Just one question for everyone

[tyke1doe]

Agreed, and ESPN smelled blood in the water after the Pacman injury and Barber called out by Jerry stuff and they ignored previously stated policies and ran with it despite "unnamed sources."

In other words what I said all along, sensationalism.

I've never denied sensationalism. I agree that ESPN sensationalizes stories. I don't think they make it up, but I do think they put added emphasis on some points more than others.

The networks and national newspapers have more of a tendency for that type of journalism than local television stations and newspapers.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Agreed, and ESPN smelled blood in the water after the Pacman injury and Barber called out by Jerry stuff and they ignored previously stated policies and ran with it despite "unnamed sources."

In other words what I said all along, sensationalism.

I guess I'm not following here. So you don't think anything bad has happened there? You think the argument between Witten and TO didn't take place yesterday? Didn't I see TO's agent on ESPN trying to downplay this as TO just wanting the ball more because Witten isn't the only guy getting open?

I'm sure Werder, and ESPN, blew it up to make it worse than it initially was but I have no doubt that there is an issue here and I've got a feeling that Garrett said he called the meetings in order to try and defuse a situation before it started and it failed to work.

 

[Hostile]

I've never denied sensationalism. I agree that ESPN sensationalizes stories. I don't think they make it up, but I do think they put added emphasis on some points more than others.

The networks and national newspapers have more of a tendency for that type of journalism than local television stations and newspapers.

Then riddle me this tyke. If people realize ESPN is sensationalizing this, why are you and some others so pissed at people who are not buying it?

 

[dcfanatic]

Sorry, no sale. With Brad Johnson at QB there would be no story.

I don't care who the sources were. That is irrelevant. Garrett asked the WRs to come meet with him. That is per Garrett and all 3 WRs.

Where are these comments about the meetings where it states that Garrett called the meetings?

He said he had an open door policy and they took him up on it.

And he did so because he saw T.O. going nuts on the sideline during the Steelers game.

 

[Hostile]

I guess I'm not following here. So you don't think anything bad has happened there? You think the argument between Witten and TO didn't take place yesterday? Didn't I see TO's agent on ESPN trying to downplay this as TO just wanting the ball more because Witten isn't the only guy getting open?

I'm sure Werder, and ESPN, blew it up to make it worse than it initially was but I have no doubt that there is an issue here and I've got a feeling that Garrett said he called the meetings in order to try and defuse a situation before it started and it failed to work.

I think it is being made worse than anything that is really there. You said it in the last paragraph. Why is it so hard for you to accept that I feel it is a bunch of crap too?

I bet TO thinks Tony Romo is the best QB he has played with except maybe Steve Young and respects the guy immensely. I bet Tony knows this and I bet the team knows it. That's why the "team meeting" only lasted 30 minutes.

This is much ado about nothing. Nothing.

 

[Hostile]

Where are these comments about the meetings where it states that Garrett called the meetings?

He said he had an open door policy and they took him up on it.

And he did so because he saw T.O. going nuts on the sideline during the Steelers game.

Crayton said it. Garrett said it. Roy said it in a video on DC.com. You posted where TO said it.

Suddenly it didn't? Come on.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I think it is being made worse than anything that is really there. You said it in the last paragraph. Why is it so hard for you to accept that I feel it is a bunch of crap too?

I bet TO thinks Tony Romo is the best QB he has played with except maybe Steve Young and respects the guy immensely. I bet Tony knows this and I bet the team knows it. That's why the "team meeting" only lasted 30 minutes.

This is much ado about nothing. Nothing.

I sure hope so. But if that argument between Witten and Owens happened then this is certainly not a much ado about nothing. That's the kind of BS that divides a team and isn't needed. I certainly hope that stuff didn't happen, and I'll be the first to admit that maybe none of that actually happened and i have no issue admitting that cause I wasn't there myself.

But it's troublesome, none the less, that this potentially did happen.

 

[Hostile]

I sure hope so. But if that argument between Witten and Owens happened then this is certainly not a much ado about nothing. That's the kind of BS that divides a team and isn't needed. I certainly hope that stuff didn't happen, and I'll be the first to admit that maybe none of that actually happened and i have no issue admitting that cause I wasn't there myself.

But it's troublesome, none the less, that this potentially did happen.

Dude, people argue. Even on a team.

 

[tyke1doe]

Then riddle me this tyke. If people realize ESPN is sensationalizing this, why are you and some others so pissed at people who are not buying it?

I'm not pissed that people aren't buying it. I'm pissed (I'm not really but I'll use your word) that people aren't balanced in their approach.

It's one thing to say ESPN is sensationalizing stories.
It's another to say that they are making everything up.

It's one thing to say a broadcast organization or newspaper shouldn't use "unnamed sources" if at all possible.
It's another to say Werder and ESPN fabricates unnamed sources.

It's one thing to say all teams have conflict.
It's another to say that what T.O. is doing is the same as what every other prima donna receiver does.

That's my only beef in this discussion. It's not an all-or-nothing with me.

But some fans here think if you somehow believe Werder was telling the truth somehow you're anti-Cowboy or if you try to explain to people why publications/stations use anonymous sources somehow you're guilty of being in bed with ESPN.

We all have different perspectives and see things differently. We can do that and still be Cowboys fans.

 

[dcfanatic]

Crayton said it. Garrett said it. Roy said it in a video on DC.com. You posted where TO said it.

Suddenly it didn't? Come on.

Garrett never said anything.

I have said the same thing about the meetings since the beginning. Since I heard Irvin on GAC.

[youtube]9sIqUc5Prdo[/youtube]
-----------------------------------------

So Garrett sees the outburst and says we can talk.

Simple.

People have to stop acting like Garrett called these meetings because he was feeling the same way as the WR's about the pass distribution. If anything he sensed that the WR's were getting nutty and said let me handle this thing before it blows up.

 

[Hostile]

I'm not pissed that people aren't buying it. I'm pissed (I'm not really but I'll use your word) that people aren't balanced in their approach.

It's one thing to say ESPN is sensationalizing stories.
It's another to say that they are making everything up.

It's one thing to say a broadcast organization or newspaper shouldn't use "unnamed sources" if at all possible.
It's another to say Werder and ESPN fabricates unnamed sources.

It's one thing to say all teams have conflict.
It's another to say that what T.O. is doing is the same as what every other prima donna receiver does.

That's my only beef in this discussion. It's not an all-or-nothing with me.

But some fans here think if you somehow believe Werder was telling the truth somehow you're anti-Cowboy or if you try to explain to people why publications/stations use anonymous sources somehow you're guilty of being in bed with ESPN.

We all have different perspectives and see things differently. We can do that and still be Cowboys fans.

You lose me on this tyke. Let's do the math here.

There were stories that Favre called the Lions to tell them Green Bay secrets. ESPN doesn't run the stories saying they don't cite "unnamed sources."

TO quits answering Werder's questions. Instead saying "next question."

You admit this could cause Werder to relish reporting something negative.

Romo comes back. Cowboys start winning. There are no stones to throw.

Cowboys fall apart at Pittsburgh. Romo throws a pick intended for Witten.

All of the sudden Werder has a story about TO having issues with exactly those two guys. With ESPN citing "unnamed sources" though they do nto run sotries with "unnamed sources."

People here who follow every single story, see the connection. Of course they are going to think much of this is made up.

One last thing, regarding the bold statement above. The feedback directed by cynics at "homers" is every bit as rude. They get called all kinds of names and accused of being on players jocks. So spare me the woe is me drama.

Fair enough?

 

[dcfanatic]

Dude, people argue. Even on a team.

LOL. We have been arguing for like 12 hours on here and we are on the same team.

As a matter of fact.

We just about did an episode of 'DCFanatic Radio: The text edition', lol.

 

[Hostile]

Garrett never said anything.

I have said the same thing about the meetings since the beginning. Since I heard Irvin on GAC.

[youtube]9sIqUc5Prdo[/youtube]
-----------------------------------------

So Garrett sees the outburst and says we can talk.

Simple.

People have to stop acting like Garrett called these meetings because he was feeling the same way as the WR's about the pass distribution. If anything he sensed that the WR's were getting nutty and said let me handle this thing before it blows up.

I see it differently. Sorry, no sale. Buy it all you want. You can stop trying to convince me. You flat out can't. You are not capable of it. I wouldn't buy the "sinister TO is a villain" version of this with a gun to my head. I am simply not that naive.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Dude, people argue. Even on a team.

Ok. Great. They argue. I guess that means that just like when people argue at a regular job everything is always just fine and hunky dory afterwards...oh, wait...no it doesn't always turn out that way.

I'm sure this will turn out to be nothing, I certainly hope it does not, but these kinds of things should be avoided at all costs because they don't ALWAYS just go away after the argument is over.

I'm sure when Owens and Trotter got into their 'argument' some one in Philly thought it would just go away too. Worked out really well for Philly in that situation. I'm just hoping it doesn't happen that way here but I'm faithful that it won't be allowed to get that far.

 

[Hostile]

LOL. We have been arguing for like 12 hours on here and we are on the same team.

As a matter of fact.

We just about did an episode of 'DCFanatic Radio: The text edition', lol.

You got it amigo.

Anyone who thinks you and I are mad at each other doesn't know either of us.

 

[Hostile]

Ok. Great. They argue. I guess that means that just like when people argue at a regular job everything is always just fine and hunky dory afterwards...oh, wait...no it doesn't always turn out that way.

I'm sure this will turn out to be nothing, I certainly hope it does not, but these kinds of things should be avoided at all costs because they don't ALWAYS just go away after the argument is over.

I'm sure when Owens and Trotter got into their 'argument' some one in Philly thought it would just go away too. Worked out really well for Philly in that situation. I'm just hoping it doesn't happen that way here but I'm faithful that it won't be allowed to get that far.

Then why bother questioning me on it?

Seriously.

 

[tyke1doe]

You lose me on this tyke. Let's do the math here.

There were stories that Favre called the Lions to tell them Green Bay secrets. ESPN doesn't run the stories saying they don't cite "unnamed sources."

TO quits answering Werder's questions. Instead saying "next question."

You admit this could cause Werder to relish reporting something negative.

Romo comes back. Cowboys start winning. There are no stones to throw.

Cowboys fall apart at Pittsburgh. Romo throws a pick intended for Witten.

All of the sudden Werder has a story about TO having issues with exactly those two guys.

People here who follow every single story, see the connection. Of course they are going to think much of this is made up.

One last thing, regarding the bold statement above. The feedback directed by cynics at "homers" is every bit as rude. They get called all kinds of names and accused of being on players jocks. So spare me the woe is me drama.

Fair enough?

With regards to your first point, I don't think ESPN said it doesn't accept "unnamed sources." I think its policy is that it doesn't accept ANOTHER NETWORK'S unnamed sources. Big difference.
Moreover, I think FOX's unnamed source was a single source. And based on my understanding of journalism and anonymous sourcing, even anonymous sourcing has to be verified by at least two or three other sources.

Second, of course stories are timed. I remember when George W. first ran for president and the New York Times sat on the story about his DUI in Maine (I think) until about a few days before the election.

Was the timing questionable? Yes.
Was the story true? Yes, because apparently The New York Times had a police report (I'm going by recollections here).

I never said people can't be suspicious about stories. But being suspicious and denying any validity to those stories are too separate issues.

Third, I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I was engaging in woe is me drama. I was just addressing a general observation. The attacks don't bother me because I'm not thin-skinned, and I give as good as I take. If I have been attacked, I respond accordingly. If a person is being civil and interested in true discussion, then that's what they'll get from me.
But I will agree with you that those on my side of the issue can be flame-throwers too.

 

[bbgun]

When the story first broke, fans rushed to declare Werder a "liar" and a "hack." When more details became available, all but corroborating Werder's take, the new (but not improved) talking point was that he was guilty of "sensationalism." Proof? Zilch, unless you accept "BSPN" prejudice as evidence.

 

[Hostile]

When the story first broke, fans rushed to declare Werder a "liar" and a "hack." When more details became available, all but corroborating Werder's take, the new (but not improved) talking point was that he was guilty of "sensationalism." Proof? Zilch, unless you accept "BSPN" prejudice as evidence.

Every writer and talking head in America has been called hack on this forum at one time or another.

It isn't at all curious who you backed in this drama.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Then why bother questioning me on it?

Seriously.

*Looks around*

Lets see...monitor...keyboard...mouse...internet...yes, yes I do believe this is still a forum, online, meant for discussion.

Sorry I bothered to discuss something though. I didn't realise if we had a differing opinion that it meant people were crucifying you for simply stating their side on it, or a different thought on it.

I'll make sure not to do that again.


Jesus, people get so anal on here. Like I give a crap if you, or anyone else, changes their mind on something. I didn't know that was a requirement for discussion.