When MLS made the decision to bring their website in-house while adding a news arm that would be "independent" of the league from an editorial standpoint, natural questions emerged. Just how impartial could MLSsoccer.com's writers be if their paychecks came from the very entity they covered? Even with assurances that the league would not dictate content or censor criticism, the new team faced an uphill battle to prove themselves a trustworthy outlet of American soccer news and commentary.
More basically, what do we want from the MLS website? It should provide stats and news, surely, and lighter stories on players, teams, and coaches are acceptable ("player x working really really hard this year"), but can a league sanctioned media outlet ever be an effective source of opinion? If we're letting the league decide what questions to ask, which is the reasonable perception, do the difficult ones get shoved under the carpet? If Garber is doing a poor job, who is going to openly criticize his boss? An independent writer can ask the hard questions and hold the league accountable for its actions in a way an in-house guy simply can't for fear of risking his neck.
The flip side of those questions, a problem perhaps not as obvious at first blush, is the matter of association; if MLSsoccer.com publishes a story that is viewed as biased, unfair, or flat out wrong by certain segments of the league's fan base, it logically reflects back onto the league. Because any questionable or inflammatory content would be published on the league's official site, the league would naturally suffer from the belief that it was sanctioned, perhaps in a de facto manner, by MLS itself. At the very minimum, the material remaining in place after protests were lodged would appear to indicate that the league found no fault in it.
Case in point: in the aftermath of the Crew's uniform-disaster-cum-disallowed-goal in Mexico last week, MLSsoccer.com posted its weekly Power Rankings (which are posted without a byline). In the blurb on the Columbus Crew, number three on in the rankings, was a one sentence statement: "Quit barking about the disallowed goal against Santos. The ref made the right call."
The statement prompted a spate of comments through the site's Facebook-connected mechanism, many of them critical of the tone and questioning the writer's purpose in dismissing what fans, and the Crew themselves, perceived as a legitimate complaint. Anecdotal chatter on Twitter indicated that several of the critical comments were deleted (all comments have since been removed).
MLSsoccer.com followed up on the controversy in Torreón with a story, this time with Simon Borg's name in the byline, on the official match report. In the report, the referee explained the Crew goal was disallowed because Emilio Renteria re-entered without permission; with video evidence that seemed to contradict that version of events, Crew fans and sympathizers found fault with Borg's story, which seemed to back the ruling. Again, comments from readers followed expressing a distaste for the tone of the piece, and again there are anecdotal statements that some were deleted (perhaps justifiably so if the removed comments contained abusive language).
At this point, much of the "controversy" over MLSsoccer.com's treatment was a matter of perspective; Borg (and the site's entire content team, for that matter) are not beholden to defending MLS teams, and shouldn't be if they are truly independent of league oversight. By stating that the Crew fans should "quit barking" (harsh wording, to be sure), and posting a story reinforcing the official version of events, MLSsoccer.com appears impartial.
But this brings us back to the issue of reflecting views; whether Borg is writing impartially or not, his work still appears under the MLS banner. For the uninitiated, uninformed, or otherwise unconvinced, it might appear as though he is stating opinions held by at least a few running around MLSHQ in New York. Short of attribution by association, the league must deal with the ramifications of one of their employees using dismissive language in the aforementioned Power Rankings.
Friday morning, in the site's daily "Kick Off" post and with a headline including the words "Renteria backs ref", Borg linked to a Spanish-language story out of Venezuela that claimed Renteria spoke in support of the referee's decision. Renteria flatly denied making such statements to Columbus Dispatch reporter Shawn Mitchell, who referenced the MLSsoccer.com inclusion of the erroneous Venezuelan article in his blog post at CrewXtra.com.
Again, Borg's intent is questioned in the comments, and the relevant problem of verification is presented. As an employee of the league, Borg certainly has the wherewithal to contact the Crew and check the story's veracity; even forgetting that he's working under the league's auspices, Borg may have an obligation to followup as a matter of journalistic integrity. Whether the information is presented in blog form or not, Borg and his coworkers are professionals operating as a news-gathering agency, and are therefore answerable to a higher standard. By linking to the Venezuelan story, subsequently refuted by Shawn Mitchell, Borg has opened himself up to an additional wave of criticism (it should be noted that an update was made to the post, linking to an MLSsoccer.com story reporting that Renteria denied making any comment backing the referee's decision).
The core issue is not one of the rightness or wrongness of Borg or anyone else associated with MLSsoccer.com (minus, perhaps, the journalistic issue presented above); impartially speaking, whether the writers and presenters of the site should side with the league's teams is a matter of opinion. For Crew fans, the actions listed here amount to a pattern of bias, Borg himself is a target of derision, and their reaction is no doubt exacerbated by the simple fact that the offending items emanated from individuals covering the league at the behest of league itself.
It's the perception here that is the problem, with the MLSsoccer.com team damned if they do and damned if they don't; their impartiality is in question from the start because of for whom they work, and anything they write will be viewed through a prism of league sanction. Show the slightest hint of bias, real or imagined, and they risk alienating a portion of the fan base. Fail to follow through on promises of editorial freedom, again real or imagined, and they risk losing credibility.
The revamping of the league's website and the launch of their in-house coverage fills an unfortunate gap that exists in the amount of media attention given to American soccer. Be it through news-gathering, blog posts, or radio shows, MLSsoccer.com serves the fan base in a way much needed and too often neglected by established outlets. The profile of the MLS website, official and therefore a natural destination for fans, gives them an inherent ability to be among the most prominent voices. But by its very existence, MLSsoccer.com's coverage presents problems difficult to overcome but intrinsic to their work, even while their dominating presence gifts them a leading role. Reconciling the two is ultimately up to the fan, who must either search out truly independent opinion as an alternative or carefully parse content coming from the league's official site.
This tête-à-tête with the Crew faithful brings all of the problems part and parcel of the league website as news and commentary outlet into a rather harsh light. This particular controversy is likely to blow over in due time, but the site has certainly lost a number of Crew fans as an unfortunate result of tripping over fine line MLSsoccer.com must walk.
For more on the impartiality issues with MLSsoccer.com and their scooping up of most of America's more prominent soccer journos, see this Pitch Invasion post from March.
Please keep comments on topic; the issue at hand is the problem posed by MLSsoccer.com's in-house coverage, not the validity of any Crew fan complaints over the controversy in Mexico or the website content.
