Why Does Mainstream Media Even Bother With The Oakland Raiders?

John Doublin – Oct 10, 2012

I don't normally write blogs. I'm more of a "write from the head rather than the heart" kind of person. However, when I saw this, I had to respond.

This is a quote from CBSSports.com regarding the upcoming game between the Oakland Raiders and the Atlanta Falcons:

Raiders TE Richard Gordon suffered a broken hand in Week 4 against the Patriots but returned to the game after his injury, wearing a cast, coach Hue Jackson said Monday. Because Gordon has been used primarily as a blocker, at both tight end and fullback, he likely will be able to play in Week 5 against the Texans, despite the injury. (Updated 10/03/2011)

Did Reggie McKenzie suddenly bow to fan pressure, buy out Jackson's contract from the Bengals, fire Dennis Allen, and replace him with Hue Jackson? Or...is it more likely that CBS Sports needs to spend a little time editing and fact checking its writers—maybe even hiring writers that actually know and understand the team they're expected to cover to begin with?

Wait! Didn't the Raiders play the Broncos in Week-4?

One of two things is going on here: Either, CBS Sports does not edit it's writers at all, or they don't take the time to know what they're talking about.

This article was published this week and intended to cover the Raiders vs Falcons match up. All the statistics are up to date, so how did these blatant over-sights get into the article?

Probably the same way the following information did:

The Oakland Raiders signed cornerback Shawntae Spencer to a one-year deal. Spencer was released last week after eight seasons with the San Francisco 49ers and quickly found a new home across the bay with the Raiders, who were looking to bolster their depleted secondary. Spencer started 72 games his first seven years for San Francisco, including all 32 in 2009-10. But he lost his job in training camp last year and spent most of his final season with the 49ers as a reserve. 

All this information is accurate, but out-dated. Apparently, rather than actually researching the Raiders' injury report, the author chose instead to reprint a blurb about Gordon...from 2011 and one about Spencer from March of this year!

The funny thing is, they updated Darrius Heyward-Bey's status and progress. So...they were right there, why not do a complete story? Why not click on the Raiders' official site and see that Gordon is not out due to a broken hand, but rather a hamstring and Spencer is out with a foot injury?

Is it too much to ask to be complete in your research? Is it too much to ask to give the same attention to detail with regard to the Raiders as you do every other team in the league? Why is the Raiders' information out-dated and only half-complete? It was noticed you were more thorough where the Patriots were concerned—what's the difference? 

This was an amatuerish hack-job that would have been pounced upon and ridiculed by mainstream media relentlessly had a lowly, insignificant "fan site" or "blogger" committed it. Why does CBS Sports deserve a pass for incomplete journalism?

CBS Sports is a major sports media outlet with far more resources and access than me, yet somehow...I managed to get it right. Why is that? Maybe because I actually care about the team I'm covering and am capable of clicking on a website to find accurate, up-to-date information and deliver it to the fans.

I realize I may be "burning a bridge" here, because my goal in life is to make a living covering the Raiders and the NFL in general. This scathing report may miff the wrong people, but unlike them...I understand the definition of "journalistic integrity" and would be remiss if I failed to point it out.

Welcome to the "misinformation age!"

Follow us on Twitter: @CoachJayDee and @RNTimes