Michael Irvin Show: Recap: Stephen A. Smith on T.O. and Ed Werder

[Maikeru-sama]

Stephen A. Smith on Terrell Owens and Ed Werder

Stephen A. Smith - Terrell Owens is honest and he is sensitive. He is honest and not a liar

Stephen A. Smith - I have been disturbed by people talking about Terrell Owens as if he is in trouble off the field

Stephen A. Smith - I was critical of Terrell Owens in the past as well as Donovan McNabb

Stephen A. Smith - Terrell Owens is entitled to his opinion. T.O. could be telling the truth but that doesn't make Ed Werder look bad.

Smith - Ed Werder is only as good as his sources. At the end of the day, someone told Ed Werder what he wrote, he didn't make it up. People in the Cowboys lockerroom need to be looking at each other and not Ed Werder.

Kevin Kiley - It is impportant to figure out who is telling the truth. This is a huge problem.

Stephen A. Smith - I am not trying to say the truth doesn't matter. What I am trying to say that someone told Ed Werder what he reported.

Stephen A. Smith - When T.O. questions Ed Werder he is really questioning the person who told Ed Werder.

Michael Irvin - Ed Werder says he believes his sources

Stephen A. Smith - You cultivate sources over time and judge whether that sources information is always accurate and then you go with them. Ed Werder's reputation is well established. Terrell Owens is not lying

Michael Irvin - You ever had a source lie to you?

Stephen A. Smith - I had a source that told me something inaccurate but it wasn't one that I cultivated over the years.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Stephen A. Smith - Terrell Owens is honest and he is sensitive. He is honest and not a liar

Stephen A. Smith - Terrell Owens is entitled to his opinion. T.O. could be telling the truth but that doesn't make Ed Werder look bad.

Smith - Ed Werder is only as good as his sources. At the end of the day, someone told Ed Werder what he wrote, he didn't make it up. People in the Cowboys lockerroom need to be looking at each other and not Ed Werder.

Stephen A. Smith - I am not trying to say the truth doesn't matter. What I am trying to say that someone told Ed Werder what he reported.

Stephen A. Smith - When T.O. questions Ed Werder he is really questioning the person who told Ed Werder.

Stephen A. Smith - You cultivate sources over time and judge whether that sources information is always accurate and then you go with them. Ed Werder's reputation is well established. Terrell Owens is not lying

Michael Irvin - You ever had a source lie to you?

Stephen A. Smith - I had a source that told me something inaccurate but it wasn't one that I cultivated over the years.

Is he from Texas because that look just like the Texas Two-Step! :laugh2:

He basically said that TO isn't lying, Werder is only reporting what a liar told him even though he believes this liar wouldn't lie to him!

 

[Arch Stanton]

Is he from Texas because that look just like the Texas Two-Step! :laugh2:

He basically said that TO isn't lying, Werder is only reporting what a liar told him even though he believes this liar wouldn't lie to him!

I think they said he was from New York.

 

[Primetime42]

Stephen A. is from Queens.

 

[Pick6TerenceNewman]

Stephen A. Smith on Terrell Owens and Ed Werder

Stephen A. Smith - Terrell Owens is honest and he is sensitive. He is honest and not a liar

Stephen A. Smith - I have been disturbed by people talking about Terrell Owens as if he is in trouble off the field

Stephen A. Smith - I was critical of Terrell Owens in the past as well as Donovan McNabb

Stephen A. Smith - Terrell Owens is entitled to his opinion. T.O. could be telling the truth but that doesn't make Ed Werder look bad.

Smith - Ed Werder is only as good as his sources. At the end of the day, someone told Ed Werder what he wrote, he didn't make it up. People in the Cowboys lockerroom need to be looking at each other and not Ed Werder.

Kevin Kiley - It is impportant to figure out who is telling the truth. This is a huge problem.

Stephen A. Smith - I am not trying to say the truth doesn't matter. What I am trying to say that someone told Ed Werder what he reported.

Stephen A. Smith - When T.O. questions Ed Werder he is really questioning the person who told Ed Werder.

Michael Irvin - Ed Werder says he believes his sources

Stephen A. Smith - You cultivate sources over time and judge whether that sources information is always accurate and then you go with them. Ed Werder's reputation is well established. Terrell Owens is not lying

Michael Irvin - You ever had a source lie to you?

Stephen A. Smith - I had a source that told me something inaccurate but it wasn't one that I cultivated over the years.

See people are on Owens because he is an easy target.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Hardly.

Stephen A. Smith is just stating that the individuals who spoke with Ed Werder are the ones that are lying.

 

[tyke1doe]

Stephen A. Smith - You cultivate sources over time and judge whether that sources information is always accurate and then you go with them. Ed Werder's reputation is well established. Terrell Owens is not lying

Did you mean to end that sentence in a period or was there something more that you left out?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only questionable point of the story is Werder's statement that T.O. is "jealous" of Witten's field relationshp with Romo and that he believes they're making up plays.

If so, then I can see why T.O. would be upset over that, if it's not true. But I can also understand why Werder would run with it because it fits a pattern and opinion already expressed by T.O., who said he needs to get the ball more.

BTW, when issues involve matters of opinion or motives, people can very much lie. A reporter has no way of knowing whether a person is lying in these cases. He/She would have to evaluate his/her relationship with the source and ask the question: "What does this person have to gain by telling me this?"

If this person is a trusted confidant, and he doesn't have anything to gain by revealing the information, then you run with it, especially if you have other sources confirm the information.

 

[Doomsday101]

Best thing the Cowboys and TO could do at this point is leave it alone. TO said what he felt he had to say but leave this dead horse alone if you don't then this whole back forth business will continue.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I think they said he was from New York.

Stephen A. is from Queens.

LOL, I know where he is from! It was a rhetorical question to go along with my reference to the Texas Two-Step!

 

[The Panch]

See people are on Owens because he is an easy target.

It's his fault for making himself a target for most of his career. He needs to just quit his whining and deal with the fact that all this drama comes over a past that he himself has created and a leopard doesnt change his spots.

 

[tyke1doe]

Best thing the Cowboys and TO could do at this point is leave it alone. TO said what he felt he had to say but leave this dead horse alone if you don't then this whole back forth business will continue.

Agreed. T.O. can't win a battle with Werder and ESPN.

 

[Doomsday101]

Agreed. T.O. can't win a battle with Werder and ESPN.

No one can because they will get the last word. I'm not sure how much truth in all of this that there was and at this stage I don't care I only care about the team going out and taking care of business everything else is a waste of time.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Did you mean to end that sentence in a period or was there something more that you left out?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only questionable point of the story is Werder's statement that T.O. is "jealous" of Witten's field relationshp with Romo and that he believes they're making up plays.

If so, then I can see why T.O. would be upset over that, if it's not true. But I can also understand why Werder would run with it because it fits a pattern and opinion already expressed by T.O., who said he needs to get the ball more.

BTW, when issues involve matters of opinion or motives, people can very much lie. A reporter has no way of knowing whether a person is lying in these cases. He/She would have to evaluate his/her relationship with the source and ask the question: "What does this person have to gain by telling me this?"

If this person is a trusted confidant, and he doesn't have anything to gain by revealing the information, then you run with it, especially if you have other sources confirm the information.

Stephen A. Smith was going through the steps a reporter generally goes through to obtain trusted sources in the lockerroom. Furthermore, he emphatically stated that he hasn't known Terrell Owens to be a liar and believes Terrell Owens is telling the truth.

He feels that Ed Werder is telling the truth with regards to players approaching him but he questions the players who told Ed Werder the information.

 

[tyke1doe]

No one can because they will get the last word. I'm not sure how much truth in all of this that there was and at this stage I don't care I only care about the team going out and taking care of business everything else is a waste of time.

If the team wins a Super Bowl, it won't matter. But if this team falls short, this is going to be mentioned every time ESPN or NFL Network focuses on the Cowboys or previews the Cowboys upcoming 2009 season.

 

[Doomsday101]

If the team wins a Super Bowl, it won't matter. But if this team falls short, this is going to be mentioned every time ESPN or NFL Network focuses on the Cowboys or previews the Cowboys upcoming 2009 season.

Of course it will. Which is why it is better to let it die now.

 

[tyke1doe]

Stephen A. Smith was going through the steps a reporter generally goes through to obtain trusted sources in the lockerroom. Furthermore, he emphatically stated that he hasn't known Terrell Owens to be a liar and believes Terrell Owens is telling the truth.

He feels that Ed Werder is telling the truth with regards to players approaching him but he questions the players who told Ed Werder the information.

Thanks and that makes sense.

But clarify something for me. What is the point of contention on the lie?

I'm not clear what everyone is calling a lie when there is a division on the team, apparently, and the receivers complain about not getting the ball as much as Witten.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

You can almost forgot about the anonymous source and whats the truth and what a lie and who is lying because....

Ed Werder is in a "intent to do harm" mode... he is being malicious... he is reporting stories on TO with a kool aid smile... like he just got a new toy.

He has the freedom to say ANYTHING and just preface it with "anonymous source" or some garbage like that....

 

[Shinywalrus]

The problem was never the sources, the problem was always the way the story was constructed. As opposed to taking the evidence, which was, as it now appears, very typical, par-for-the-course locker room interpersonal conflicts, and writing a story about what the available pieces of information were, allowing the audience to draw conclusions based on them, Werder's article reads like something that was created long before any sources were made available.

The list of examples of such manipulation, even when subtle, is long:

First, when you read Bradie James' quotes, it's actually quite obvious that they don't have to do with the particular situation referred to by the anonymous source but rather pertain to more general questions of interpersonal conflict. But the positioning is key. James quote says that, when problems arise, "We all talk...there's no dislike." But somehow Werder editorializes his leadin to the quote with a claim that James acts as "Peacemaker," a claim no one made and a statement unsupportable by the quote attached. This is Werder making things up.

Second, ESPN still has a false sub-headline in a side-bar to a Mosley story. Right now this side-bar is headed, "Mosley: Secret meeting", but then goes on to describe a series of meetings that were in no shape or form secret.

Third, Werder editorializes about the fault and reasons for Owens' departure from SF and Philadelphia, claiming in a story that is otherwise positioned as fact and news that Owens previous behavior was the cause of problems with former quarterbacks.

Fourth, Werder editorializes, without any support, that "Owens seems to be finding it increasingly difficult to conceal his irritation." This was his original premise, created before any evidence was available, so he makes it without support.

Fifth, Werder takes advantage of having spoken to more than one (probably two, at most three) Cowboys by intimating that the entire team is rising up against Owens, by stating, "But what upset Owens' teammates most of all was his response to the interception Romo threw on a pass intended for Witten..." Using the vague "teammates" is a cheap way to push his personal view without being responsible for the truth of the insignificant numbers of those who were actually upset by his reactions.

Sixth, Werder does it again, but this time with "Cowboys insiders." Maybe it's two and maybe it's three, but as long as Werder can tack that plural on, he can push his "the entire lockerroom is breaking down" theory that isn't supported by the data.

Seventh, Werder pushes this tactic even further by using a pernicious construction, "At least one." This is editorialization by language at its finest. While technically true, saying that "at least one prominent player was displeased..." is a way of Werder communicating, with a wink and a nod, "I only have one source on this, but between you and me, we know it's more, because we've all made our minds up that this is a huge, universal collapse, and not a small issue with a few people involved. Right?"

Eighth, Werder uses language intentionally positioned in an aggressive way to the target, claiming that "Phillips justified Owens" and "Jerry Jones further empowered him." Pure editorialization with the implication that TO is somehow a negative character with illegitimate arguments that must be "justified" and "empowered."

Ninth, Werder buries the obligatory mention of all of the counterpoints to his master theory in the very final paragraphs of his article.

The "making things up" nonsense is a red herring. Blowing things far, far out of proportion relative to similar situations in other locker rooms because of the newsworthiness and political implications (TO trashing Emmitt and Keyshawn the very DAY before the article went out) of the individuals involved, writing a story to fit his own preconceived notions and taking advantage of the absurd immunity of anonymous sources for something as insignificant as professional sports were Werder's sins.

Should we learn that Brad Johnson and Bobby Carpenter, or other players almost completely out of the loop of the team and its play, were the sources, then Werder's manipulation takes on a whole 'nother set of overtones: wilfully using the shield of anonymity to present a "blowup and breakdown of the lockerroom" case that wouldn't stand up if the sources were identified.

He didn't have to "make things up" to be wrong and unprofessional.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

You can almost forgot about the anonymous source and whats the truth and what a lie and who is lying because....

Ed Werder is in a "intent to do harm" mode... he is being malicious... he is reporting stories on TO with a kool aid smile... like he just got a new toy.

He has the freedom to say ANYTHING and just preface it with "anonymous source" or some garbage like that....

Anonymous sources are used by reporters all the time.

Ed Werder starts naming his sources and he loses his ability to do his job.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Anonymous sources are used by reporters all the time.

Ed Werder starts naming his sources and he loses his ability to do his job.

This is true. Without the ability to *manufacture Cowboys calamity*, he would have nothing to report but good Cowboys news!