ESPN looks crushed.

[5Stars]

here is my two cents, take it for what it's worth.....

being a member of the media myself i understand how things work and how every reporter/station/network works an angle. i honestly dont think werder has an ax to grind and no way he flat-out lied and made his report up. that is unethical to the max. imo, he probably did get a few players to say things "off the record", hence the un-named sources, and ran with it. any good journalist would be able to get his "sources" to speak on camera, werder could not, and was forced to sensationalize the story. i dont buy into sensationalistic journalism....never have, never will. it's just not me. do your homework, get confirmation, and report the facts. plain and simple. werder did not do the last 2.

i also never bought into the "espn is out to get the cowboys" either. but......they blew the whole TO VS WITTEN story waaaaaay overboard. i was so angry watching espn last night...i had to stop watching. they are suppose to give in-depth anaylysis and their "experts" are paid to give opinions......but to run the "ticker" and the bottom the the screen "witten targeted 9 times.....owens targeted 5 times"......that was just bs. it was obvious there was no story between romo,to,witten after the game and espn tried to make it a story...irresponsible journalism. the story was how the dallas defense dominated the game, end of story. yet espn ignored it, and tried of continue the "drama"

very bad decision making last night espn producers.

just an opinion from a member of the "evil media"

Excellent post!!

I just wish the shills and sheep of the media would understand this!

Cue, tyke, bbgun...your up!


:laugh2:

 

[tyke1doe]

Excellent post!!

I just wish the shills and sheep of the media would understand this!

Cue, tyke, bbgun...your up!


:laugh2:

You're late as always.

See my above comments.

And try to keep up - that tricycle just aint cutting it anymore. Try a motorcycle.

 

[5Stars]

Sorry, but that's not necessarily true. Whenever it involves negative information, you rarely get players to talk or the organization for that matter.

Finally! You are so busted, bro! Now you understand what us shills are talking about, right? Negative news!

I knew you would talk your way into a trap! Nice reporting! bbgun will be proud of you!!


:laugh2:

 

[5Stars]

You're late as always.

See my above comments.

And try to keep up - that tricycle just aint cutting it anymore. Try a motorcycle.

I had to go workout. I don't sit behind a desk with an evil pencil planning my next "negative angle" for my boss while all the time getting fat and trying to avoid a heart attack.

 

[BigR]

Sorry, but that's not necessarily true. Whenever it involves negative information, you rarely get players to talk or the organization for that matter.

Many stories in sports are broken via anonymous sources, later to be confirmed with a press conference or some other public interview. And the story DID receive on-air confirmation in the "miminizing" interviews from Wade Phillips, Jason Witten, Tony Romo, Brady James and others.

Second, you may be in journalism, but are you in national journalism, working for a national/international organization?
Local stations and local newspapers have a different perspective with respect to anonymous sources. A paper I used to work for hardly EVER used anonymous sources. Of course, that paper never broken news stories first and maybe that's a reason why.

But for national newspapers and networks, their reporters are judged on their ability to cultivate sources - people who can give them inside information and allow them to break that news story FIRST.

Anonymous sources and their use may be different from network to network and publication to publication, but if you're one of the BIG DOGS, you rely on them regularly and expect your reporters to have such contacts, or you won't be working for those media operations long.



A few points.

1. The no story behind Romo, T.O. and Witten after the game because the Cowboys won. But the backdrop of the night was what preceded the game during the week.

2. It is YOUR OPINION that the story should have been the Dallas Defense Dominated the Game. But that would have been at the expense of ignoring the story prior to the game. And ESPN did not ignore that story. ESPN has different venues to handle that story ... The Blitz, NFL Live, Around the Horn, PTI, etc.

3. Remember ESPN's name ENTERTAINMENT Sports Programming Network. A part of their mission is to provide the entertainment aspect of sports programming as well as the stats part of sports. The "drama" fits into its mission. You may not like it. And that is your choice. For people like you, you will gravitate to sites like this or blogs that provide more indepth analysis on football. But ESPN's viewers are expecting the human stories behind sports.
And this is very much a human story - the attitude within the locker room and how players feel about one another.

Having said that, thank you for your opinion, bro in the cause.

i do not work national, but i did cover an nfl team for 4 years and i still cover one of the biggest college basketball programs in the nation, so i have a little insight on how the national media works. there was never any solid confirmation of what happened. until you have confirmation, you dont air it b/c it can blow up in your face. good reporters get stories confirmed...period.


you can say the TO, romo witten issue became a non-story because dallas won and you are right. but that is how tv news works...stories change and you go with the new story. the drama was no longer the story, you said it yourself....espn needed to stop pursueing it and go with the new story.


espn and werder went for ratings at the expense of solid journalism. was there a major story there? probably, but these guys are the "big dogs" and they should have done a better job presenting the facts instead of sensationalizing the story.

 

[tyke1doe]

Finally! You are so busted, bro! Now you understand what us shills are talking about, right? Negative news!

I knew you would talk your way into a trap! Nice reporting! bbgun will be proud of you!!


:laugh2:

Talk myself into a trap?

I've said that all along. Why do you think people become anonymous sources? Because the information they leak is going to be negative to someone, and they want to protect themselves.

But negative stories aren't necessarily evil stories. I would want to know if a private company is poisoning the water even if it is negative.

As a follower of the Cowboys, I would want to know whether teammates are getting along even if that's negative.

Sorry, but you're going to have to stay two steps ahead of me. I don't craft my position on the fly just for this board. My perspective comes from years of experience.

 

[tomson75]

i do not work national, but i did cover an nfl team for 4 years and i still cover one of the biggest college basketball programs in the nation, so i have a little insight on how the national media works. there was never any solid confirmation of what happened. until you have confirmation, you dont air it b/c it can blow up in your face. good reporters get stories confirmed...period.


you can say the TO, romo witten issue became a non-story because dallas won and you are right. but that is how tv news works...stories change and you go with the new story. the drama was no longer the story, you said it yourself....espn needed to stop pursueing it and go with the new story.


espn and werder went for ratings at the expense of solid journalism. was there a major story there? probably, but these guys are the "big dogs" and they should have done a better job presenting the facts instead of sensationalizing the story.

:signmast:

Werder damn near pissed himself when he got a little nugget of negativity regarding TO and he jumped the gun.

It backfired.

 

[jobberone]

i do not work national, but i did cover an nfl team for 4 years and i still cover one of the biggest college basketball programs in the nation, so i have a little insight on how the national media works. there was never any solid confirmation of what happened. until you have confirmation, you dont air it b/c it can blow up in your face. good reporters get stories confirmed...period.


you can say the TO, romo witten issue became a non-story because dallas won and you are right. but that is how tv news works...stories change and you go with the new story. the drama was no longer the story, you said it yourself....espn needed to stop pursueing it and go with the new story.


espn and werder went for ratings at the expense of solid journalism. was there a major story there? probably, but these guys are the "big dogs" and they should have done a better job presenting the facts instead of sensationalizing the story.

Solid stuff. Good to hear there are decent reporters out there. We get so biased listening to the 'big dogs' we tend to forget the vast majority are good people with solid ethics.

 

[5Stars]

Talk myself into a trap?

I've said that all along. Why do you think people become anonymous sources? Because the information they leak is going to be negative to someone, and they want to protect themselves.

But negative stories aren't necessarily evil stories. I would want to know if a private company is poisoning the water even if it is negative.

As a follower of the Cowboys, I would want to know whether teammates are getting along even if that's negative.

Sorry, but you're going to have to stay two steps ahead of me. I don't craft my position on the fly just for this board. My perspective comes from years of experience.

You are starting to swim backwards also, just like ESPN.

If they are so right and everyone else is so wrong, why are they still trying to spin their way out of it. Sound familiar to you, huh? You have YEARS of experience so I'm sure you can understand, right?

Circular logic never ends...you only make yourself dizzy, negative news boy!


Oh, as for me? I could give a rats *** how many players get into a tussel on a weekly basis. I have no need for that. It does nothing for me as opposed to you media "angle" reporters. Why? Because it happens 100 times a week throughout the NFL, Cowboys included...so no big deal. However, I can see why you would like to know...I mean, hey, you can give your boss something to insure you keep your job eventhough it's negative, irresponsible, and somewhat embarassing news which happens to not be as true as ESPN reported it to be.

Sharpen that pencil, geek, and get to work! There are fights out there that need reporting...whether they exist or not!

 

[tyke1doe]

i do not work national, but i did cover an nfl team for 4 years and i still cover one of the biggest college basketball programs in the nation, so i have a little insight on how the national media works. there was never any solid confirmation of what happened. until you have confirmation, you dont air it b/c it can blow up in your face. good reporters get stories confirmed...period.

I would say the goal of a good reporter is to get a story confirmed. But confirmation can come in a couple of ways.

1. It can come with an on-the-record source. That's the most preferred way so I don't disagree with you there.

2. It can come off the record. But if it's off-the-record, it has to be confirmed by at least two to three trustworthy people, even if they too don't reveal their identity. That's probably what ESPN and many insiders do. And sometimes the media organization has to stand on its own reputation even if it can't reveal the sources or can't provide on-the-record confirmation. It's not preferrable but it happens.

I would offer that the story was confirmed on the record. As I stated before, several members of the Cowboys staff acknowledged that there was a rift and that there were hard feelings among players.

you can say the TO, romo witten issue became a non-story because dallas won and you are right. but that is how tv news works...stories change and you go with the new story. the drama was no longer the story, you said it yourself....espn needed to stop pursueing it and go with the new story.

But television news, as well as print news, also wraps up a story. Let's assume that ESPN shifted directly to the coverage of the game without any mention of the dispute.
Don't you think its viewers would be wondering ... what about the so-called split?
I think it would have been an incomplete part of the cycle not to address an issue its reporter brought to light.

espn and werder went for ratings at the expense of solid journalism. was there a major story there? probably, but these guys are the "big dogs" and they should have done a better job presenting the facts instead of sensationalizing the story.

Look, I bemoan the good old days just as much as you do. I wish people's personal lives (politicians, movie stars, singers, athletes) weren't a part of continuous news coverage. I don't care about Britney Spears and what she does with her spare time.

However, the way I would prefer it isn't necessarily the way it is. We live in a tabloid age. Dems da facts.

I recognize that. I wish T.O. would recognize that. But he doesn't.

And as long as he makes himself a "celebrity" by constantly talking about himself, promoting his books, showing his abs and giving people an intimate glimpse into his life, then he's going to have to take the bad that goes along with that.

P.S. Good to have a nice discussion with someone for a change - one not marked by insults and sarcasm.

Peace, bro in the profession.

 

[tomson75]

Yes, thank God I am nothing like you. Optimism, forgiveness, and general human decency are apparently your magnetic opposites.

Ouch.

 

[jobberone]

......large snip.......

P.S. Good to have a nice discussion with someone for a change - one not marked by insults and sarcasm.

Peace, bro in the profession.

If it's so nice then why don't you stop with the personal attacks and insults. You can't have it both ways. You didn't insult me but you've been getting your shots even when you haven't been hit back.

 

[bbgun]

I said you claimed to put me on ignore. But, obviously you lied..

I said no one's on ignore at present. I thought maybe you had morphed into a regular human being. My bad.

I took potshots at obvious trolls. Those who come in during a loss, criticize, and then disappear. Unlike yourself, who does it incessantly no matter the time and is generally well known for it on this forum.

So you didn't take any shots at the team, even after a game like that. A game in which many deserved to be excoriated. Can't believe I called you a shill. What was I thinking??

Alas, the extreme positions you criticize others with is just a reflection of your own extremism. Existence is a mirror that reflects oneself.

You're delivering a sermon on extremism? It is to laugh. Let's just say my "rare" positive posts far outnumber your criticisms--which pop up as often as the cicadas.

It's not hard to post vintage Cowboys pics. Perhaps you're a closet Skins fan who's hatred of their arch rival has caused your obsession with them. In fact, you seem to fit the psychiatric profile to a tee.

Yep, I'm diabolical all right, but you saw right through it! Kudos.

Yes, thank God I am nothing like you. Optimism, forgiveness, and general human decency are apparently your magnetic opposites

Well, I like women, so ...

 

[tyke1doe]

You are starting to swim backwards also, just like ESPN.

If they are so right and everyone else is so wrong, why are they still trying to spin their way out of it. Sound familiar to you, huh? You have YEARS of experience so I'm sure you can understand, right?

Circular logic never ends...you only make yourself dizzy, negative news boy!

I'm not dizzy. But I can understand how this discussion has you confused.

You make logical leaps and introduce straw men. You apparently don't have a systematic understanding of journalism, which is why you're so confused. I don't fault you. Experience gives people insight in areas that inexperience can't.

Let me see if I can explain it more clearly.

1. I am addressing the industry in general and practices of the industry.
To the extent that ESPN follows those practices is the extent to which I defend it.

2. I am defending the use of anonymous sources. I don't know whether a source lied to Werder or not. You don't know whether his source lied. I don't know his sources. You don't know his sources. But I know the practice behind anonymous sources.

3. I have not said that ESPN is always right and everyone else is always wrong. That's your straw man. In fact, I've acknowledged in other threads that ESPN does highlight the sensational story. But I don't place an overall judgment value on that like others do, i.e., SENSATIONAL STORIES, BAD; NON-SENSATIONAL STORIES, GOOD just as I don't put a judgment value on anonymous sources, i.e., ANONYMOUS SOURCES, GOOD; ANONYMOUS SOURCES, BAD.
That's subjective. We'll never agree on that because your perception may be different than mine. But one thing I do know is this: There are rules that govern the use of anonymous sources. That is indisputable regardless whether you think those rules should exist or not.

4. The substance of Werder's story was accurate. And that was confirmed.

5. The media's job is not to determine whether a story is positive or negative, but to simply tell the story. You play some kind of "gotcha" game because you seem to be under the impression that the media has to do positive stories. Says who? The media does stories. To some, they are positive. To others, they are negative.

None of what I'm saying is circular reasoning. In fact, what I've articulated above is linear logic. I wish you guys would stop using terms you apply inappropriately. But I know how Internet debates go - throw out terms you've heard previously with no regard to their application.

Oh, as for me? I could give a rats *** how many players get into a tussel on a weekly basis. I have no need for that. It does nothing for me as opposed to you media "angle" reporters. Why? Because it happens 100 times a week throughout the NFL, Cowboys included...so no big deal. However, I can see why you would like to know...I mean, hey, you can give your boss something to insure you keep your job eventhough it's negative, irresponsible, and somewhat embarassing news which happens to not be as true as ESPN reported it to be.

Sharpen that pencil, geek, and get to work! There are fights out there that need reporting...whether they exist or not!

You might not care, but others do. In fact, I'd say the people who drive ESPN's ratings care. And even as you and other Cowboys fans say you don't care, it's interesting that I see numerous posts from Cowboys fans swearing that this is the last time they're going to listen to ESPN, Skip Bayless, read the Dallas Morning News or the Little Ball of Hate.

Yet they keep on watching and reading and posting. Do you think ESPN, DMN, FWST, et al. don't monitor this forum and see the traffic generated by their stories?

As for embarrassing, embarrassing to whom? ESPN will weather this storm just like CBS weathered the Dan Rather controversy several years back. And this doesn't even compare to that situation.

If you don't want to watch ESPN, fine. I'm not asking you to do so. In fact, ever since I got DirecTV, I don't watch ESPN nearly as much as I watch the NFL Network.

But this isn't about ESPN for me. It's about articulating and explaining the issue of anonymous sourcing.

 

[tyke1doe]

If it's so nice then why don't you stop with the personal attacks and insults. You can't have it both ways. You didn't insult me but you've been getting your shots even when you haven't been hit back.

I only personally attack others when they bring it first. Check the record. Go back and read every post I've offered and see where snide comments come in.

If I've made an initial snide comment, it was a general one or one aimed at the subject and not an individual poster.

I am more than willing, and to be quite honest, prefer, a civil conversation.

But I also like giving disrespectful posters a taste of their own medicine. Don't start nutin' with me, won't be nutin.

 

[jobberone]

I only personally attack others when they bring it first. Check the record. Go back and read every post I've offered and see where snide comments come in.

If I've made an initial snide comment, it was a general one or one aimed at the subject and not an individual poster.

I am more than willing, and to be quite honest, prefer, a civil conversation.

But I also like giving disrespectful posters a taste of their own medicine. Don't start nutin' with me, won't be nutin.

I don't see it that way with one poster but you can have the last comment.

 

[tomson75]

Well, I like women, so ...

Shallow, but funny nonetheless.

*My unyielding need to provide unnecessary commentary in situations like this is becoming alarming.*

 

[SultanOfSix]

I said no one's on ignore at present. I thought maybe you had morphed into a regular human being. My bad.

Well I said, in my first response, that you said you were putting me on ignore a while ago. And I said in my second response, that since this was not the case as you thus rightly stated in the above, that you were a liar.

So you didn't take any shots at the team, even after a game like that. A game in which many deserved to be excoriated. Can't believe I called you a shill. What was I thinking??

Note to people with logical and rational parts of their brain. The absence of me applying criticism to the team after a single game does not in anyway imply notions of all-inclusiveness, terms such as "always" or "never", that bbgun repeatedly uses to attack his critics with, those whom he labels as "shills" or other such derogatory terms.

In addition, there is absolutely no correlation between me taking potshots at trolls and my criticism, or assumed lack thereof, of the team.

You're delivering a sermon on extremism? It is to laugh. Let's just say my "rare" positive posts far outnumber your criticisms--which pop up as often as the cicadas.

Are you willing prove that, or do you just like to talk out of your ***?

Yep, I'm diabolical all right, but you saw right through it! Kudos.

Note to people with reading comprehension skills. The term "diabolical" is in no way implied by the accusation that one is mentally insane or obsessed.

Well, I like women, so ...

Eeew! Mommy, mommy. Did the big old meanie take a shot at my sexuality?

Yes, he did son. It's right up there with nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't see it that way with one poster but you can have the last comment.

Which posters?

I've had a feud with three posters in particular: Roadrunner, Givincer and SultonofSix.

Please note the exchange from my initial comments not even addressed to them. And note how they quote my comment, which indicate their comments are addressed towards me.

EXAMPLE #1

Wrong about what?

Our sources of the players and coaches contradict the reports of Werder's "anonymous" sources. Take the blinders off and do the math. Quotable sources trumps anonymous cowards any day of the week.

Why not make the statement without the "Take the blinders off and do the math" comment.
His point would have been made without the personal implication that I'm blind and can't see.

EXAMPLE #2

When the Cowboys do good on the field = good news coverage. When they do bad on the field (and off) = bad news coverage.

Are those complicated equations something you learn in becoming a reporter?

That model sure does not explain what took place on ESPN after our game today. Good play on the field did not = good news coverage.

So basically he's trying to insult my intelligence as a reporter. Why not just offer the second sentence without the first?

So, you see, I was attacked first. Now, I don't mind because I'm fully capable of defending myself. But as you can see, I didn't start it. I merely was either asking a question of someone else or engaging in a conversation with someone else when two posters decided to become snide with me.

I merely returned the favor.

As for SultanofSix, our disagreement happened in another post so I won't bother to look it up. But it took a similar path after I defended the use of anonymous sources. He didn't like that so he starts attacking my "circular reasoning" and then I started to tell him he doesn't even know what he's talking about and commented about how children like to use adult phrases without any understanding of their correct application.

That's how it starts, at least with me.

Now if you show me where I started attacking personally first, I'll gladly offer an apology to you and whomever I attacked first.

 

[Draegerman]

I only personally attack others when they bring it first. Check the record. Go back and read every post I've offered and see where snide comments come in.

If I've made an initial snide comment, it was a general one or one aimed at the subject and not an individual poster.

I am more than willing, and to be quite honest, prefer, a civil conversation.

But I also like giving disrespectful posters a taste of their own medicine. Don't start nutin' with me, won't be nutin.

Not wanting to drag myself into this discussion, I do feel that it's necessary to back tyke1doe up on this statement. I have never seen him attack another poster on a personal level unless he was attacked first.

Now back to "peanut gallery mode"...