Why do people still believe certain sports writers?

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by WPBCowboysFan

Looking for a list or making a list or having a list isnt the issue.

Its looking at each story that is reported or fabricated and evaluating it based on the evidence. In some cases there is no evidence other than what the particular writer may or may not be claiming. In some other cases the evidence doesnt support anything that a particular mediot, or group of mediots may be yapping about.

Not the issue?

OP said writers, not articles.

Just wondering who I should be on the lookout for.

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by superpunk

Your list also says nothing about the countless things those guys have gotten right. Just amplifications of the things they've gotten wrong.

1. Where is the your list of where they have been right?

2. These were just instances off the top of my head. If I dig further, I could EASILY find more.

3. They are paid TO BE RIGHT. They are not paid to be inaccurate. Sorry, that's just how it is. If they cannot be accurate and are continually questionable in their stories, I have no reason to read their work. And that's why they lost me as a customer.

It's ironic how that works on alot of fan forums. If X reporter delivers 100 stories about the team and gets 5 wrong, he is villified - particularly if he has not nice things to say about the team most of the time.

Where are the 100 things they get right?

The only guy I read is Archer.

Why?

Because he's right.

Show me the others that are right.

I'm not expecting 100% accuracy.

But, it is clear that these guys and gals don't have any interest in vetting sources properly. Otherwise they would not have such a high percentage of being wrong in their stories from 'anonymous sources.'

If you listen to an anonymous source and report something and it turns out to be wrong, that should send off signals that maybe you don't want to trust that anonymous source again.

Instead, they just keep reporting inaccurate stories quoting 'anonymous sources.' Either they don't care to vet sources or they are just making the stories up.

If Joe Plumber-Poster comes on here and pretends to know crap about the team, reveals 100 things and only gets 5 guesses right, he's a hero - particularly if he has nice things to say about the team.

Prove to me stories they got right.

These people didn't get and keep the jobs they have by being wrong all the time, as they're represented here.

They got their jobs and kept them because the editors don't care if they are wrong.

Not ONE of those stories I mentioned (again, off the top of my head) was there ONE single retraction or apology. It shows that the people in charge don't really care about accuracy or integrity of journalism.

How about the fact that leading up to Mr. Blue Suit's story on 'Owens being jealous of Witten and Romo' that for roughly 2 months prior to the story that Owens would refuse to answer any of Mr. Blue Suit's questions?

Every time he would ask Owens a question after the game, Owens would say 'no comment' and the media would laugh at Mr. Blue Suit. If there was any real integrity and protection of reporter, Mr. Blue Suit's boss would have pulled him off following the Cowboys and Owens and giving the story to somebody else to avoid possible conflict of interest.

Instead, we didn't get that.

Why?

Because they don't care about accuracy and integrity anymore.

In fact, they have been right more often than not recently in their criticisms of this team,

Pure conjecture on your part. And I'm not talking about opinions.

I'm talking about what they present as fact that turns out to be untrue.

They are far too inaccurate for their profession. I can't take them seriously because I know their agenda. And that agenda is not about honest reporting.

no matter how much it irks us while we're in offseason homer mode. The more I go along the more I realize the problem isn't with the media, it's with the thickness of our skin

.

How does the thickness of some fans' skin effect the team?

I'm more worried about the media creating undeserved distractions. I don't think it was a real problem the past 2 years, but in the Wade and Parcells era it was a problem. And quite frankly, I don't think it's right for a professional reporter to call Wade a 'fat retard' on the radio. That's just disrespectful, unprofessional and uncalled for.

We don't like what they have to say (particularly because it's been true) so we'll find whatever we can to smear them so we don't have to listen to these uncomfortable opinions.

Like our last confrontation, the main point flies over your head.

I'm not talking about opinions. You don't like the Cowboys...fine with me. I don't have to read your work.

But, I do have a problem with guys that try to report facts and are blatanly wrong like I mentioned in the post.

Lastly, you only contradict yourself when you claim people will 'smear them so we dont have to listen to these uncomfortable opinions' when you do the same thing to anybody that says good things about the team.

Personally, a writer's opinion has little to do with whether or not I read their work. It has more to do with what goes into their opinion. And the bottom line is that for most op/ed pieces by the local media, their 'uncomfortable opinions' are things I can read or hear from anybody on the street. I would rather see a more logical, intricate and accurate details behind their opinions...good or bad.

In the meantime, as long as people try to make these writers out to be martyrs, I will just keep pointing out that they are liars, hacks and woefully incompetent at their job. At least I have the proof of that.






YR

[superpunk]

That's the issue YR. You don't have proof of anything. You have a handful of random stories spread out over a few reporters up against their entire body of work. No I don't keep track of their "hits". I have better things to do, like pick my nose and analyze the boogers I pull out. You otoh seem uber-concerned with their hit-percentage. If it's low, maybe you should demonstrate that rather than rattling off a handful of stories spread out over dozens of reporters over the course of half a decade or so. Not particularly persuasive.

[Reality]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

But that is some grassy knoll stuff, my friend.

Not really. I have had writers tell me before that positive articles draw less readers than negative articles. Most writers do their best to post both positive/fluff and negative articles to avoid being stereotyped as a blind homer or a red-eyed hater.

That said, reporting the news is not the primary focus of most news media organizations. The main focus is getting people to read, listen or watch their publications. It is the same way with television shows. Networks wants viewers and care very little about how they get them. There are great TV shows that get canceled and bad TV shows that keep showing year after year. All that matters is that people are reading, listening or watching what the media is showing.

Again, I don't fault them for it. If most of us were in their shoes, we would do the same thing. If you are a sportswriter for DMN and have watched them downsize due to the rough transition from physical paper to online and have watched other sports writers before you move on to ESPN or larger media organizations, you start to worry about your future and career.

With the big shift in readers to the web, sports writers are under a bigger microscope than ever because their employers can now directly track how many people are reading their articles. Those stats are probably shared with the sports writers so they know which kinds of articles are generating the most traffic. They are going to copy the aspects of those high traffic generating articles as often as possible in their articles. Of course they will continue writing the other kinds of articles as well for dilution purposes.

There are no conspiracies in my words, only the reality of being a sports or news writer. The issue is less with the writers though and more with the readers who choose to believe everything they read as fact when much of it is conjecture. That includes the over inflated "hype" articles as well as the overly negative articles.

/reality

[Yakuza Rich]

Originally Posted by superpunk

That's the issue YR. You don't have proof of anything. You have a handful of random stories spread out over a few reporters up against their entire body of work. No I don't keep track of their "hits". I have better things to do, like pick my nose and analyze the boogers I pull out. You otoh seem uber-concerned with their hit-percentage. If it's low, maybe you should demonstrate that rather than rattling off a handful of stories spread out over dozens of reporters over the course of half a decade or so. Not particularly persuasive.

Soooo, you can't prove anything.

How about Steve Dennis obnoxiously trying to get Wade to call the team a bunch of losers in '09?

Or the 'get your ring ready' article that Mac Engel wrote when even hacks like Matt Mosely and Calvin Watkins said it was woefully taken out of context. And when confronted on it, Mac played deaf and dumb and claimed he couldn't hear the crazy fan yelling constantly at Wade to 'get your ring finger ready!'

I have and you just refuse to admit it. Obviously, no matter how many cases I prove of their nonsense, you will just refuse to cop to the fact that the Dallas media is a haven for hacks and liars.

Sorry, these guys are supposed to be very accurate. They're not. That's a problem. It's even a worse problem when they are blatantly inaccurate and don't have a care to ever improve their accuracy.

I hate to tell you this, but I do not care if somebody writes negative opinions about the team. I really don't have to read it. I don't have a financial investment in the team.

I just want something of substance. And for everytime they focus on TMZ style of reporting, they just neglect the truly important stories of the team that are a reflection of their play.







YR

[burmafrd]

Originally Posted by superpunk

That's the issue YR. You don't have proof of anything. You have a handful of random stories spread out over a few reporters up against their entire body of work. No I don't keep track of their "hits". I have better things to do, like pick my nose and analyze the boogers I pull out. You otoh seem uber-concerned with their hit-percentage. If it's low, maybe you should demonstrate that rather than rattling off a handful of stories spread out over dozens of reporters over the course of half a decade or so. Not particularly persuasive.

entire body of work? Frankly most of that body of work you seem so proud of stinks.


I am old enough to remember when sportswriters admitted when they got something wrong. Because back then they had pride in what they did and just as importantly they had editors that let them know when they screwed up.

You clearly have a much lower standard then I do.

[WPBCowboysFan]

Originally Posted by Hoofbite

Not the issue?

OP said writers, not articles.

Just wondering who I should be on the lookout for.

Well, what do writers write?

As usual you miss it . . . . . . . . .

[superpunk]

Originally Posted by Yakuza Rich

Soooo, you can't prove anything.

I have and you just refuse to admit it. Obviously, no matter how many cases I prove of their nonsense, you will just refuse to cop to the fact that the Dallas media is a haven for hacks and liars.

No, what you've done is post less than two handfuls of stories you've deemed "wrong". You haven't compared that to their total body of work and seen if they come out poorly or not. If you wanted to get really crazy you could then contrast their "success rate" with reporters you actually respect.

Or you could just keep pointlessly bellyaching about how constantly wrong they are with no proof except for a handful of cherry-picked stories, and come up with more nicknames for them that make no sense. All you've done is go "these guys were wrong these couple times bawwwwwwwwwwww".

You've come up with what now? 10 stories? Across five or so reporters, over the course of YEARS. So we're talking 10 or so out of what - THOUSANDS? Give me a break with you've proved something.

[blindzebra]

Looks like my ignore list is going to fill up again.

Same posters, saying the same crap, ruining every thread.

[TwoDeep3]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Looks like my ignore list is going to fill up again.

Same posters, saying the same crap, ruining every thread.

Please add me to that list. If you are so sensitive that you cannot stomach both sides of the coin, then frankly you don't deserve to read my wisdom.

[Doomsay]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Looks like my ignore list is going to fill up again.

Same posters, saying the same crap, ruining every thread.

How can a thread with a premise that all members and reporters that don't agree with the OP's judgement of truth and propriety, be ruined in the first place?

[Hoofbite]

Originally Posted by WPBCowboysFan

Well, what do writers write?

As usual you miss it . . . . . . . . .

Dismissing an article means you choose not to take the single article serious.

Dismissing the writer means you do that for all of that writer's articles.

I'm assuming you knew this already but just choosing to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

This thread is about writers, not articles. Welcome.

[Dhragon]

Sports reporting has gone the way of the National Inquirer, it's true.

Reporters will report an opinion or rumor as fact to garner interest. They will embellish the story to make it more interesting. Most will stick to the facts if the facts are there to be had, but since they usually aren't, they fill in the blanks with what they THINK are the facts but don't differentiate the two.

All articles are a buyer beware type situation. Doesn't mean they are useless, just not gospel. They can still be used on forums to backup one's own opinions. Just know that the "facts" in the articles are probably more opinion then fact themselves.

[Alexander]

Originally Posted by Dhragon

All articles are a buyer beware type situation. Doesn't mean they are useless, just not gospel. They can still be used on forums to backup one's own opinions. Just know that the "facts" in the articles are probably more opinion then fact themselves.

Nonsense.

It is just more practical to whine about how they have all lost their integrity and paint each one with a broad brush that discredits practically everything they write--unless it agrees with someone's opinion which is decidedly positive.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by Alexander

Nonsense.

It is just more practical to whine about how they have all lost their integrity and paint each one with a broad brush that discredits practically everything they write--unless it agrees with someone's opinion which is decidedly positive.

I think this post is as close to the truth as anything that has been posted.