A word real journalists don’t use

It is the most reviled word in all of sports, at times even more than the implication of using performance-enhancing drugs. Any time this word and an athlete’s coach’s name are used in the same sentence, it is virtually a kiss of death. And yet, it is the word real sports journalists only use when mentioned specifically by someone else, and not of our own conclusions. It’s “game-fixing”.

This past week, that poisonous term has been tossed about like candy, creating a feeding frenzy on the less-credible side of online journalism. It supposedly started with one blog site loosely using it in reference to the recent developments involving the UST Growling Tigers basketball team, and the rumored firing of head coach Bong dela Cruz. Soon, it was irresponsibly picked up and echoed by a provincial news website, and a domino effect occurred, with everyone thirstily trying to get reactions to what is, as of now, still a non-story. The thinking must be that if it’s on the Internet, it must be true, right?  University of Santo Tomas, one of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the Philippines, has never used the word “game-fixing” in any of its statements, nor has it ever implied anything of that nature, It is investigating the maltreatment of some of its players, allegedly by members of the coaching staff and more senior players. These accusations have been detailed in other media, and are in direct conflict with school policy.

Once again, all of this was just casually started by a blog site. Not a news site, not even a serious sports news site, mind you, by the concerned site’s very own definition of itself. So how can they audaciously smear the reputations of members of the UAAP so recklessly?

What is a blog? It is “a regularly updated website or web page, typically one run by an individual or small group, that is written in an informal or conversational style.” The following definition is also applied, according to blogbasics.com <http://blogbasics.com> : “A blog is a frequently updated online personal journal or diary. It is a place to express yourself to the world. A place to share your thoughts and your passions. Really, it’s anything you want it to be. For our purposes we’ll say that a blog is your own website that you are going to update on an ongoing basis. Blog is a short form for the word weblog and the two words are used interchangeably.”

Nowhere in those definitions does it mandate the blogger or bloggers to be fair, factual or responsible, or to even verify anything. This flies in the face of everything we as journalists try to uphold. As this columnist has written before, who are bloggers ultimately answerable to? Well, in this case, given the almost- unprovable nature of game-fixing itself, they would most likely be answerable to a court of law for libel and whatever irreparable damage they may have caused to the reputations of the people who are directly or indirectly implicated. It is even difficult to classify this as a blind item, because you are talking about a very small group of people, and when you talk about “senior” or “star” players, that’s roughly three or four persons. It’s hard to make a mistake there. In other words, you’re in very dangerous territory. The account even branded a 15-point finals performance ordinary and implied that it was suspicious. In a college playoff game where scores are even lower than usual, it definitely is not.

Game-fixing entails several components. First, there has to be a discernible pattern of sub-par performance and losing key games, which paradoxically is inconsistent with the skill level of the player, players or coach involved. Secondly, there has to be an accuser. Who is openly making this accusation? With a supposed violation this grave, you cannot hide behind anonymity. If you were a source of critical information, that could be allowable, but not if you are the direct accuser. Every person has the legal and moral right to face his or her accusers in the proper forum. This was definitely not the case. Thirdly, both sides must be reported. But in the initial report, no mention was even made of any effort to get the side of the men accused. It was one-sided. Fourthly, what is the evidence? How many people said it? Is the person making the claim a credible source, or someone with an axe to grind?

The decline of the tobacco industry was brought about by an insider in one of the five large cigarette manufacturers in the US, as immortalized in the film featuring Russell Crowe. His testimony brought about class actions suits against the major players in the industry in 22 states, because he had a lot of evidence that they hired scientists to skew data and blur the negative effects of smoking. It destroyed the facade which had been built by the cigarette makers for decades. In this case, what is the evidence being presented, the word of one unnamed person? Anybody can do that.

Another regrettable victim of false accusations ruining someone’s life was Richard Jewell. As a part-time security officer during the Atlanta Olympics in July of 1996, Jewell noticed the small knapsack which contained that explosives in Centennial Park. His quick reaction and selfless move to evacuate people from the scene saved lives. But three days later, The Atlanta Journal mentioned him as a suspect in the police’s investigations, causing media to swoop down on him “like piranha on a bleeding cow” in his own words. Though he was subsequently cleared, what people remember was that he was a suspect. Jewell himself admitted he could not outrun his unintended notoriety. He sued and won settlements from CNN and NBC, though the case against The Atlanta Journal’s mother company ultimately failed. Jewell contracted diabetes and was found dead in his home by his wife in 2007 at the age of 44.

Those are the kinds of consequences brought about by frivolous reporting. Other people pay for it.

Over a decade ago, this writer received a phone call from an unknown number. Three young Filipino-Chinese businessmen asked to meet with me in a restaurant in the Manila area. They claimed that they regularly bet on college basketball games, but were losing a lot of money because the contests were being rigged. The trio furnished me with three sheets of yellow pad paper with games, dates, scores and point spreads. At the bottom of the last page were phone numbers of bookies. One of them was even a college student. Of course, I needed proof. Twenty minutes before each game, these men would send me a text on that game’s point spread. They betted an alarmingly high percentage. But there was still nothing definitive. I referred the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation, and they said they would look into it. They also explained that bets have no receipts, and how can you tell if a player or a coach or even a referee is having a bad game? That was the last I heard of that accusation, and I’ve never really thought it pertinent to mention until now.

It takes time to build a story of this kind, to dig, research, and gather evidence, and even then, there is no smoking gun, no written contract. Even if a player seemingly has some newfound wealth, there are many possible reasons for it, even if we may not like them. But game-fixing is a foul word in sports, and we do not attach that label to anyone lightly, unless we can prove that it happened, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But too much would have to come to light for that to happen.

Meanwhile, the feeding frenzy continues. And in a bid to not look foolish, some media entities who jumped on this non-story are looking for other bad things to blame UST’s coaches and players for, just to make themselves feel better.