So a recent Times story on the NFL's response to concussions among pro football players has caused some unprecedented reaction from the league. First, the NFL bought a full page ad in the Times specifically to rebut the article (which they had never done before), then the league directly demanded that The Times retract the story or that the reporters preserve their notes (basically threatening to sue the paper if they don't retract).
Considering that we have spent a good deal of time talking about the reporting process and recent failures to execute that process properly and considering that we just started talking about sports writing, this is just too good an opportunity to pass up (plus I want to force myself to read the article and answer the same question I am about to pose to you).
Read the Times article and the NFL responses to it.
Then write a response that answers this question: Where is the flaw here? With the NFL's response to concussions or with the reporting and writing of the Times story? In other words, did the Times get the story right? Or should they retract the story as the NFL has demanded?
THE STORY: N.F.L.’s Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to Tobacco Industry
THE RESPONSE: NFL statement on New York Times' concussion research story
THE LETTER DEMANDING A RETRACTION: NFL letter to NYTimes demanding a retraction
UPSHOT OF THE LETTER: "We demand that the story immediately be retracted, and we
reserve our rights more broadly. We also request that the Times's reporters and editors
who worked on this story preserve their notes, correspondence, emails, recordings and
work papers and all other electronic and hard copy documents generated or received in
connection with their work."
No comments:
Post a Comment