I don't have to spend time in newsrooms to know that reporters add details to stories, or omit details in others in order to make them fit the desired narrative. I have been in a position to watch it happen on a number of occasions, including a few times where the reporting was about me and people I know, so I knew exactly what actually occurred. Also, unlike you, I don't ignore the scores of people, politicians, actors, businessmen, athletes, who say it has happened to them. I have spoken to media members who have told me they never get sued because of how difficult it would be to prove malfeasance, etc. The accountability in that field is nowhere near as pronounced as you seem to believe.
Everyone has a bias. You are correct that Taggart's is on the side of downplaying the story. You are incorrect that reporters don't have their own bias. Some are obviously worse than others, but biased/slanted reporting is pretty standard in the industry, and anyone with experience with the media knows it. You make a distinction for beat writers. In my experience, it depends on the writer. Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't. Sounds like Greif may be learning that lesson sometime in the near future, if he hasn't already. He got his name out there on this one though, so maybe it was worth it to him.
No, reporters do not add details to stories to push narratives -- that is literally what sources do. It's up to the journalist to use all that information given by sources to write a fair-and-truthful story, all things considered. There's no such thing (or shouldn't be, anyway) as open mic night for sources. (Which is why I dislike TV news, but that's another conversation). You seem eager to give a free pass to anyone who has ever disliked how something is written. And yet, how do you expect politicians/coaches/etc. to react when media reports don't bathe them in awesomeness? "Oh, the media misrepresented me!" "The media didn't do it right!" "The media is corrupt!" "That reporter has an agenda!" "Whaaaaaaa!" It's always s*** like that. When is the last time you heard, "You know, I was able to see through that media report how a third person with no dog in the fight views what I'm doing, and maybe I should actually seek to improve this." Hahahaha, hell no! It's always complain, complain, complain. Discredit, discredit, discredit. And that's not surprising -- that's the perfectly "human" response when folks criticize you -- but that's why we have journalism, to cut through that noise.
You are correct that everyone has a bias. Journalists are trained to accept their biases early on in journalism school. In fact, not once have I said reporters are unbiased, and if you went back through the history of my posts, I'm certain you'd find me talking about the myth of pure objectivity. But, unlike politicians/coaches/etc., journalists are actually bound by professionalism and expectations to minimize their bias as much as possible. Compare that to Mr. "the story was covered wrong!" Taggart. Did you actually READ Grief's stories? I did, and I just went back and read them again. What did you find to be so unfair and biased as to justify Taggart's complaints? In his Day 2 story, Grief even describes -- almost to perfection -- the exact same workout that Buckmark did up above. He was balanced, correct and included perspectives from school officials and players.
The fact is, the Oregon coaches conducted a poorly designed workout, and the players (who aren't professional athletes or trainers) paid the price. And now Taggart is crying over the media not focusing on all the positive things the program is up to -- and this is a week in which three players went to the hospital with rhabdo and then a new assistant was arrested for drunk driving. Seriously, WTF, Taggart? How about just man up, acknowledge you had a bad week and quit blaming that on the media? It's just pathetic.
This quote from you, Phalanx, is especially troubling:
Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't.
This is your whole view in a nutshell. So you think Grief should be Taggart's mouthpiece -- that, or refrain from writing anything that makes the program look bad -- and if he doesn't, then Taggart should be able to withhold information from him?
Dude. How can you even say something like this, then attack Grief for being biased and unfair in his reporting? That's totally contradicting. I hope you think about this for more than a few moments and try to understand how this point of view doesn't fit in with your earlier contention that journalists need to be MORE fair and MORE objective. A purely fair and objective journalist -- or one as close to that as possible -- would NEVER be anyone's mouthpiece.