During my nine seasons covering the Hamilton Tiger-Cats I have been called many things including sycophant, pot-stirrer, hack, shill and several others not necessarily suitable for a family-friendly website. But until Monday, I’d never been called “naïve.”
That was the term Ticat owner Bob Young used in reference to my story on player complaints about Hamilton vice-president of football operations and former head coach Kent Austin. He also referred to the players quoted as “cowardly.”
Bob’s concerns, spelled out in more detail in subsequent Tweets, surrounded my use of anonymous sources in the story, a decision that a number of readers and fans questioned as well. His point, I think, was that providing anonymity allowed for the possibility that I was being manipulated by players for their own purposes; essentially that I was allowing them to publicly grind their axes to the nub under a cloak of darkness.
Using anonymous sources on a story like this is always a difficult decision. Over the years covering this team, and in my career in general, I have tried to limit my use of them to situations where I felt it was unavoidable: where the source was vulnerable to physical violence or severe economic harm – losing their job or damaging their reputation. The lack of accountability does offer the potential for abuse and part of my role is to do my very best to make sure the credibility and motivation of my sources is legitimate – and that information is supported by other facts, sources and knowledge. If I felt this was one or two disgruntled players with clear biases against Austin, I would have never done the story.
Bob’s comments about the players are, in my opinion, more problematic. Players who take to the field in pro football are called all kinds of things – stand behind the visitors’ bench at Tim Hortons Field for a family-unfriendly sampling – but to question their courage in any capacity will not be well received. Speaking out about concerns with those in positions of authority, even anonymously, is not an easy thing to do.
The article was, however, far from perfect. Ticats management were upset that it did not provide more context behind the John Chick and C.J. Gable trades – the source of the “sabotage” comment – which were certainly defensible within a wider perspective of football operations: there were replacements in-house and salary cap implications to consider. That comment from Austin and the club wasn’t included was also a source of concern, though Ticat higher ups certainly had their say in the various follow ups here and here and here. In my experience, the perspective of management is generally well reflected, the true feelings of players less so.
There is also the contention that the article was in some way motivated by some personal animus towards Austin. We’ve had some testy public exchanges, mostly following close losses, that have given some a distorted view on what has generally been a constructive working relationship.
I was well aware, however, that this story had the potential to damage that relationship as well as others within the Ticats organization – relationships that are valuable in the commission of my duties as a beat reporter and some of which have taken me years to build. I did the story anyway, which should be at least some indication as to how important I felt it was.
Bob and I have clashed on social media a few times over the years but the vast majority of both our public and personal communication has been respectful and positive. I think he’s been, and continues to be, a tremendous owner for the Ticats, someone who saved the franchise and now has it in a position long-term economic stability. He has, unnecessarily, apologized for the personal nature of his criticism of my story while standing by his concerns. My guess is that his contention that anonymous sources have jeopardized the value and flow of important information – important issues worthy of debate and discussion – got lost in the inherent flippancy of social media and Bob’s sometimes colloquial style.
In the same way that I saw the story as part of my responsibility as a journalist, so are the criticisms and potential consequences. As with most things, I see the humour in it: my brother is threatening to make me a #NaiveJournalist t-shirt for Christmas.
That’s about as close to naïve as I think I can get.
