Speaking of media, here's exhibit A of a lazy, bad trend.

[Punching Bag]

7 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

Please be clear, it's not Volin and the Bostin Globe I have an issue with here.  I'm sure Volin has a source, and the source said what the source said.  Whether the source really knows what they're speaking of, I can't say. 

 

If he has a source it is likely someone who played or worked for P*tsies where he got friendly and his source called him up to talk about the offseason.

[Beck Water]

56 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

Part of the problem is that people in the Boston media take their jobs as journalists more seriously than people in the Buffalo media.  Almost everyone who works this beat -- that includes credentialed reporters and Cover 1 -- is basically a cheerleader for the club.  The fact that Tim Graham won't dig into the situation with Diggs is why we have to go to the Boston Globe to find out what's going on.  And those of us who complain about it get written off as being "entitled," as if there's something weird or inappropriate about wanting to know what's happening in the corners of the world that are important to you.  It's a bad combination of bad local media meets bad online fanbase.

 

I'm sorry, but I think that's absolute bunkum. 

 

What you say is true of some of the media who are paid by the team - Chris Brown, Maddy Glab, Sal Capaccio, John Murphy.  There's some question about Josh Reed since he was seen hobnobbing with Allen and our GM at Eric Woods party preceding the Derby.

 

The Athletic reporters - Tim Graham in specific has been plenty critical of the Bills in his day.  So has Joe Buscaglia, who regularly takes crap for predicting Bills losses.  I have no doubt Alaina Getzenberg would love a scoop for ESPN.   I'm pretty impressed by the new TBN reporters, specifically Ryan O'Halloran.  For example he just broke news about Mitch Morse having two offseason surgeries.  None of the current TBN reporters strike me as either "Cheerleaders for the Club" or reflexively negative - I think they're pretty balanced.  @JoshBarnett @Matt Parrino any comment?

 

You need to lay out a much better case for why Ben Volin has better "inside" sources in Buffalo than your personal belief that all credentialed reporters in B'lo are "cheerleaders for the club".

 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

If he has a source it is likely someone who played or worked for P*tsies where he got friendly and his source called him up to talk about the offseason.

 

It's possible it's someone who is a friend of Damien Harris, who just joined the Bills as a FA after 4 years in NE. I'm sure Harris still has friends in the Boston area, maybe a friend still with the Pats or a trainer or someone he works with that talks to Volin.

 

But that sort of begs the question whether Harris actually knows.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Beck Water

[mjt328]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

So Deep Throat was actually his name then

 

If you read the entire post, there are obviously exceptions to the rule.

There are rare times when sources cannot (or should not) go on the record, and must remain anonymous.

 

However, when this occurs, it should fall on the reporter to track down the proof BEFORE the story is published.  They should use the anonymous tip to find additional documentation, or find someone else that IS willing to go on the record.  It's foolish to just take someone's word... do no additional follow-up... and then report the story like it's breaking news.  Yet based on the inaccuracy we see in the media, this is clearly the way things are being done now.

 

[jkeerie]

53 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well, yeah.  Yeah, I do.  Or at least, I want to.

 

Please be clear, it's not Volin and the Bostin Globe I have an issue with here.  I'm sure Volin has a source, and the source said what the source said.  Whether the source really knows what they're speaking of, I can't say. 

 

What I have an issue with is all the little echo chambers picking up Volin's story and running with it, with no independent attempts at verification.

 

I don't think McKenzie has any connection to Ben Volin.

Maybe not, but if Volin reached out to him (maybe he saw his interview with Tyler Dunne) I don't think he'd turn it down.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

Maybe not, but if Volin reached out to him (maybe he saw his interview with Tyler Dunne) I don't think he'd turn it down.

 

Well, maybe I'm all naive and stuff like that.   But how do members of the press in other cities "reach out" to guys? 

 

Perhaps I need educating -

If I'm a player, I wouldn't pass out my personal phone number to the media, nor do I encourage my agent to contact me over every reporter who reaches out in search of sound bite.  I'd see my own local media during media availability, and maybe I run into guys around town?

 

I'm sure Ty Dunne has McKenzie's number from their podcasts together, but surely he would be respectful of that and not give it out? 

 

There's also the question of at this point, even if you're correct that McKenzie would love the attention of being consulted as a source on Diggs, would McKenzie know?  While McKenzie got close enough to Diggs on the team that Diggs and he talked the night of the Bengals loss, when asked about who he sees off-season, McKenzie mentioned Davis and Hodgins but said Diggs was all over and hard to catch up with.

 

I'd love to hear from reporters on this point.  Of course, reporters can reach out thru social media like Insta DMs - I've talked to players a few times that way myself, which is another story and one of the reasons I deleted my Instagram account (don't get me wrong, the players were tots chill and we had respectful convos) - but is it considered good practice to hop on a guy's DMs as a reporter?

[BullBuchanan]

5 hours ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

Your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with. People have been beating down the door of "unnamed sources" for years to try to discredit media - specifically statements they don't like. It's ridiculous. Anyone that's close to the story and goes on record won't be close to the story for 5 minutes after it's published. If you want inside information, you have to protect your sources and sources have to protect themselves.

As to your last point, this of course means that you need to treat news like this skeptically. However, it doesn't mean it's gossip, and it doesn't mean it has to be disregarded. Even if a source was named, you should take the same approach to skepticism. People lie constantly - every single day of their lives. When they aren't lying, they're often misinterpreting what they're seeing and/or hearing. And then you take it another step further, and most people miscomprehend what they read/hear/see from journalists.

[Einstein]

6 hours ago, Beck Water said:

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

 

That's clearly nonsense. The players know the problem. They just aren't talking and are coached on how to dismiss and or mislead reporters and the public.

 

6 hours ago, Beck Water said:

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much

 

 

Again, this is nonsense.

 

Buffalo media is owned by PSE and would never release the information they have. Sal Cappaccio has literally admitted to this in the past. And Muki Hawkins (another reporter) said he knew the problem as well, but wasn't going to publish it.

 

6 hours ago, Beck Water said:

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

Ah, yes.

 

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

Part of the problem is that people in the Boston media take their jobs as journalists more seriously than people in the Buffalo media.

 

Boston's press corps doesn't treat their role with more gravitas. What you're noticing is they are able to operate without fear of the Patriots. Their location in a larger city brimming with a variety of professional sports teams, owned by different entities, circumvents any single-team dominance.

 

In contrast, PSE wields exclusive power over Buffalo's journalism scene. For example, they have the authority to withdraw the radio contract with WGR should their coverage become too critical, and it was reported that they got multiple reporters at The Buffalo News fired.

 

PSE has even imposed a two-week ban on a reporter for providing overly detailed information such as depth charts and player sets during training camp. On one occasion, McDermott even verbally attacked a reporter for publicizing unflattering information before a practice. There was a poster on this forum that said this happened another time as well (with another reporter),  but that it only leaked once.

 

Therefore, Buffalo's media finds itself living in the shadow of PSE, given its unique status as the city's sole major sports organization.

 

2 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

 

 Almost everyone who works this beat -- that includes credentialed reporters and Cover 1 -- is basically a cheerleader for the club.  

 

This is true.

 

23 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

People have been beating down the door of "unnamed sources" for years to try to discredit media - specifically statements they don't like. It's ridiculous. Anyone that's close to the story and goes on record won't be close to the story for 5 minutes after it's published. If you want inside information, you have to protect your sources and sources have to protect themselves.

 

Ding, ding, ding.

We have a winner!

 

The vast number of posters who do not understand this concept is mindboggling.

[Punching Bag]

38 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

There's also the question of at this point, even if you're correct that McKenzie would love the attention of being consulted as a source on Diggs, would McKenzie know?  While McKenzie got close enough to Diggs on the team that Diggs and he talked the night of the Bengals loss, when asked about who he sees off-season, McKenzie mentioned Davis and Hodgins but said Diggs was all over and hard to catch up with.

 

I'd love to hear from reporters on this point.  Of course, reporters can reach out thru social media like Insta DMs - I've talked to players a few times that way myself, which is another story and one of the reasons I deleted my Instagram account (don't get me wrong, the players were tots chill and we had respectful convos) - but is it considered good practice to hop on a guy's DMs as a reporter?

 

My sources are agents (they have contacted me on booking clients), newspapers (real ones who I have provided corrections in past and then later asked me if I had any data on certain subjects) and one martial arts/trainer in Buffalo who asked me of my opinion on a player (would he be serious on work with him enough to set up private one-on-one training).  In all cases they were people who I had respectful conversations with and later expanded.

[Malazan]

3 hours ago, WhoTom said:

 

This is true, partly because search engines actually punish articles that link to off-site destinations. The articles will lose SEO (search engine optimization) points for doing so.

 

I write for an e-magazine and I've been told not to provide external links to my sources. My editor said, "You can name the source, but don't link to it - they can Google it if they want to find it." As a journalist who's familiar with academic research, scientific research, and the history of the WWW, this drives me crazy. And as one who researches my articles and tries to find primary (i.e. original) sources, it makes my job that much more difficult. And it completely thumbs its nose to the whole purpose of the WWW: to provide information and easy-to-follow links to related information. The SEO craze is crippling what could be a decent research tool. And just when you figure out what the SEO bot wants, someone figures out how to manipulate it, making the search engines change their algorithms and the SEO bots respond with new rules. I've seen at least one website that posts the URLs of its sources but removes the hyperlink, so you can copy/paste, but not click on it.  That satisfies the SEO bots and saves me the trouble of Googling something, but it's still a PITA.

 

And if you think I should be disrespected for being associated with the publishing industry, please be aware that some of us still do legit research and seek out original sources; it's not our fault that the industry is discouraging that. I've already made it clear to my editor that my integrity is important to me, so I don't use click-bait titles and I do cite my sources. As long as I don't hyperlink to the sources, he's cool with that. And when he tried to "spice up" one of my titles with a phrase that screamed "click bait" to me, I told him that if he insisted on that title, then he should remove my name from the byline and publish it under "Staff." Both he and the editor-in-chief decided to keep my name in the byline and use a non-click bait title. 

 

Yea, my comments have nothing to do with that. Kudos to you for doing what you can to maintain your integrity.

 

It means if it's a 'coach' then you need to press the coach to get him to agree to the most specific identifying information you can get them to agree to.. and be willing to not publish the information if the attribution can't get to a level that you're comfortable with and think provides value to the readers. 

 

So if it's a Bills coach:

 

1. Name of coach

2. A coach with the team

3. A member of the football operations of the team

4. Bills staff

5. A member of an NFL coaching staff

6. ..and so on

 

Also, you should tell your editor he needs to hire someone to advise him on SEO and the use of dofollow and nofollow. 

[Dr. K]

6 hours ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

This is how the media got totally sucked into reporting that the U.S. had proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the run up to the Iraq War. Dick Cheney's minions leaked this assertion to the NY Times reporter Judith Miller on condition of anonymity, the Times put it on the front page in repeated stories trumpeting these "proofs," every other paper in the country jumped on the bandwagon, and then Cheney and Rumsfeld cited all these new reports as evidence that Iraq had WMD. Recycle and repeat and suddenly we're fighting a war over nothing. 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Dr. K said:

This is how the media got totally sucked into reporting that the U.S. had proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the run up to the Iraq War. Dick Cheney's minions leaked this assertion to the NY Times reporter Judith Miller on condition of anonymity, the Times put it on the front page in repeated stories trumpeting these "proofs," every other paper in the country jumped on the bandwagon, and then Cheney and Rumsfeld cited all these new reports as evidence that Iraq had WMD. Recycle and repeat and suddenly we're fighting a war over nothing. 

 

….so, the Bills have WMD and they’re not allowed to talk about it? This has gone too far! 

 

[BarleyNY]

7 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

I don't take it as absolute fact, but I disagree with your premise - I think players and coaches generally speak the truth.  Maybe not the "whole truth", but truth.

 

What would be "in it" for Morse to say he's "blissfully ignorant" "doesn't know if it's in facility or outside the facility so doesn't think it's appropriate to speak" "my keys only open so many doors around here and that's not one of them" when he could just say "that's not something I'm going to discuss, but I'll be happy to answer any Football questions or questions you have about my off-season"?

 

 

By saying he has no knowledge of what the issue is, it ends the conversation. If he said he knew (or even thought he knew) the problem, then it would confirm that there is an issue, invite pestering for the answer and speculation about what it is. It is also probably true from the standpoint that Diggs has not discussed it directly with him. He has likely heard rumors, but those aren’t definitive knowledge. And you really don’t want to be discussing rumors about stuff like this with the press. Only bad things can come of that. 

[Punching Bag]

24 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

….so, the Bills have WMD and they’re not allowed to talk about it? This has gone too far! 

 

 

Yes and P*tsies get a comp pick for it.

[notwoz]

5 hours ago, BillsDad51 said:

Great post. I seriously wonder if a legitimate source "close to the Bills locker room" would talk to a Boston Globe reporter and not to any local reporters. The truth is, teams keep a tight lid on info. Reporters used to be able to walk through a team facility, talk to trainers, equipment managers and other insiders without a team media official listening in. Access is tightly controlled. And other outlets jumping on a single source story from the Globe is BS.

You make a good point. If one of the local reporters posted such a story I would give it some credence, yet take it with a grain of salt. But why would someone in the "Bills locker room" talk to some douchebag reporter from Boston. Or have the Bills signed someone from the Pats and that signee thinks he won't make it past training camp and wants some sort of pre-emptive  retribution? In any event, this sounds like a tempest in a teapot: a slow news period for the NFL and the overwhelming presence of people dying to get clicks. 

[notwoz]

5 hours ago, In Summary said:

Does anyone still take legacy media seriously?  

F**K YES. 

[BullBuchanan]

5 hours ago, In Summary said:

Does anyone still take legacy media seriously?  

Exclusively. The only things I don't take seriously are people that use the term "legacy media".

[dave mcbride]

5 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well, yeah.  Yeah, I do.  Or at least, I want to.

 

Please be clear, it's not Volin and the Bostin Globe I have an issue with here.  I'm sure Volin has a source, and the source said what the source said.  Whether the source really knows what they're speaking of, I can't say. 

 

What I have an issue with is all the little echo chambers picking up Volin's story and running with it, with no independent attempts at verification.

 

I don't think McKenzie has any connection to Ben Volin.

I think the larger issue is that some of the old legacy media, including magazines like SI,are really up against it and are turning into clickbait machines simply to pay the bills. SI's fall is starting to remind me of Newsweek, which used to be (along with Time) the highest-circulation serious mainstream magazine in the country. Those days are long gone. As for the NY Post and NY Daily News, they've always broken real stories but have also always thrived on sensationalist tabloid style coverage (ESPECIALLY the Post). And unlike, say, the NYT, have zero qualms about going full clickbait if it can capture a few bucks for them. The Times, WaPo, WSJ, and a couple of others don't need to do this, so they don't. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by dave mcbride

[BillsFanSD]

5 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

I'm sorry, but I think that's absolute bunkum. 

 

What you say is true of some of the media who are paid by the team - Chris Brown, Maddy Glab, Sal Capaccio, John Murphy.  There's some question about Josh Reed since he was seen hobnobbing with Allen and our GM at Eric Woods party preceding the Derby.

 

The Athletic reporters - Tim Graham in specific has been plenty critical of the Bills in his day.  So has Joe Buscaglia, who regularly takes crap for predicting Bills losses.  I have no doubt Alaina Getzenberg would love a scoop for ESPN.   I'm pretty impressed by the new TBN reporters, specifically Ryan O'Halloran.  For example he just broke news about Mitch Morse having two offseason surgeries.  None of the current TBN reporters strike me as either "Cheerleaders for the Club" or reflexively negative - I think they're pretty balanced.  @JoshBarnett @Matt Parrino any comment? (snip for brevity)

To be clear, I'm not talking about on-the-field stuff like whether Edmunds was any good or whether we would win or lose this week's game.  Most people in our orbit are good when it comes to stuff like that.

 

If you don't see a massive amount of groupthink and gatekeeping concerning off-field issues, I don't know what to tell you.  Our media is aggressively uncurious about what goes on inside OBD, and that's just not how the media is supposed to work.  As a fan, I'm curious to know what the deal with Diggs is.  I have no reason to know, other than my own curiosity, but that's good enough and needs no further justification.  Anybody trying to sell you an "entitled fans" narrative is just asking you to sit down, shut up, and do what you're told, and there's no reason to give folks like the time of day.  "The public has a right to know" might be a cliche, but it's a cliche that should be carved in granite in every building that still houses an actual human reporter. 

[Chaos]

9 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

I don't take it as absolute fact, but I disagree with your premise - I think players and coaches generally speak the truth.  Maybe not the "whole truth", but truth.

 

What would be "in it" for Morse to say he's "blissfully ignorant" "doesn't know if it's in facility or outside the facility so doesn't think it's appropriate to speak" "my keys only open so many doors around here and that's not one of them" when he could just say "that's not something I'm going to discuss, but I'll be happy to answer any Football questions or questions you have about my off-season"?

 

MItch Morse may not be nosey. Ben Volin is almost certainly nosey. Nosey people tend to know more gossip than people who are not nosey. Completely reasonable for a reporter to know something some players don't know. 

[Airseven]

If the issue involves personal drama and manifests within cliques and on social media, then I’d expect a vet like Morse to both not care and actively avoid it.

 

On the other hand, reporters aren’t “nosey” for pursuing it. It’s their job to break stories and, these days, particularly those the drooling masses will lap up.

[Punching Bag]

10 hours ago, mjt328 said:

 

Yep.  In the old days, the idea of an "anonymous source" was almost always laughed at.

 

If a source wasn't willing to go on the record, then it probably wasn't true.  Very few newspapers were willing to put their reputation on the line to print unverified rumors.  So if a reporter got some information off the record, they needed to do MORE legwork investigation behind the scenes to 100% verify it was true.

 

Today, reporters can just talk to the building janitor (or just make something up themselves), stamp it with the standard "inside sources tell me"... and then face absolutely zero repercussions if the story turns out to be B.S.

 

 

Agree and laws protecting "journalists" need to be revived defining who is press and who is just a loud talker.

[Beck Water]

22 hours ago, boyst said:

this isn't just sports reporting. this is status of american journalism. it's been this way for a while and only gotten worse in the last 6-7 years as social media has flourished to make clickbait and traffic to websites.

 

anyone who works in journalism, by mere association, should be disrespected.

 

So if it's become common for many farmers to live off government programs and even scam them, does that mean we should disrespect all farmers by association?

 

Personally I'll give individuals the respect I feel they deserve for they way they live their life and the principles they show by how they behave. 

[Beck Water]

17 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with. People have been beating down the door of "unnamed sources" for years to try to discredit media - specifically statements they don't like. It's ridiculous. Anyone that's close to the story and goes on record won't be close to the story for 5 minutes after it's published. If you want inside information, you have to protect your sources and sources have to protect themselves.

As to your last point, this of course means that you need to treat news like this skeptically. However, it doesn't mean it's gossip, and it doesn't mean it has to be disregarded. Even if a source was named, you should take the same approach to skepticism. People lie constantly - every single day of their lives. When they aren't lying, they're often misinterpreting what they're seeing and/or hearing. And then you take it another step further, and most people miscomprehend what they read/hear/see from journalists.

 

Serious question: do you actually read the posts of people you respond to?  Or if you do, do you spend a hot minute on reading comprehension?

 

Because it really doesn't seem as though you do. 

 

"Your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with"

 

So I wrote: "Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. "

 

Apparently you disagree that Volin is a serious reporter and if he cites a source you think he really doesn't have one?

 

I wrote: "But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification"

 

Your response is focused on "unnamed sources" and protecting sources as though my post were criticizing that.  But I write, very plainly, that in my view the real problem is many media sources publishing based on another reporter's unnamed source verbatim, without any attempt at finding their own source or verifying.

 

Apparently, you disagree that this is an issue and think it's just ducky if one reporter cites an anonymous source and every other media outlet piggybacks on it;  you're fine with and support the effect, which is that if the unnamed source is mistaken, his information gets "widely reported", misinformation gets propegated.

 

We are led to believe "Bull Buchanan" supports this and thinks "This Is Fine".

 

Nowhere did I refer to an anonymous source as "gossip" or say it has to be disregarded; I'm sure Volin has a source he thinks is reasonable.  But, since he may rely upon one source, Volin has gotten things wrong before.

 

Needless to say, I don't respect the viewpoints you apparently hold due to saying "your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with". 

[Shemp]

It's a new way of reporting. Ever since the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, propaganda has been allowed to be broadcast within the continental United States for the first time. That means lies and rumors are encouraged--they sell... It's what these guys are paid to write. News, weather and sports.

 

Caveat Emptor.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Shemp

[DCofNC]

On 6/20/2023 at 9:01 AM, mjt328 said:

Many years ago, I was a journalism major and actually worked the first five years of my professional career as a newspaper reporter.

The media in this country is a pathetic mess.  And not just in the sports world.  

 

Editors used to require certain procedures to verify information and sources.  Printing false information was embarrassing, and something that could legitimately get a person fired.  Today, nobody cares.  Every outlet is more concerned with getting attention (clicks and ratings), or pushing some kind of political agenda.

This is the real truth to it, there’s no accountability, nor shame.  Get ratings, get paid.  Wait for the truth and you are fired because there are 37 others who already wrote their own version of the story and it doesn’t matter if it was right or wrong as long as it was first and got clicks.

[BullBuchanan]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Serious question: do you actually read the posts of people you respond to?  Or if you do, do you spend a hot minute on reading comprehension?

 

Because it really doesn't seem as though you do. 

 

"Your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with"

 

So I wrote: "Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. "

 

Apparently you disagree that Volin is a serious reporter and if he cites a source you think he really doesn't have one?

 

I wrote: "But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification"

 

Your response is focused on "unnamed sources" and protecting sources as though my post were criticizing that.  But I write, very plainly, that in my view the real problem is many media sources publishing based on another reporter's unnamed source verbatim, without any attempt at finding their own source or verifying.

 

Apparently, you disagree that this is an issue and think it's just ducky if one reporter cites an anonymous source and every other media outlet piggybacks on it;  you're fine with and support the effect, which is that if the unnamed source is mistaken, his information gets "widely reported", misinformation gets propegated.

 

We are led to believe "Bull Buchanan" supports this and thinks "This Is Fine".

 

Nowhere did I refer to an anonymous source as "gossip" or say it has to be disregarded; I'm sure Volin has a source he thinks is reasonable.  But, since he may rely upon one source, Volin has gotten things wrong before.

 

Needless to say, I don't respect the viewpoints you apparently hold due to saying "your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with". 

Seems like it's you with the reading comprehension problem, my dear. Your backstory about the the issue isn't really an opinion.There's not much there to agree with or disagree with except "serious journalist".

Your opinions start in earnest with "Problem 1", "Problem 2", "The real problem", and your "this is fine" assertion that this is all a major problem. When it comes to problems in journalism, this isn't in the top 10.

[boyst]

3 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

So if it's become common for many farmers to live off government programs and even scam them, does that mean we should disrespect all farmers by association?

 

Personally I'll give individuals the respect I feel they deserve for they way they live their life and the principles they show by how they behave. 

depends how you view the gov programs. it's multi layered but the usda and gov controls a lot of agricultural rules to not let it be a free market - for better or for worse. that'd be a political discussion that's not allowed here.

[Orlando Tim]

Years ago I heard on a radio show, I think it was Dan Patrick, that ESPN was beat to announce that Tony Dungy was fired by the Bucs, despite having one solid source but the producer at the time did not want to risk it with it only being one source. The host of the show was upset because the source was Tony Dungy himself but the Bucs had not confirmed it. The standard is much lower now.

[GoBills808]

23 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Your final statement is the only thing in this post that I agree with. People have been beating down the door of "unnamed sources" for years to try to discredit media - specifically statements they don't like. It's ridiculous. Anyone that's close to the story and goes on record won't be close to the story for 5 minutes after it's published. If you want inside information, you have to protect your sources and sources have to protect themselves.

As to your last point, this of course means that you need to treat news like this skeptically. However, it doesn't mean it's gossip, and it doesn't mean it has to be disregarded. Even if a source was named, you should take the same approach to skepticism. People lie constantly - every single day of their lives. When they aren't lying, they're often misinterpreting what they're seeing and/or hearing. And then you take it another step further, and most people miscomprehend what they read/hear/see from journalists.

agree w this a ton

 

the 'news' hasn't 'changed' so much as the people digesting it have become dumber

[yall]

Not only the Diggs reporting (which recently had the Bills so upset that we're secretly ready to trade him) but the coverage of the Hill assault is off the charts ridiculous as well.

 

The story on PFT alone changes every 4 minutes as they are desperate to scoop themselves.

[Drew21PA]

Here’s a solution 

 

when media fabricated a story - the risk they face with damages to people they damage is very little

 

there is a need for “proof” it hurt them - false or not.  Time and time again they can do false statements in their prices and “redact” them or issue a statement but that statement is never front page saying “we messed up” sometimes it never gets printed - so really theyvhave such big lawyers and throwing around money to sue them wouldn’t do anything right now.

 

you have to prove damages - yeah well I know a lot of times reputations don’t have a price tag and - you could never prove damages for intrinsic things 

Just now, Drew21PA said:

Here’s a solution 

 

when media fabricated a story - the risk they face with damages to people they damage is very little

 

there is a need for “proof” it hurt them - false or not.  Time and time again they can do false statements in their prices and “redact” them or issue a statement but that statement is never front page saying “we messed up” sometimes it never gets printed - so really theyvhave such big lawyers and throwing around money to sue them wouldn’t do anything right now.

 

you have to prove damages - yeah well I know a lot of times reputations don’t have a price tag and - you could never prove damages for intrinsic things 

Classic example

 

matt araiza