The Dean Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I have sources that Tim graham killed 5 hookers. Likely to deny it if asked. #cjk5h Male hookers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Male hookers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 But how much can a Scotsman be expected to pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 But how much can a Scotsman be expected to pay? aye, that's why he killed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Stop Billeiving Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I read the Buffalo News somewhat frequently and although I've heard the complaints about Tim Graham, I generally think he's a decent sportswriter who breaks from the 'norm' and sometimes provides a different angle to his stories. That said, for every 9 good pieces he writes, the tenth is typically along the lines of this latest 'Whaley gone rogue' story. Most of the time, it doesn't matter in the long run, but in this case, the national media picked up on the story and as a result, Peter King writes a column titled 'Bad Vibes in Buffalo.' Graham has his sources and someone in the Bills organization clearly has it out for Whaley (disagreements will happen in the front office, but going to a reporter with this false story is a whole other level), but I think Graham sensationalized the situation a bit and now Buffalo is in the news for the wrong reasons. Bad job by him on this one. In the grand scheme of things, it won't stick in people's minds for long, but it's too bad we're getting more attention for this than the awesome off season we've had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) Here is where I go "ad hominem" on you. Your opinion on the subject means less to me because you don't know what Tim Grahams' job is. You think he is just a reporter. That is incorrect. The very premise of your disagreement is undermined by this fact. HA! As an "ad hominem" argument, that is an epic fail - my understanding of Tim Graham's job is entirely relevant to the discussion! Here, let me help you out. If you wanna go ad hominem on me, you gotta learn stuff about me and then attack me for something personal and entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Let me see....I just acknowledged my ignorance of what Volleyball girls say to each other when they circle up after each point. You could attack me for that - "Hopeful, you ignorant sh**, how dare you criticize sports journalist Tim Graham when you don't even know what female Volleyball players say to each other on the court after each point and you demeaningly referred to them as Volleyball girls". That would be an ad hominem fallacy, because I can be butt ignorant on the point cited, and still have valid points about Graham. That's what Graham did to Coller - Coller can be lying like a rug about his college sports history and still have valid points or questions about Tim's "rogue" tweet. His college sports history isn't relevant to the question of whether Tim's tweet was appropriate journalism, thus it constitutes an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Graham's Wiki describe him as a journalist and "enterprise reporter". His byline at the News describes him as "News Sports Reporter". These roles and his tweet about not "outing" his sources appear to infer he relies upon the legal protection afforded to members of the press against revealing sources and legal consequences for publishing sourced information. That's enough for me. if he's claiming sources he must protect as the origin of his claims, he is functioning as a reporter and should be subject to journalistic standards. The press has great power, in part because of the legal protections they are afforded. With great power comes great responsibility. Edited September 5, 2015 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 HA! As an "ad hominem" argument, that is an epic fail - my understanding of Tim Graham's job is entirely relevant to the discussion! Here, let me help you out. If you wanna go ad hominem on me, you gotta learn stuff about me and then attack me for something personal and entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Let me see....I just acknowledged my ignorance of what Volleyball girls say to each other when they circle up after each point. You could attack me for that - "Hopeful, you ignorant sh**, how dare you criticize sports journalist Tim Graham when you don't even know what female Volleyball players say to each other on the court after each point and you demeaningly referred to them as Volleyball girls". That would be an ad hominem, because I can be butt ignorant on the point cited, demeaning as he**, and still have valid points about Graham. That's what Graham did to Coller - Coller can be lying like a rug about his college sports history and still have valid points or questions about Tim's "rogue" tweet. His college sports history isn't relevant to the question of whether Tim's tweet was appropriate journalism, thus it constitutes an ad hominem attack. Graham's Wiki describe him as a journalist and "enterprise reporter". His byline at the News describes him as "News Sports Reporter". These roles and his tweet about not "outing" his sources appear to infer he relies upon the legal protection afforded to members of the press against revealing sources and legal consequences for publishing sourced information. That's enough for me. if he's claiming sources he must protect as the origin of his claims, he is functioning as a reporter and should be subject to journalistic standards. The press has great power, in part because of the legal protections they are afforded. With great power comes great responsibility. It's not really a legal matter even though you are correct that there are legalities. But that is not why he is not telling his sources. It's because of the trouble they would get in and because they would no longer feed him information. That is what all reporters do. He doesn't at all need to reveal his sources. He would be dumb to. But it's not because of the legalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I know a lot of people don't like him for many reasons, but I think he's a good reporter. On the other hand, I'm very tired of his Twitter antics. He seems to enjoy baiting the trolls and engaging them in childish dialogue, and spends quite a bit of time doing it. It's tiresome. He is a pretty good reporter (his Talley story was excellent). But he has such a damned chip on his shoulder. And he seems to be getting increasingly oversensitive as time goes on. Frankly, I don't even know how he's as good a reporter as he is...it's a job that requires pretty thick skin and the ability to build relationships with often contentious people, neither of which seems to be a skill Tim possesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 He is a pretty good reporter (his Talley story was excellent). But he has such a damned chip on his shoulder. And he seems to be getting increasingly oversensitive as time goes on. Frankly, I don't even know how he's as good a reporter as he is...it's a job that requires pretty thick skin and the ability to build relationships with often contentious people, neither of which seems to be a skill Tim possesses. He doesn't suffers fools easily. He's very quick to go on the attack if not enormous first strike capabilities. He often is joking to abuse people and they take him seriously. That reminds me of someone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Or the opposite, the professionals like a Wawrow see the professional side of him as maybe he does write very insightful and stimulating articles. But he has a very petty side to him and doesn't take criticism well and personality wise just isn't suited for the social media age. Maybe a guy like him would be best to write his articles and completely stay off all social media This is it. He's a pretty decent writer. He gets along with Lori and John and probably the rest of his colleagues...........But, he's a total dbag on twitter. I love it when you chime in. One of the original abusers of the sarcastically used "DOOOOOMED" term here 15 years ago. How does it feel to be THAT right. Oh, sorry "ad hominem argument". I think Graham wanted to stay because of he had elderly family members of ailing health, hence his heart being in Buffalo.......... but be sure to make your distaste for his social media/internet work personal. Yeah, you're a swell guy online. I thought he was from Cleveland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Male hookers? gone rogue with 'em It's not really a legal matter even though you are correct that there are legalities. But that is not why he is not telling his sources. It's because of the trouble they would get in and because they would no longer feed him information. That is what all reporters do. He doesn't at all need to reveal his sources. He would be dumb to. But it's not because of the legalities. You're completely right that Graham has personal motivation not to reveal sources because that's how the well dries up. But your thinking is backwards on the legal matter - this is a "fish don't feel the water" issue to folks in the US where Freedom of the Press and Shield Laws are SOP. It isn't a legal matter BECAUSE Graham is a reporter and is afforded immunity from libel for publishing sourced information and "shielded" from revealing his sources - the Bills or Whaley could sue for libel (published statements that damage reputation) and they'd get exactly nowhere and they know it, so just don't and say you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 He doesn't suffers fools easily. He's very quick to go on the attack if not enormous first strike capabilities. He often is joking to abuse people and they take him seriously. That reminds me of someone... Yeah, but I don't instantly block people when they try to fight back. I'm an !@#$, but I'm not an ivory-tower !@#$ like he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 gone rogue with 'em You're completely right that Graham has personal motivation not to reveal sources because that's how the well dries up. But your thinking is backwards on the legal matter - this is a "fish don't feel the water" issue to folks in the US where Freedom of the Press and Shield Laws are SOP. It isn't a legal matter BECAUSE Graham is a reporter and is afforded immunity from libel for publishing sourced information and "shielded" from revealing his sources - the Bills or Whaley could sue for libel (published statements that damage reputation) and they'd get exactly nowhere and they know it, so just don't and say you didn't. Not to make too fine a point about this, but.... Sources are protected by journalistic ethics. Even if there were no laws to that effect, a journalist is expected to keep his/her sources private, if they so request. It just so happens the law currently backs up these ethics. But a source's information doesn't' simply get passed from the journalist to the public without some vetting and analysis. The journalist shouldn't allow him/herself to be used as the puppet of a source. I think that much is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 gone rogue with 'em You're completely right that Graham has personal motivation not to reveal sources because that's how the well dries up. But your thinking is backwards on the legal matter - this is a "fish don't feel the water" issue to folks in the US where Freedom of the Press and Shield Laws are SOP. It isn't a legal matter BECAUSE Graham is a reporter and is afforded immunity from libel for publishing sourced information and "shielded" from revealing his sources - the Bills or Whaley could sue for libel (published statements that damage reputation) and they'd get exactly nowhere and they know it, so just don't and say you didn't. I'm a writer myself for a living and a journalism major in college so I know all about the legalities. But this isn't really one of them. No one is going to jail and Graham isn't protecting himself or his sources from prosecution. Sure you can, and you rightfully pointed out, the libel angle but that is not a practical matter here. Graham didn't even use those words, he reported them. The Bills guys said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Yeah, but I don't instantly block people when they try to fight back. I'm an !@#$, but I'm not an ivory-tower !@#$ like he is. You sold the tower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Yeah, but I don't instantly block people when they try to fight back. I'm an !@#$, but I'm not an ivory-tower !@#$ like he is. True. That is the one thing that I don't like about him. And I'm not saying he's not petty or thin-skinned. He is. But usually he is messing with people and they take him seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 He is a pretty good reporter (his Talley story was excellent). Credit where credit is due: He's (Graham) an excellent feature writer, and I enjoyed his Maybin and Jackson articles as well. Not to make too fine a point about this, but.... Sources are protected by journalistic ethics. Even if there were no laws to that effect, a journalist is expected to keep his/her sources private, if they so request. It just so happens the law currently backs up these ethics. But a source's information doesn't' simply get passed from the journalist to the public without some vetting and analysis. The journalist shouldn't allow him/herself to be used as the puppet of a source. I think that much is obvious. Well put Dean. Both are points of journalistic ethics. But the presumption that a journalist is a special class of person who will perform the latter is part of the basis for the legal protection afforded to them and their source. Yeah, but I don't instantly block people when they try to fight back. I'm an !@#$, but I'm not an ivory-tower !@#$ like he is. DC Tom will continue to publically call everyone he disagrees with an idiot, but two sources inform me that the ivory tower in which he's not a !@#$ was constructed entirely of illegally imported ivory from poached endangered elephants Hopeful, still waiting.... I'm a writer myself for a living and a journalism major in college so I know all about the legalities. But this isn't really one of them. No one is going to jail and Graham isn't protecting himself or his sources from prosecution. Sure you can, and you rightfully pointed out, the libel angle but that is not a practical matter here. Graham didn't even use those words, he reported them. The Bills guys said that. Hey, Kelly. I'm not a lawyer and I'm getting too f**ing close to playing one on the net, but it's my understanding that if an ordinary shmo such as myself damages someone's reputation by printed statements that I phrase as "I was told by two different people (eg sources)", I can't hide behind that statement as protection from legal prosecution. I could be forced to reveal my sources or prosecuted myself if I refuse. But a journalist is afforded legal protection from either, which is why it is not a practical matter. And hopefully now I will walk away from this, cuz I've really said all I have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 Feel however you like. Tim is a very good friend and I will never apologize for that. jw I didn't ask you to apologize. I appreciate that you take a different tack on social media and appear to have the ability to laugh at yourself. I think Tim has written some good articles but I don't respect the way he treats people he feels are "beneath" him. Major character flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flomoe Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 By using the term "rogue" Tim suggested Whaley went out on his own, and without the direct knowledge and consent of the other football decision makers. He should have known (and I believe, definately knew) it would come across as inflammatory and as an attack on the professionalism of Whaley. As a journalist, he should have gone out of his way to either: 1. Make clear the claim came from someone not typically associated with being involved with direct responsibility with regard to the cutting of players, so should be taken very lightly. or 2. Check out the claim before going with the report. That's what a responsible journalist does. This rush to make headlines and get clicks (without fully checking the facts or explaining the questionable quality of the information) is the very antithesis of good professional journalism. You can make excuses for him, but you know this was a sloppy cheap-shot by Graham. Unfortunately, this has become standard procedure these days. And perhaps your opinion is warped by what gets called "news" these days. But it doesn't make it good journalism. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 5, 2015 Author Share Posted September 5, 2015 #BADOL - thanks for the unwarranted shots at my intelligence and ability to participate in educated conversation. You must be one heluva guy. I'm really sorry we have had differing opinions on stupid sports related topics over the years. My beef with Tim Graham is not about his writing, it's about how he treats people - which to me is indicative of character. Too bad you don't see the difference. Have a great day and go Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts