Taunting coverage angers State fans

Taunting coverage angers State fans

An ugly incident at the N.C. State-Wake Forest game prompted an even uglier public debate last week about journalism as practiced at The News & Observer. Let's talk about it.

At issue is columnist Barry Saunders' opinion piece in Tuesday's paper about the taunting of Wake Forest guard Chris Paul by some Wolfpack fans using the words "I killed your grandfather. I killed your grandfather." Paul's grandfather was beaten to death during a 2002 robbery. Saunders damned the fans' behavior as "tasteless" and called on State officialdom to apologize.

The column set off a tempest among the State fan base, a famously loyal group of folk who burned up the radio call-in shows and Internet lines with indignation. The gist of the complaints was that the N&O columnist either made up the incident or greatly exaggerated it. "Barry Saunders is a disgrace to the city of Raleigh and the N&O," wrote reader Joe Holloway, in a typical comment. "He is a liar and should be fired...P.S. Cancel my subscription."

Let's set the record straight. The taunting did happen. N.C. State alumnus Stuart Lamm was sitting in front of the fans in question. "There were maybe three or four guys who were yelling it," he told me. "It was a five- or 10-second incident at the most. They were told by others around them to stop it, they did, and they didn't do it for the rest of the game."

State Athletics Director Lee Fowler confirmed that the incident occurred but said it was limited. He didn't see the incident, but his daughter did, he told me, and she told the fans they would be removed from the game if they continued. Inflaming the situation was the fact that the taunting occurred after Paul punched N.C. State star Julius Hodge in the groin, which enraged State fans.

Here's my take: The students' behavior was inexcusable and reflected badly on State fans. That kind of loutish conduct, The N&O sports staff will tell you, unfortunately has been occurring more and more at the college level. Saunders was right to throw a spotlight on it.

But there were specifics of this situation that Saunders' column didn't capture: First, that only a few fans participated, second that the taunting was abbreviated, and finally, that other fans shut them up.

The column conveyed otherwise. By not specifying the number of taunters, it left the misimpression that a larger number of State fans participated. And the column implied that other fans sanctioned the misbehavior -- "Not all of the fans engaged in the tasteless chant," Saunders wrote, "but those who didn't should have expressed disapproval of the clowns who did" -- when it appears that annoyed fans quickly stopped the offenders.

Saunders says he's not backing off from the column one bit. It was based, he said, on his interview with Wake Forest Sports Information Director Dean Buchan, who initially told him that the taunts went on throughout the game. Buchan backed away from those comments, Saunders said, after hearing from angry Wolfpack fans.

Saunders said he also heard from several callers after the game who said that as many as 15 fans were involved. But the numbers, he said, weren't important.

"That wasn't my point," he said. "I thought it was reprehensible behavior. The point of the column was to show that people are taking basketball way too seriously."

N&O Executive Editor Melanie Sill said she stands behind her columnist. The point wasn't how many people made remarks, she said, but that Paul heard them.

Saunders is a columnist, not a reporter. He is paid to write opinion, and this incident cried out for condemnation. But his column would have been more effective -- and less susceptible to second-guessing -- if it had been informed with more reporting and the specifics that it lacked. I also would have been concerned about basing a column largely on the assertions of the Wake public relations chief ("flack," in journalese) who himself was relying on the word of Chris Paul -- not a disinterested party.

State fans had cause to feel that they had been hung with the sins of a few bad actors. But sins they were, properly publicized.

Let's point out a couple of other things about The N&O's coverage. On the same day as the Saunders column, which appeared on page 1B, the paper published more prominently on page 1A the story about Paul's inexcusable punch to Julius Hodge and Paul's subsequent revised stories about his action. The N&O also published follow-up stories about the punching incident (on Wednesday) and about the details of the taunting (on Thursday.)

Perhaps what's most regrettable is that I even have to be writing this column -- that college sports has sunk to such a low state that our journalism focuses on fights and slurs, instead of the action on the court. As one reader wrote me in an e-mail. "I regret how this whole incident has turned into something you'd see in a presidential election," said Ben Spiker of Raleigh, who says he usually enjoys Saunders' columns but didn't like this one. "There's simply no room for this kind of back and forth in college sports. Nobody needs it."

Amen.