Sometimes the media just gets it wrong. And I know why. It’s journalists who have to be generalists and rely on noisy sources who promote themselves as experts for their opinions on a matter, which they only include in the story if it supports their premise, which is ill founded because… well, they’re generalists who only know a little bit about a lot of things.
And deadlines. Forget the press, journalists are racing the Internet now, which is constant and needy and rewards the fast over the facts. So I get it.
But your coverage of Lance Armstrong …. Particularly your inclusion of statements like this from “expert” sources:
In the crowded field of cancer charities, he (expert guy) says, there’s a risk that donors might think, “Why don’t we send our money to these organizations that have a cleaner record?”
Journalists: Please stop perpetuating the idea that a nonprofit should be made up of saints who should toil for pennies while serving the poor and the needy without complaint. Nonprofits are made up of PEOPLE. Some of them may have cheated at the Tour de France. Some of them may have cheated on their wives. Some of them may have cheated on their diets.
Armstrong’s record is NOT Livestrong’s record.
In every article I’ve seen or heard, journalists imply that Armstrong’s controversy will damage Livestrong. Then they find some philanthropy professor to say, “Oh, yes, one must be concerned,” followed by a real-life person who has survived cancer BECAUSE OF LIVESTRONG who says, “It’s not about Lance. I love Livestrong.” Why not a headline, then, that says this? “Cancer Survivors Still Support Livestrong.”
Want to know my opinion about this doping thing? I don’t care.
Last month Lance Armstrong hosted a fundraiser for the Ann Richards School for Girls at his house. Guests were supposed to be outside on the massive lawn, but it was raining so we were all crowded into his living rooms. Lance was there, but shielded. There must have been 200 people dropping food on his floors and using his bathrooms. If it had been my house, I would have flipped.
Maybe Lance Armstrong cared too much about winning. But he also cares too much about giving. The whole doping thing…? It’s a cycling race, people; it’s sports. “Doping ring?” It’s not like he started a decade-long war based on wrong information, then continued to spend billions of tax dollars to support it and his cronies despite it being clear we’d never “win,” while thousands of American men and women were being killed or coming home as broken human beings. It’s not even like he assaulted women or ran dog-fighting rings, Cedric.
Lance raced bikes uphill, FFS. And he survived cancer. And because of him, someday you might survive cancer, too.