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

[TwentyOne]

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.

Crap

 

[jobberone]

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.

Great post. Be prepared to be ignored. Your post runs counter to the stream of rumor mongering and gossip.

Again great post.

 

[trueblue1687]

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.

Like some others posted, what stinks about Werders reporting is the fact that it seems to always have an air of sensationalism rather than a factual basis. If there is anyone that is surprised about ANY WR wanting the ball more, they are ********. Most of the sugar sprinlkes that Werder used in his story have been refuted (SECRET meeting w/ Garrett that Werder intimated TO instigated....refuted by everyone EXCEPT Werder), The fist-fight or near fight between Witten and TO...refuted by both. At the end of the day, a reporter must take responsibility for the story because it's HIS name on it...not an un-named source. The only part of the story that IS factual is that there have been discussions on game prep and game calling....probably heated, but even that is speculative. Saying you can make wholesale assumptions based on TO wanting the ball is ridiculous....all premium WRs want the ball more. That is what non-apologists call irresponsible journalism, regardless of who the story is about. I suppose based on your mindset, we can also assume, just as easily, that Werder made up the story completely based on his obvious rift with TO that has/is well documented (TO not even acknowledging Werders existence in his PCs) and it fits a "pattern".

 

[jterrell]

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

It is going to get mentioned anyway.

How are the 90's Cowboys regarded?

As one of the best teams of all time and also as outlaws.

Media creates perception.

 

[zeromaster]

What amuses me about "anonymous sources" is the vein in which they're used. Something is going on, accoring to "my sources". Who are they? I can't tell you, or I won't be able to get stories like this in the future, that you're just dying to hear about. How do we know it's true? Because I believe my sources.

None of this crap would last under real conditions like a courtroom. To prove an allegation, sooner or later these "sources" would have to come forward and be identified. But in the Court of the Media, we can speculate and editorialize to a great extent, all under the auspices of the "public has a right to know".

To know what? That the "truth" rides on the word of people that are certain that something happened, but are too chicken**** to put their names next to it, leaving it to the fifth estate to do the job.

This is what we've allowed to happen.

 

[jobberone]

Who said 'the news is what I say it is'? Or did I just see that on TV?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

owens is sensitive:cry2:?BWAAAAAAA

Hmmm I wonder how sensitive a few other QBs and teammates think he is.

 

[BHendri5]

Dave, Why do you do that?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Dave, Why do you do that?

Geeze now I can't even disagree with this guy about owens being sensitive?

BH you are too sensitive.

 

[Doomsday]

Has Ed Werder had one positive article about TO or the Cowboys this season?

 

[adbutcher]

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.

 

[theogt]

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.

Wowzah.

 

[BHendri5]

Geeze now I can't even disagree with this guy about owens being sensitive?

BH you are too sensitive.

HAHAHA, You told me you were older than Me, I'm just saying people a lot younger than you and I are do that

 

[Dave_in-NC]

HAHAHA, You told me you were older than Me, I'm just saying people a lot younger than you and I are do that

Don't get carried away now, it's not by much.

I just have a hard time believing what guys like this say after the world sees
some of the things people do. Maybe Charles Manson mother (who would know him best) thinks he's sensitive.

 

[BHendri5]

Don't get carried away now, it's not by much.

I just have a hard time believing what guys like this say after the world sees
some of the things people do. Maybe Charles Manson mother (who would know him best) thinks he's sensitive.

That is why he killed people.
I got the Browns winning tonite, what do you think?

 

[dogunwo]

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.

I understand why Stephen A Smith has to say what he said about his co-worker, but it sounds like company speak.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

That is why he killed people.
I got the Browns winning tonite, what do you think?

I don't see it. McNabb has played some good football since his benching.
Now I hope the Browns get it done.

 

[dcfanatic]

Werder on Irvin
------------------------------

It's a good listen no matter where you stand on the issue.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Maybe Stephen A. Smith can explain all of the other times that Mr. Blue Suit has been dead wrong and had his sources. After awhile his "sources" can't be trusted OR he's making the stuff up OR he's really stretching what his sources are saying. Nobody who apologizes for Mr. Blue Suit ever really answers that. I know he's your brethren and I can understand if you would *think* Mr. Blue Suit would be above that sort of stuff, but as Stephen A. Smith said...Mr. Blue Suit is only as good as his sources and for quite some time his sources have been glaringly inaccurate.




YAKUZA

 

[BHendri5]

I don't see it. McNabb has played some good football since his benching.
Now I hope the Browns get it done.

yeah, you are right about McNabb, but I'm hoping that the Browns come to play again in primetime