E:60 @ Mania 25...A Case of Poor Journalism?

[Steamboat Ricky]

On E:60 yesterday, ESPN took an insider's look at Wrestlemania 25 and beyond, interviewing superstars ranging from John Cena, the Miz and Morrison, and even Hulk Hogan. It was a pretty good piece, for the most part, but I was very troubled by what I consider to be some pretty poor journalism on the part Jeremy Schaap...

Schaap was discussing Chris Benoit and his being linked to steroid abuse. He mentioned that in June 2007 "murdered his wife and seven year-old son."

"Murdered"? By itself? No "allegedly murdered," or "is suspected to have murdered"? Granted, a "lengthy investigation by the Fayette County Sheriff's Dept." "confirmed" that Benoit alone was the killer. But how can anyone conclude that he "officially" carried out those murders? Sure, the scenarios and environment likely point to Benoit as being the killer, but this was never tried in a court of law, and many individuals have brought to light contradictory evidence that might prove Benoit's innocence. Thus, a trial would need to be conducted in order to prove him guilty.

So, how does Schaap get off saying that Benoit "murdered" Nancy and Daniel? My journalism experience is limited to doing a sports column in my high school newspaper, but in my general understanding of the practice, this is a complete misrepresentation of facts.

Thoughts?

 

[RendarSelin]

I wouldn't call it poor journalism. Due to his selfish act (or head injury or whatever), Benoit will never be tried in a court of law. However, evidence heavily shows Benoit committed this heinous act. Other cases in the news in which a murder/suicide occurs, the offender is often referred to as the murderer, not alleged murderer. So we really can't say it's poor journalism.

 

[Nugzy]

Im asking, what contradictory evidence? If there is contradictory evidence then maybe yes he should be referred to as an alleged murderer.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Im asking, what contradictory evidence? If there is contradictory evidence then maybe yes he should be referred to as an alleged murderer.

I think that Johnny Lee Clary's conspiracy theory regarding Kevin Sullivan is enough to make uncertain what was once "certain" and "confirmed" by "authorities." Thus, it would seem that saying that Benoit "murdered" them would be misleading journalism on the part of Jeremy Schaap. If he was to say that "authorities confirmed that Benoit murdered Nancy and Daniel," then it would be a very credible statement.

 

[midgensa]

It is a perfectly legitimate and credible statement. There is nothing false about it as it is a closed case considered "solved" by the police with it being labled as a double-murder, suicide.
I have been in newspapers for 10 years now and this is definitely acceptable practice in a case that is closed such as this. You are being argumentative just to be argumentative ... which is all right, plenty of us are like that ... but there is nothing wrong with what Schapp (a very long tenured respected journalist) said.
Also ... in your journalism class you should have gotten into some of the legal aspects of it ... he can say whatever he wants about Benoit ... or any other dead person for that matter. You cannot libel or slander a dead person.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Firstly, I know Schaap is a great journalist...and that's why this surprised me so much.

Secondly, I was in no class. My journalism experience is all informal. I just wrote for the newspaper.

Thirdly, I'm not being argumentative to be argumentative. I'm bringing up a legitimate concern that I'm sure other individuals share. No one really knows "for sure" that Benoit did these things. So...perhaps...according to the rules of journalism (according to you), Schaap was not at fault. But it is still not the most absolute truth that he could have communicated.

Fourthly, I will share an example that one of my college professors always used. He wrote his dissertation about some Swedish guy who apparently was about to commit suicide but had a divine revelation that changed his mind. Now, he could not have written, "The Swedish guy was up and ready to commit suicide, but before he jumped, he had a revelation from God convincing him not to do so." Rather, he could, as a historian, write, "The Swedish guy reported that he was about to commit suicide, but apparently had a revelation from God that prevented him from jumping." See the difference?

 

[sicmcnasti]

I'm currently a college major in Radio, Television, and Film and have a lot of experience with writing for news, documentaries, and various other mediums of media and while I did not watch the piece, I can verify that you are wrong in your saying that he had poor journalistic skills simply because he called Benoit a murderer, ESPECIALLY if its because of a conspiracy theory.
If we all thought like you then we would be putting the 9/11 attacks in quotations. The "terrorists" who "attacked" us. There is a substantial amount of evidence on Benoit, Kevin Sullivan is not smart enough to pull off a triple murder with nothing pointing to him besides some stupid conspiracy of a Satanic revenge ploy.
Think logically for a minute, not as a Chris Benoit fan but as a journalist and a thinking human and you will probably consider him more of a murderer than an "alleged murderer".

 

[Total Impact]

Due, Benoit was found Hanging from cord in his gym, Suicide. His wife was found rope bound and died due to choking. He killed his son with fact the “Crippler Crossface” with the arms locked around his neck. He murdered his family. That’s it. Enough with the Benoit stuff people, he murdered his family, and he is a piece of shit, get over it. So what he had some the greatest matches of all time, he killed a little boy who couldn’t fight back, he was crazy, derange and is burning in hell. Enough on trying to save the piece of shit image. He will never be seen in full view on WWE TV again, he will never get another DVD, he will never be in the Hall of Fame. Enough! He murdered his family. The guy is a piece of shit. Stop praising him for what he did in the past.

Anyway, I though the whole piece was too short. I like the quick view of the production meeting and to see who was allowed in like Triple H and how corporate the WWE is now with all the suits in the room. Also can anyone just praise Finlay, as he is in all production meetings and only had one push in the WWE as the US champion for about two weeks. That’s a guy who works for the betterment of the business unlike Paul

 

[PDepew2181]

Yea, there's really no way that's not a credible statement. Sure it wasn't tried in a court of law. That's because the perpetrator was dead and there was ample proof of that, so case closed.

Look, I was always a Benoit fan, too, and the thing that bothers me most about what happened is never knowing the "why" behind it all, but guess what? HE DID IT! End. Of. Story. Don't come talking about some Kevin Sullivan conspiracy theory, it's a load of horsesh*t and has no credibility.

There's a certain line I draw with Benoit. Was he a great wrestler? Undoubtedly. Does that excuse in any way what he did? Absolutely not. Come on here and talk about his wrestling all you want, but don't try to say that he may not have done what he did.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The OP isnt really disputing the innocence of Benoit or not, but rather, the insensitive nature of the journalism, and the terms used. yea, benoit more than likely did it, but there wasnt really a need to come right out and say "this wrestler murdered his family". It was somewhat irresponsible to say that. It couldve easily been put as "Benoit was found having commited sucide, and evidence suggested he had also murdered his wife and child, whom were also found dead at the scene". The report ALSO made things out to look as if it were the fault of roid rage. Which was also never proven, and wa sjust an assumption (and a stupid one at that. Pre meditated murders over the course of three days arent a result of roid rage, which generally is just an outburst)

the way they phrased it, basically was "this pro wrestler flipped out becuase of roid rage and murdered his family and himself" and that is in fact a rather insensitive and irresponsible way to put things

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

As a Broadcast Media major and a journalist for four years, Jeremy Schaap being called a journalist is a stretch. The guy works for ESPN, and is more like the guy who would work for TMZ.com. How he asks inappropriate questions to Bob Knight, and now Vince McMahon shows that he has no guage as to what goes 'too far'. Vince McMahon did not want to elaborate on how he wanted to kill his stepfather for the abuse he went under. The show was about Vince McMahon, and the man behind the curtain. We didn't really see much, nothing was really said about the business that the average smark didn't already know.

I like how Stephanie comes off as secretive about who writes for their show. As of late, I'd keep it a secret, too. Overall, the feature was bad. If you're going to do a piece on Vince, do it on Vince and let WM 25 be a side bar to it. Ask every wrestler about Vince...not just WM. The interviews with Hogan and Hart were solid. Cena, M and M, and Shig Bow (Big Show...lol) didn't do much to tell us about their experience with Vince. The piece lacked focus. That's just my two cents. Bachelor's degree in Broadcast Media and all.

 

[PDepew2181]

I think that Johnny Lee Clary's conspiracy theory regarding Kevin Sullivan is enough to make uncertain what was once "certain" and "confirmed" by "authorities." Thus, it would seem that saying that Benoit "murdered" them would be misleading journalism on the part of Jeremy Schaap. If he was to say that "authorities confirmed that Benoit murdered Nancy and Daniel," then it would be a very credible statement.

What exactly is this conspiracy theory by the way? Because what I know about Johnny Lee Clary is that he has less credibility than I do on this subject. Just go to his website and you can figure that out. One crackpot conspiracy theory is not reasonable doubt for anyone. There would have to be physical proof, of which I am sure there is none. If there is, please feel free to list it here, otherwise it's useless to mention.

The OP isnt really disputing the innocence of Benoit or not, but rather, the insensitive nature of the journalism, and the terms used. yea, benoit more than likely did it, but there wasnt really a need to come right out and say "this wrestler murdered his family". It was somewhat irresponsible to say that. It couldve easily been put as "Benoit was found having commited sucide, and evidence suggested her had also murdered his wife and child". The report ALSO made things out to look as if it were the fault of roid rage. Which was also never proven, and wa sjust an assumption (and a stupid one at that. Pre meditated murders over the course of three days arent a result of roid rage, which generally is just an outburst)

the way they phrased it, basically was "this pro wrestler flipped out becuase of roid rage and murdered his family and himself" and that is in fact a rather insensitive and irresponsible way to put things

This is a good point. I didn't like how they made it seem to be roid rage instead of saying something to the effect that "roid rage was suspected as playing a part." But, that's the world we live in, folks. Simplicity always triumphs over complexity. Things also have to be cut down for time on shows like that, so the less detail, the quicker and easier way to say things, the better. For a non-wrestling person watching that show, once they mentioned roid rage in any way, shape or form, that person would think that was the cause anyway. It really wouldn't have mattered if the words with chosen with some ambiguity.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

For a non-wrestling person watching that show, once they mentioned roid rage in any way, shape or form, that person would think that was the cause anyway. It really wouldn't have mattered if the words with chosen with some ambiguity.

your absolutely right here, and thats even furthermore reason they shouldve chose their words more carefully. They KNEW that people would assume "oh he flipped out and roid raged and murdered his family" and so thats the image they went ahead and tried to furthermore push, when a lot of facts point to the contrary, especially when people suffering roid rage generally wouldnt carry out these sorts of acts, or carry them out in the manner in which they were done.

There is bound to be ignorance regarding this situation anyway, and to just go ahead and sorta throw gas on the fire so to speak, is very irresponsible on the part of a reputable news source such as ESPN.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Great thread Ricky, I love it.

It is poor journalism, and it's wrong. I don't know what happened regarding Benoit and his family, and although the facts we're aware of point to him doing it, we can't be 100% sure. There could be things we don't know about, this could have been an amazingly planned out murder. Obviously, I don't believe that's the case, but there's no way you can prove me wrong on that.

If you're reading a newspaper and they're discussing an attack, murder or trial etc. they always use the word 'alleged'..The 'alleged' attack happened on Saturday evening. Or something to that effect. Because up until it's proven, you cannot say it happened.

 

[PDepew2181]

The thing of it is, now that I think about this a little more, is that it should not have even been mentioned. The piece was supposed to be about Vince and WrestleMania, so bringing up the Benoit situation was completely irrelevant. It really didn't add anything to the story, unless ESPN was trying to make Vince look uncomfortable on camera, which wouldn't have really added to the segment at all.

When you come right down to it, they basically dug up old news to remind people that wrestling isn't to be taken seriously like other sports are because of all the sordid behind-the-scenes stuff.

So, essentially, it was a piece where only non-wrestling fans or non-internet wrestling fans might have learned something; it did nothing to make Vince McMahon or WWE look good; and it showed that ESPN continues to take themselves too seriously with their E:60 program. They seem interested in running a lot of "Gotcha!" stories on that show, like confronting Houston Astros player Miguel Tejada about how old he really is, and sacrifice aspects of good journalism. Maybe I need to go rewatch the piece, since I did DVR it, but it now just seems like a big waste of time.

 

[PDepew2181]

Great thread Ricky, I love it.

It is poor journalism, and it's wrong. I don't know what happened regarding Benoit and his family, and although the facts we're aware of point to him doing it, we can't be 100% sure. There could be things we don't know about, this could have been an amazingly planned out murder. Obviously, I don't believe that's the case, but there's no way you can prove me wrong on that.

If you're reading a newspaper and they're discussing an attack, murder or trial etc. they always use the word 'alleged'..The 'alleged' attack happened on Saturday evening. Or something to that effect. Because up until it's proven, you cannot say it happened.

One of the truly great things about our country is that every individual can have an opinion on anything, so let me say that this is an irresponsible position to take.

We can't be 100% sure? Maybe not, but we can be 99.99999999% sure. There's no chance that the Benoit murder/suicide was anything but that. There's no way I can prove you wrong, so you must be right? Or are you simply saying you may be right? Either way, you need evidence to back up your position, otherwise you have nothing to back up your opinion.

As much proof as could be found releated to the murders was found. If there was something else that could have been found, I'm sure it would have been found. No third party would systematically murder three people over the course of three days, and never be seen or leave no physical evidence. The chances of that would have to be miniscule.

Again I say, if you're going to try and think that Benoit didn't commit the murders, post what you have back up this claim. Otherwise, again, the only thing poor about the journalism in the story was the blame on roid rage when that was the thing that was never proven.

 

[HBK-aholic]

One of the truly great things about our country is that every individual can have an opinion on anything, so let me say that this is an irresponsible position to take.

Fail to see how it's irresponsible, in any light. Anyone can have an opinion, but isn't most journalism supposed to inform you of the facts, regardless of what the journalist feels? The fact it was a murder-suicide is not a 'fact', merely an opinion.

We can't be 100% sure? Maybe not, but we can be 99.99999999% sure. There's no chance that the Benoit murder/suicide was anything but that. There's no way I can prove you wrong, so you must be right? Or are you simply saying you may be right? Either way, you need evidence to back up your position, otherwise you have nothing to back up your opinion.

There we go. If you'd read my post properly, I did say that I didn't believe it was anyone else, just that we can't be fully sure that it was Benoit. And while I can still say that, it's poor journalism to inform people that was definately the case.

As much proof as could be found releated to the murders was found. If there was something else that could have been found, I'm sure it would have been found. No third party would systematically murder three people over the course of three days, and never be seen or leave no physical evidence. The chances of that would have to be miniscule.

You know what the press wants you to know. I've said, you're making assumptions based on what you're aware of, and you're opinion. On a wrestling forum that's fine. But in journalism it's not.

Again I say, if you're going to try and think that Benoit didn't commit the murders, post what you have back up this claim. Otherwise, again, the only thing poor about the journalism in the story was the blame on roid rage when that was the thing that was never proven.

Didn't you read my post? "this could have been an amazingly planned out murder. Obviously, I don't believe that's the case," is what I said. But seriously, there's no way you can prove that wrong. I can't prove it wrong and I don't even believe in that stance. So next time you attempt to look smart, read my post properly beforehand, thanks .

 

[PDepew2181]

Ok, the fact is that it was ruled by the police as a double murder-suicide. That is a FACT. It is a closed case. I have not seen this disputed by anyone with any sort of access to evidence that would contradict this FACT. This is what I am trying to say.

You say we can't be fully sure it was Benoit. Where is the evidence to support that? Just the simple fact that none of us where in the house? That's making a great assumption that would never be taken seriously in a legal setting.

As far as the Benoit case goes in how ESPN reported it in that story, is that they reported it as what it is: a double murder-suicide closed case. So they were in no way irresponsible for reporting it as such, only in bringing it up in a piece that really had nothing to do with it except that it was in wrestling.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Police saw it as an open and shut case, This is the case all over the world. If Police see it one way then they are going to do the way that is going to mean the least paperwork for them. Announcing it as a double-murder/suicide was convenient for them. There was no real investigation that occurred so while the evidence that has been released to the public on the Benoit Tragedy points to the double-murder/suicide it doesn't mean that that is the case. I still hold out hope, and probably will for the rest of my time watching wrestling that Chris Benoit didn't do it. But to say that he did by a Journalist that doesn't know the full facts, the full investigative facts that I doubt even the Police would have, Saying allegedly allows for that fact because until a trial is held it is generally innocent until proof of guilt. I don't see anything wrong with still saying allegedly, because with this case there is no facts as someone so casually put it.

 

[donutman]

Well if all that was not murder, what was it? I don't see a problem with the way they labeled him at all. The whole "alleged" argument doesn't hold ground. Usually, when the news or papers report that, its when it has yet to be proven. Obviously this case wasn't tried because the man killed himself. I haven't followed the whole incident deeply, but I'm sure there is strong evidence.

The fans just need to let it go. If this was anybody but a wrestler like Chris Beniot, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If this was 'Big Scar Tissue' from 'Shoot Em Down Records' that did all this, you guys would probably think the word "murder" is an understatement on this matter.

 

[HEEL Blazy]

Ok, the fact is that it was ruled by the police as a double murder-suicide. That is a FACT. It is a closed case. I have not seen this disputed by anyone with any sort of access to evidence that would contradict this FACT. This is what I am trying to say.

You say we can't be fully sure it was Benoit. Where is the evidence to support that? Just the simple fact that none of us where in the house? That's making a great assumption that would never be taken seriously in a legal setting.

As far as the Benoit case goes in how ESPN reported it in that story, is that they reported it as what it is: a double murder-suicide closed case. So they were in no way irresponsible for reporting it as such, only in bringing it up in a piece that really had nothing to do with it except that it was in wrestling.

Well really just because the police says it doesn't make it true. Now I'm not one of them people to say the police suck and all that as I think they do there job good...well most of them. But that isn't the point here I know.

Now yes the chances Benoit did this are really high but then again there is always that small small chance he didn't everything is like that really. Unless you see something with your on eyes then everything has a small chance of being different then what is said. Now I for one ain't really sure on the whole Benoit did it thing. I'm not one of them crazy nut jobs who totally rules it out he did it but I tend to think just what if...what if.

But yeah back to the whole police said it so it must be true thing. Say someone gets shot. Police look in to it then just say you did it but let say you didn't do it. Now does that really mean you did it just because the police said it. Not really. So yeah rethink what you said there about how you said the fact is that it was ruled by the police as a double murder-suicide makes it a fact.


Anyway yeah I agree with how he should have used the word Alleged murderer because its not really 100% he did it anyway. At least IMO. I mean like its been said already anytime you read or watch a report they use the word Alleged attacker or murderer.

 

[Cerebral_King_of_Kings]

Ok, yes Benoit killed two innocent people and offed himself. We know this. its bad.

Yes the journalists said he was a murder because according to official police records the whole incident was consider "double-murder suicide". So when the journalists called him a murdered without sugar coating it. he was right to do so.

Let me ask you this would u have been pissed if the journalists had called him a suicider? no ( because its not a word but regardless)

Your completely bias because u love Benoit. i do 2, he was awesome and I fully respected him until that day. I still respect the pre-criminal Benoit.

And when that one of the pocters on here said that u are being argumentative just for the sake of it, he's right. Why else would you go on a forum to argue about what a journalists said? you wanted a reaction from people. If everyone in here agreed wiht u 100% then that would be it. but they didn't and had an issue wiht what you said so they bitched you out. you then rebutted making it an arguement.

 

[Shadowmancer]

No the case was viewed as open and shut and then it was announced one way. While I know that Police are busy with other crimes than one that appears one way. Doesn't mean they are right. there has been no real evidence brought up saying that he did it, just what the theory of what occurred was. The theory was that Chris strangled Nancy and then Strangled Daniel and Hung himself. Thats the Way it looked so that is the way that it was called. Doesn't mean that it was true. Allegedly is a word that goes for it regardless of if Chris could have stood trial or not. It is still too bizarre a tragedy to fully know what occurred that weekend. So it is not a bad thing to use one word that doesn't absolve Chris from any wrong doing but it isn't stating a flat out half-truth, which is as good as a lie because there is no official proof one way or another. It may get annoying but allegedly is there to point out the fact that all evidence is not there to point towards one way or another, or that it has not gone to trial. Not that it didn't occur in some way. This is why I use the Benoit Tragedy and not Murders or what have you because it has what I feel needs to be there the element of Chris may not have killed his family but may have killed himself because he was a survivor or something else. It implies the highly volatile nature of the debate surrounding it, so saying allegedly means that they are acknowledging of possibilities.

And as for the person that mentioned some rapper, I would offer the same accord to him as I do to Chris Benoit if I was talking about an event that had not either been to court or the evidence wasn't fully collected.

 

[Arrynboot]

Maybe to some the way things were worded may come across as cold or incorrect, but point me out a piece of journalism on any topic that's 100%. My main problem and question is how the fuck did they "prove" Daniel was killed with the crossface? What a feed of shit, he was strangled yeah, but I highly doubt that Chris Benoit used his pro wrestling signature move. Its not a "crossface" if its across the throat. Now that part is bullshit journalism.

The rest of it was politically correct as far as im concerned.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

legally since its a closed case they can say whatever they want about it and not get in trouble for it. You knew they were going to try and get Vince to talk about it so that was a give-in.