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

[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 Buffalo]

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