I love all these sources

Donate To GopherHole
P

pel76

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
6
The media has. Hey doogie/rest if the media how about saying who these sources are so we get some concrete info. People know stuff and it gets sickening when they hide it. If you got a source name it for f sake
 

pel76 said:
The media has. Hey doogie/rest if the media how about saying who these sources are so we get some concrete info. People know stuff and it gets sickening when they hide it. If you got a source name it for f sake
Click to expand...

Once you name your source you no longer have ANY sources. You don't think they're dying to prove to everyone they're not making it up?
 

Everyone has a source. Hell, even the guy with seats in the upper deck quoted a source in a previous thread.

The only legitimate information will come from Maturi himself.
 

RedPoo said:
Once you name your source you no longer have ANY sources. You don't think they're dying to prove to everyone they're not making it up?
Click to expand...

Then they do need to name the to be held accountable for giving bs info
 

I think we have to remember that thi sis journalism for 2010. People 20 years ago would never have done what these reporters are doing and that is spouting every rumor they hear. It is are fault as consumers for demanding that info, and the media trying to meet the demands.

When a journalist is writing a story they have their sources and trust them. However, if they are going to put something in a paper, that you can't edit and your reputation is on the line, that source becomes one of many.

Writers will need corroborating evidence before their editor would even let it go to print. To post something on Twitter or facebook or a message board you don't need more than one source. Heck it doesn't even need to be all that credible. For all we know these sources are interns in the AD office who a media member happens to know.

Doogie has said it before, Twitter and other media like that is treated differently than a story that would run on TV or in a newspaper.
 


pel76 said:
Then they do need to name the to be held accountable for giving bs info
Click to expand...

A journalist CAN NOT name a source. Not for some high-minded ideal, but because if a source tells you something on background, it's because they don't want to be identified. If you identify them, they (and all your other sources) will stop talking to you. Then you will no longer have any news, and you will no longer be in the news reporting business.

I agree that journalists, especially in sports, have gotten way too comfortable using unnamed sources. But you know how to combat the ones that abuse it. If someone writes up something about a source, and what they wrote turns out not to be true, people stop believing them, and they lose their credibility. It's why Charley Walters is a joke, and other journalists dance around repeating things that were said to him (for fear they turn out not to be true).
 

You got a source name it so you have some accountability in what you are reporting. This crap should seriously get people fired
 

pel76 said:
You got a source name it so you have some accountability in what you are reporting. This crap should seriously get people fired
Click to expand...

There not doing their job by tweeting. They are fulfilling the fans lust for immediate info.

If you want real coverage of this search then you should stay away from message boards, twitter, facebook ect. and either watch the evening new or wait for a story to pop up in the Strib. That is where accountability really matters.
 

IMO the media is getting owned in this coaching search. It seems like every possible candidate has been leading or ruled out about 3 times now. It'll be interesting to see who was right once the dust settles.
 



pel76 said:
You got a source name it so you have some accountability in what you are reporting. This crap should seriously get people fired
Click to expand...

Tell that to Woodward and Bernstein.

Just because you want to know doesn't mean they have to reveal their sources. Unnamed sources have been part of journalism since the beginning of time.
 

As media members being associated with there given bosses yes they are doing their jobs and be held accountable.
 

gopher7 said:
IMO the media is getting owned in this coaching search. It seems like every possible candidate has been leading or ruled out about 3 times now. It'll be interesting to see who was right once the dust settles.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they aren't, and Maturi is just horribly bungling it.
 




damn dude. read much

as media members using twitter/facebook etc is nothing different then something they report on a website or newspaper. thus its their job and they should be held accountable. Does Doogie, Joe Schmidt, Tom Dienhart, etc have an obligation to be accountable to their audiences? In order to keep their jobs. your damn right they do
 

RedPoo said:
Once you name your source you no longer have ANY sources. You don't think they're dying to prove to everyone they're not making it up?
Click to expand...

Once you name your source, then you have outted your sources so you might as well be making it up.
 

RedPoo said:
Once you name your source you no longer have ANY sources. You don't think they're dying to prove to everyone they're not making it up?
Click to expand...

If the source gets outted and is proven to be nothing but an empty suit, why not out the guy/gal. Don't we have a duty to make false stories extinct! Whistleblowers usually have to expose themselves. We have a duty not to hide them but support them in plain site. Low credibility otherwise. Why report on it if they refuse to put their name on it. I am just about ready to put my name on this thread for the same reason.
 

pel76 said:
The media has. Hey doogie/rest if the media how about saying who these sources are so we get some concrete info. People know stuff and it gets sickening when they hide it. If you got a source name it for f sake
Click to expand...

I always prefer to have someone talk to me on the record... background is always choice No. 2... if they say no, I then weigh the pros and cons of being unnamed... in this case when it comes to Sumlin & Hoke, two viable candidates, I feel it's worth it to leave my contacts unnamed, and advance the story.
 

pel76 said:
damn dude. read much

as media members using twitter/facebook etc is nothing different then something they report on a website or newspaper. thus its their job and they should be held accountable. Does Doogie, Joe Schmidt, Tom Dienhart, etc have an obligation to be accountable to their audiences? In order to keep their jobs. your damn right they do
Click to expand...

Who are you responding to? The lack of logical sentence structure in this post has me baffled.
 

Demi said:
Or maybe they aren't, and Maturi is just horribly bungling it.
Click to expand...
I think the key here is to hit the ground running and start crying about the hire before it even happens.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom