Take a look at the transcript, and judge for yourself.
The latest issue of ESPN the Magazine features an article by Jake Zucker titled “6 Things You Should Know About Cheering for a Losing Team.” In the article, which is not posted online, Zucker interviews Northwestern cheerleader, senior Krissy Cox and quotes her complaining about the difficulties of “cheering for a losing team.”
“Definitely a disappointing piece,” said Mike Wolf, Assistant Athletic Director of Northwestern Athletic Communications in an email.
This article has spawned much outrage in the Northwestern community, which initially mobilized as a Facebook group with over 600 members titled “Petition to kick Krissy Cox off the Northwestern Cheerleading Squad.” The group was taken down Sunday evening.
The athletic department has declined interviews on the subject but has released the emails exchanged between Cox and Zucker to North by Northwestern.
After reading the email exchange between Cox and Zucker, it is clear that what is most disappointing about this piece is Zucker’s complete disregard for journalistic ethics as well as the most basic of errors: Northwestern is not a losing a team.
Although the text of the emails indicates a possible supplemental interview via Gchat, no transcripts of that kind were made available by the Athletic Department. Based on the emails, it seems that Zucker was able to twist her quotes and intentionally misconstrue her words. That is a testament to his lack of integrity and to ESPN the Magazine’s lack of professionalism.
Although Zucker asked Cox some very leading questions, her answers via email were supportive of Northwestern athletics. For example, in her initial response to Zucker, Cox said, “This past weekend, we were losing to Indiana by about 28-3, and as cheerleaders, we have to remember that anything can happen until the clock runs out in the fourth quarter. And we beat them, 29-28. So really, anything can happen, so we have to stay positive and optimistic.”
In a follow-up interview, Zucker asks Cox to elaborate.
Zucker: You mentioned that your squad tries to use cheering to attract attention to struggling sports. How much of the spotlight do you share with the teams?
Cox: I think what I meant by this is that we try to encourage fans to attend sports games that usually do not attract as much attention as football. The squad tries to attend as many volleyball games, soccer games, etc. as we can, even though we aren’t necessarily cheerleaders at that game. The spotlight is always on the team, we are there to encourage them and keep the fans going.
What is interesting is that Cox never actually mentions trying to attract attention to “struggling sports,” words that Zucker puts in her mouth. Even so, Cox does an eloquent job of handling the question and explaining herself.
In his article, Zucker conveniently leaves out the questions he asked Cox, instead using transitions to make it appear as if Cox gave these quotes directly without prompting. While this is a standard narrative tool journalists use, the framework he provided completely changed the tone of what she said. Even the headline is misleading — the apparent reason for the interview was not to discuss what it was like to cheer for a losing team.
Zucker’s article is an example of the ridiculous sensational reporting that serves as a disgrace to the professionalism of the institution of journalism. Lacking a story of real substance, Zucker felt compelled to cook up a work of fiction to get fans riled up and give readers something to laugh about and scoff at.
Clearly, he went into this interview with an agenda and rather than listening to what Krissy Cox had to say, he disrespectfully used her as a front to mock Northwestern football. The truth, that Cox is a proud and supportive Northwestern University student-athlete, would not have made for a very exciting story. However, that is no excuse to deliberately recontextualize an interview in an attempt to sell a story. If there was no story in their interview, then Zucker should have killed the piece. It is a shame that this poor substitute for journalism has stirred up so much controversy on our campus and so much anger has been mistakenly directed at Cox.