SGC's official response to '52 Mantle debacle

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I think, unfamiliar with the hobby, the reporter mixed up her terms. Yes, I think the error was sloppy and hasty, but innocent.

As I said in an earlier thread, even if the owner did want it restored, the last person he'd tell this to would be a reporter as the publicity would ruin the card's value. So my assumption all along was the reporter mixed up terms.

I sincerely don't doubt that reporting is a tough business, especially reporting about an area you're unfamiliar with (whether it's biomedical engineering or baseball grading), but when an article makes a claim of 'fact' that neither side in the dispute even claimed, it's known as bad reporting. She may have assumed 'regrade' and 'restore' were interchangable, but to card collectors the terms are mean significantly different things. If someone said, "I sent in my photo to be framed," and in the article it came out as "He sent in the photo to be forged"-- obviously the owner will not be too happy with the reporter's translation of what he told her. Reporters often do not tape interviews, but sit with notebook and pen, and there will be later translation, interpolation, extrapolation and jogging of the memory about what was said. Some seemingly meaningless words and phrases can and will be transformed during translation.

I was once misparaphrased in an article about memorabilia-- it was a largely meaningless misinterpretation of what I said (or what I meant, perhaps I spoke unclearly) and no big deal--, but it made me realize that celebrities and sports stars can be misquoted. The reporter interviewed me with pen and notepad and did not tape record my every word. Since then I prefer, though don't require, that reporter's or article writer's questions be submitted to me via email, so that I can type out what I say myself.

I used to write a bi-weekly memorabilia newsletter and the start of a newsletter would correct last weeks errors, often pointed out by readers. So making errors and later correcting them is, or at least should be, a natural part of journalism. I don't consider making an error or misinterpritation in and of itself to be a mortal journalistic sin. If a newspaper never notes and corrects it's errors, that would be a problem and bad journalism. As an amateur newsletter writer, I considered it my duty to inform and enlighten and I would be amiss and possibly look like the complete fool ("The idiot wrote that 1953 was Mickey Mantle's rookie year. What a bafoon! What am I taking card advise from him for?") if I didn't correct the errors I myself made.

And, as was pointed out in the other thread, when you count the number of factual errors and misused terms in a newspaper article about a subject you know about, it should make you ponder about the number of errors and misued terms that exist in articles about subjects you are ignorant about-- errors you might take as fact because they are 'reported.' If a publication regularly corrects its errors, you can at least be confident that any significant errors you might be oblivious of will pointed out be later, and that should give you more confidence in the publication as a whole. It's like with baseball card dealers-- it's not IF a dealer will ever make a mistake (as everyone on earth makes mistakes), but what they do WHEN he makes a significant mistake. If a dealer is known to offer refund and an apology, you will have more confidence in him as a dealer. If a dealer is known to deny the obvious and refuse refund, you probably would won't purchase his products. The presence of an error in and of itself doesn't determine whether the dealer is considered good or bad. Obviously if a baseball card dealer makes 100 errors to another dealer's one, you will prefer the dealer who makes fewer errors.