the worst journalistic decisions,” Sidney Tompkins, a licensed psychotherapist who has worked with journalists suffering from traumatic stress, told poynter.org. “You will ask insensitive questions, air or publish (insensitive) videos and photos, or approach people in unfeeling ways that seem normal to you.”

Ruth Serven Smith, editor of the Alabama Media Group’s Alabama Education Lab, has emphasized self-care by her reporters throughout her career, as well as steps that managers can take to help. She believes everyone has better awareness of the issue today than in the past.

Professionally, Smith saw long-term secondhand trauma in some colleagues at The Daily Progress in Charlottesville, Virginia, after they covered the Unite the Right white supremacist rally in August 2017. Personally, she has experienced firsthand trauma.

ruth serven smith of the alabama media group

Smith and her family found themselves in the path of a rare EF5 tornado that killed 24 people and injured 200 in Moore, Oklahoma, in 2013. Stuck on an escape route on a highway, the family had to abandon its car and run for shelter in a nearby movie theater. The tornado passed over the theater. “I thought I was going to die,” Smith said.

The episode gave her a greater understanding of the effects of trauma. “It took me a long time to realize how much that affected me. I still get hyper-anxious during bad weather.”

Smith offered some good, practical suggestions for how newsroom staff involved in any aspect of reporting on horrible events can protect themselves. Newsroom managers have a role to play, too. I’ve added some advice from The Dart Center and The Poynter Institute, a journalism training organization.

• Talk to a professional therapist. Even have a regular appointment. (Some news organizations have brought in therapists after major traumatic events in their communities. Hearst has hired a confidential, constantly available therapist for its news staff in California and Texas.)

• Be willing to share mental health concerns with colleagues and bosses. Individuals early in their careers are sometimes reluctant to do this because they fear giving the impression that they can’t handle this aspect of the job. That’s unfortunate. Feel something, say something.

• Try not to work alone on such stories.

• Take a day off during or immediately after the daily grind of grim reporting. “There’s often an incentive at the higher level (of management) to reward the people who are willing to go to the disaster zone and then make them keep doing it every day, and I don’t think that’s fair,” Smith said.

• Find a way to write uplifting stories occasionally, especially when working a beat like police and crime.

• Above all, remember there’s a purpose to reporting on the worst realities of the world, be it to bring awareness, motivate the search for solutions or memorialize victims. “I think some of what makes trauma linger … is feeling like you’re doing all of this and hearing all of this and you’re not helping anyone,” Smith said.

One strategy that won’t work: Planning to avoid ever having to deal with the awfulness in life.

If interested, here’s an October 2021 post on reporters who witness state executions: “Staring death in the face — voluntarily”

Rat poison and other memories of Nick Saban

PHOTO FROM ALABAMA FOOTBALL FACEBOOK PAGE

I remember a Nick Saban press conference that followed one of his blowups at the media. He said he actually appreciated the role of the media in covering his team. Likely true about ESPN, whose coverage helped him with recruiting. For the rest of the media, that was a lot of baloney.

Nick Saban didn’t like the media, for the most part. He did use them to send messages to his players, but the press was mostly an agitation for him because he couldn’t control it and it was a potential distraction for his players.

In the wake of his retirement, I asked some current and former beat writers* to share (by email) their most memorable moment of covering Saban. I let them define “memorable.” I told them it didn’t matter whether the moment made Saban – or themselves – look good or bad. I present them in alphabetical order.

Michael Casagrande, Alabama Media Group – “I have to go with the moment that will be my legacy. After Alabama beat Texas A&M in 2017 in an ugly game, I asked Saban something about their lack of success on third down early on. Seemed fair. They weren't quite as sharp as usual against a team they'd handled since losing in 2012. Saban apparently had been waiting for a question like this. He wanted to make a point. So that's when I became ‘Rat Poison.’ He looked at me with a snarl and said I was part of the problem, setting unrealistic expectations for perfection. I was feeding the team poison -- more specifically, rat poison. That moment has followed me ever since, a funny moment that my family breaks out when introducing me to their friends.”

Austin Hannon, then BamaCentral: Growing up, Hannon spent many Saturdays with his father in the Bryant-Denny stands, watching Saban coach. Then, in college and after graduation, the UA journalism grad found himself covering the man. “For me, it's got to be when he did the unthinkable. Days after scolding me for a question about Jalen Milroe's progress and outlook, Saban called me out by name in a news conference leading up to the Texas game (last year). I was completely caught off-guard, expecting perhaps another lecture. Instead, he actually apologized for not answering my question properly. We should've seen his retirement coming after that — he had never done anything like that in his entire coaching career.”

Don Kausler, then Birmingham News/al.com — On Kausler’s first day on the beat in 2009, a player was arrested for a physical confrontation with a woman on campus. The reporter wrote a story with reaction from the directors of some domestic violence shelters in Alabama about the coach’s decision to put the player on “Saban probation” instead of suspending him. “The next day, before practice, I told a member of Alabama’s media relations staff that I would like to talk to a certain player after practice. He said he doubted that my request would be granted because of ‘that story.’ Saban apparently wasn’t happy. I quickly turned a problem into an opportunity by asking if I could meet one-on-one with Saban. A few hours later I was sitting in front of Saban’s desk. He took his shoes off and put his feet on top of his desk. I was expecting a full-force verbal attack. Instead, he calmly said he wanted to tell me – off the record – what ‘Saban probation’ meant so I had a better understanding the next time I needed to write about a similar discipline issue. I asked twice why he wouldn’t go on the record. He said the public didn’t need to know how he handled these kinds of cases. I left the office a little let down that I didn’t feel Saban’s wrath.”

Ian Rapoport, then Birmingham News/al.com – Rapoport, who now works for the NFL Network, said he still thinks frequently about the experience of covering Saban. He especially remembers the press conferences. “I'd sit in the front row, middle, and always try to get the first question, which would usually go to Cecil Hurt. And I would wait, uneasy. Because you literally had zero idea about what he was going to say. He could erupt. He could be endearing. He could teach you something about football. Or anything in between. But those moments when he was just getting started and there was anticipation of what he would say – that's what sticks out. It was the first time I covered a figure so immense that his words would dictate coverage for weeks. Those press conferences were wild. And streamed live so TiderInsiders could always critique my questions. LOL.”

Terrin Waack, then Tuscaloosa News – Waack, a UA journalism grad, was once selected as an A-Day Game media coach for the Crimson team. She recalled a moment in the halftime locker room. “Saban came up to me and asked whether I wanted to give the halftime speech. Obviously, I passed, not taking the offer seriously. He then cracked a joke about the Crimson team's poor performance, with a colorful word in there I cannot share, and smiled at me with a wink. It was in that moment, I felt like I personally interacted with the human side of Saban. I'd see it before, with all the good he did outside of the football world, but this was just us. Off the record, sharing a laugh.” 

Christopher Walsh, BamaCentral – Walsh, who has reported on Saban for multiple news organizations, was a repeat media guest on the Nick Saban Radio Show. He took it as a sign of respect when the coach gave him some “friendly grief” on the air. The season after the introduction of the “Nick Saban Signature Series” Mercedes-Benz, a caller asked Saban for advice on how to drive a truck. “Show host Eli Gold would always tell me to tap him under the table if I wanted to interject a question. … (The caller) had heard Saban had driven some sort of delivery truck for his dad years ago. Saban's laughing, confirms it, and added that he usually had a terrible time with it. So bad that they would sometimes blow out the clutch. As the crowd is laughing, I'm tapping Eli under the table, and he won't go to me. Finally, I get the line in: ‘Hey coach, that Signature Series Mercedes-Benz. Does it have a clutch?’ He gave me a pretty good smirk on that.”  

Covering Nick Saban was a tough task. That’s true about a lot of big-time college coaches. This is also true: News organizations got to report on an inordinate number of memorable moments and achievements on the field because of Saban. For all the stress he brought them, he also brought them a lot of subscriptions, page views, ratings and money.

*Disclosures: Casagrande, Kausler and Rapoport are former colleagues of mine. Hannon and Waack are former students of mine. Disclaimer: My general comments about Saban and the press may or may not reflect the views of the other writers in this post.