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

[Dave_in-NC]

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

Aren't they 2-0 on prime time?

 

[BHendri5]

I do not believe a word Ed Werder said and I got the feeling Irvin and Kevin did not believe him either

 

[BHendri5]

Aren't they 2-0 on prime time?

yes 2-0, hoepfully they will make it 3-0

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Police and CIA intelligence agents use anonymous sources often. It helps them gain leads in cases they would otherwise not get if they didn't protect their sources with anonmity.

A court is a different animal. And it's interesting that people keep using the courtroom as an example.

Our courtrooms operate under certain constitutional provisions, especially with respect to trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment grants the right of the accused a trial by a jury of his peers, and he has a right to confront witnesses against him.

Why do I raise this point?

Because the First Amendment (another constitutional provision) addresses a free press. Anonymous sources are a tool used by a free press. If our government were controlled by the state, a reporter would be compelled by the state to reveal all sources, even those sources who would have something damaging to say about the government.

I know people don't like anonymous sourcing, and I'm sure Ed Werder, like all reporters, would want all their sources to go "on the record." But that's not going to happen. So you work with the system you have.

 

[RoadRunner]

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

He has already won it. Geez, you seem to think reporters walk on water and are incapable of falsehoods. Dan Rather anyone?

 

[tyke1doe]

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".

But all premium WRs don't go to the press and say it, nor do they make statements like "I can only catch the ball if it's thrown to me."

T.O. does it more than others, going before the public via sit-down interviews or press conferences and venting his frustrations. Are you denying that he does? And if he does, why would he NOT be singled out with coverage which corresponds to his public complaints?

 

[tyke1doe]

He has already won it. Geez, you seem to think reporters walk on water and are incapable of falsehoods. Dan Rather anyone?

Uh, I'm way ahead of you. I mentioned Dan Rather in another post.

 

[RoadRunner]

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 football, not Watergate. There is no need for anonymous sources other than to provide cover for cowards who obviously have an agenda or they would bodly come forward with it.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

This is football, not Watergate. There is no need for anonymous sources other than to provide cover for cowards who obviously have an agenda or they would bodly come forward with it.

Unless it was another player or coach. Believe it or not I would bet not every body appreciates owens act.

 

[RoadRunner]

Police and CIA intelligence agents use anonymous sources often. It helps them gain leads in cases they would otherwise not get if they didn't protect their sources with anonmity.

A court is a different animal. And it's interesting that people keep using the courtroom as an example.

Our courtrooms operate under certain constitutional provisions, especially with respect to trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment grants the right of the accused a trial by a jury of his peers, and he has a right to confront witnesses against him.

Why do I raise this point?

Because the First Amendment (another constitutional provision) addresses a free press. Anonymous sources are a tool used by a free press. If our government were controlled by the state, a reporter would be compelled by the state to reveal all sources, even those sources who would have something damaging to say about the government.

I know people don't like anonymous sourcing, and I'm sure Ed Werder, like all reporters, would want all their sources to go "on the record." But that's not going to happen. So you work with the system you have.

All of this psycho-babble and yet you cannot get around the fact that the anonymous sources police use will be called in by the defense attorney who has discovery rights. If those anonymous sources refuse to appear then that lawyer will get every bit of evidence thrown out as inadmissable.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

This is football, not Watergate. There is no need for anonymous sources other than to provide cover for cowards who obviously have an agenda or they would bodly come forward with it.

Anonymous sources are a part of journalism.

It's as old as journalism itself.

 

[tyke1doe]

All of this psycho-babble and yet you cannot get around the fact that the anonymous sources police use will be called in by the defense attorney who has discovery rights. If those anonymous sources refuse to appear then that lawyer will get every bit of evidence thrown out as inadmissable.

Psycho-babble? Another of those words used out of context.


You ever heard of Crime Stoppers? Crime Stoppers


It's a program that's run by various police departments across the United States. It allows people who know about a crime to come forward and remain ANONYMOUS.

Crime Stoppers provides a means of communication for members of the public to anonymously provide law enforcement agencies with information on crimes or suspects. Tipster can give information without revealing their identity and may be eligible for a financial reward for the information they provide.

Unfortunately, your response reveals your limited understanding of the entire process.

If you just segment one part of the process and don't consider the entire process, you arrive at faulty conclusions, as you have done.

Oh, you can pick up your OWNERSHIP papers at the front desk. :laugh1:

 

[trueblue1687]

But all premium WRs don't go to the press and say it, nor do they make statements like "I can only catch the ball if it's thrown to me."

T.O. does it more than others, going before the public via sit-down interviews or press conferences and venting his frustrations. Are you denying that he does? And if he does, why would he NOT be singled out with coverage which corresponds to his public complaints?

True enough...all Wrs don't go to the press, but I remember one who penned a book with as much in the title, and alot of others have crowed too, but that really isn't the point. I guess what stinks about Werders story is that it was sensationalized and then when the details were proven false (most of the extent of the "dischord" was refuted by players who actually DID step forward, including Witten), there are all these apologists who defend poor journalism and paint TO and those who refute the claims as villians and liars when it has not been proven so. We all know TO has a loud mouth....that isn't news worthy unless it is sensationalized, but that wasn't enough. There had to be what turned out to essentially be a lie woven into his story about a fist-fight or near fight w/Witten and that the meeting with Garret was an attempt to undermine Romo and the team. Witten shot down the lie about the fight and it has been reported since that apparently Garrett solicited input from WRs in game-planning and/or addressing concerns about being predictable with regard to throwing toward Witten. TO is fair game if he actually DOES show his tail in interviews, etc. This was not one of those times, but that's just my perspective. Werder's irresponsibility showed up when he didn't flesh out the validity of his sources story and now, regardless of what his peers want to say, his reputation is tarnished or at best, he looks very stupid to most of the people he's "reporting" to. I suppose it is natural to protect your own kind, though...and I don't mean that as a slur...just reality. Curious though as to your perspective on the possibility of some "smear tactics" by Werder since there is an obvious disdain that each show for each other as evidenced in TO's refusal to acknowledge Werder's mere existence in PCs and Werder's love for jabbing TO. Makes me wonder if he just doctored his story a little too much and got branded.

 

[tyke1doe]

True enough...all Wrs don't go to the press, but I remember one who penned a book with as much in the title, and alot of others have crowed too, but that really isn't the point. I guess what stinks about Werders story is that it was sensationalized and then when the details were proven false (most of the extent of the "dischord" was refuted by players who actually DID step forward, including Witten), there are all these apologists who defend poor journalism and paint TO and those who refute the claims as villians and liars when it has not been proven so. We all know TO has a loud mouth....that isn't news worthy unless it is sensationalized, but that wasn't enough. There had to be what turned out to essentially be a lie woven into his story about a fist-fight or near fight w/Witten and that the meeting with Garret was an attempt to undermine Romo and the team. Witten shot down the lie about the fight and it has been reported since that apparently Garrett solicited input from WRs in game-planning and/or addressing concerns about being predictable with regard to throwing toward Witten. TO is fair game if he actually DOES show his tail in interviews, etc. This was not one of those times, but that's just my perspective. Werder's irresponsibility showed up when he didn't flesh out the validity of his sources story and now, regardless of what his peers want to say, his reputation is tarnished or at best, he looks very stupid to most of the people he's "reporting" to. I suppose it is natural to protect your own kind, though...and I don't mean that as a slur...just reality. Curious though as to your perspective on the possibility of some "smear tactics" by Werder since there is an obvious disdain that each show for each other as evidenced in TO's refusal to acknowledge Werder's mere existence in PCs and Werder's love for jabbing TO. Makes me wonder if he just doctored his story a little too much and got branded.

A few points:

1. Witten and other players refuted the story AFTER a few days of consultation and reflection. But if you monitored their conversation before they were "briefed" then you saw them merely trying to down play it. Even Wade Phillips said "brothers fight." Now I'm not saying there was an actual fist-fight, and I don't remember reading anyone saying Witten and T.O. came to blows. But if that's not true, then why does Wade not simply say "There was no fight"? He did not.

2. I communicate with PR people, and it is customary practice that when a negative story occurs, PR people round up the troops, tell them not to comment, until an OFFICIAL statement can be given. In fact, in many situations where there is negative publicity, usually the first response is the more honest response, until people have time to think about it and alter the story to make it look more positive. Just based on human nature and my understanding of how these things work, the fact that Witten and others come out several days after the incident and say "Nothing happened" speaks volumes, especially when they didn't say that initially.

3. Journalism, particularly breaking news, is not static. It's every evolving. A newscast gets information, tries to verify it, and then "runs" with it. The information may not be complete. If later additions to a story occur, the newscast will update those developments. Unfortunately, in the breaking-news industry, you can't wait to get all the complete information, especially when you're trying to break a story before the PR spin cycle gets to it. That's the nature of the business.

4. I'm not an apologist who defends poor journalism. Rather, I'm a journalist who understands a bit more about the business than your average Joe. I'm not defending Werder. I'm defending the practices used to get stories, namely anonymous sourcing.

5. To the average fan, Werder looks stupid. I can assure you to those in journalism and to his bosses, Werder looks anything but stupid.

6. T.O. is the one who looks stupid, if you ask me. Maybe not to the average fan, but whenever someone goes on and on and on about an issue and doesn't put it to rest, he reveals that either ... 1.) there's some truth to the story or 2.) he has conflict-resolution issues.
T.O. can take the approach that the story was inaccurate and refuse to talk to Werder. But, as is characteristic of him, he can harp on and on about it, making himself look like an idiot and allowing Werder to get the best of him.

7. I guarantee you this doesn't stop Werder from getting stories. If the players think less of Werder, then they will freeze him out. But I'm pretty sure that won't happen. It will only be T.O.'s crusade. The other players probably realize how silly it is. But T.O. is T.O.

 

[Longboysfan]

Maybe time to have ESPN shift reporters. Ed say to Kansas City.

 

[monkey]

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......

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

Great post! I kept thinking you were going to round it off with a number 10 instead of stopping at 9.

I think in the perception of the team, this is over and done with (including TO). Yet, I have no doubt that reporters will continue to ask questions about it, just like they did after the game Sunday night. TO will likely be goaded into saying something about it and it will be used as an excuse to start it all over again.

The most disappointing thing to me was listening to ESPN radio yesterday and hearing multiple talking heads make statements like "Sure, everything is great now, what if they had lost?" or "Just wait until they don't make the playoffs" etc, etc. To try and hype that the only reason why the team isn't falling apart is because they won the game and to act like teams that do underperform (and might not make the playoffs) don't have any conflicts is just plain dumb. I don't like being one of the media conspiracy guys, but it really seemed like several of them are just hoping that Dallas loses in the next two weeks and falls apart. Maybe it is just because drama sells.....

 

[jterrell]

Shinywalrus is winner of the post of the week imho.


Because for all the facts he mentions Ed Werder is a doucher.

I didn't even need an anonymous source to share that with you all today!

Tyke: Just quit man. This isn't an investigative reporter or any journalist. This is a guy whose paid to cover the Dallas Cowboys... specifically to their fans so that the Cowboys fans will watch espn and read the website and listen to the ESPN radio shows.

He is not doing his job, he is making it personal and he is at fault.



.

 

[Shinywalrus]

Police and CIA intelligence agents use anonymous sources often. It helps them gain leads in cases they would otherwise not get if they didn't protect their sources with anonmity.

A court is a different animal. And it's interesting that people keep using the courtroom as an example.

Our courtrooms operate under certain constitutional provisions, especially with respect to trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment grants the right of the accused a trial by a jury of his peers, and he has a right to confront witnesses against him.

Why do I raise this point?

Because the First Amendment (another constitutional provision) addresses a free press. Anonymous sources are a tool used by a free press. If our government were controlled by the state, a reporter would be compelled by the state to reveal all sources, even those sources who would have something damaging to say about the government.

I know people don't like anonymous sourcing, and I'm sure Ed Werder, like all reporters, would want all their sources to go "on the record." But that's not going to happen. So you work with the system you have.

No one is saying that Werder should be compelled by anyone to reveal his sources. What people are saying is that the underlying premise on a purely rational (unrelated to legality, etc) basis for using such sources for a professional sports story is, shall we say, somewhat lacking.

In other words, Werder shouldn't be forced to reveal his sources for obvious constitutional reasons. He should, instead, just be made fun of profusely for using anonymous sources for a story that has absolutely no fundamental importance to the world, and as evidence arises, doing so with a clear intention of bloating the importance of the individuals making the comments and the comments they made.

 

[TheDude]

No one is saying that Werder should be compelled by anyone to reveal his sources. What people are saying is that the underlying premise on a purely rational (unrelated to legality, etc) basis for using such sources for a professional sports story is, shall we say, somewhat lacking.

In other words, Werder shouldn't be forced to reveal his sources for obvious constitutional reasons. He should, instead, just be made fun of profusely for using anonymous sources for a story that has absolutely no fundamental importance to the world, and as evidence arises, doing so with a clear intention of bloating the importance of the individuals making the comments and the comments they made.

And that is the best summation to the whole thing.

 

[trueblue1687]

A few points:

1. Witten and other players refuted the story AFTER a few days of consultation and reflection. But if you monitored their conversation before they were "briefed" then you saw them merely trying to down play it. Even Wade Phillips said "brothers fight." Now I'm not saying there was an actual fist-fight, and I don't remember reading anyone saying Witten and T.O. came to blows. But if that's not true, then why does Wade not simply say "There was no fight"? He did not.

2. I communicate with PR people, and it is customary practice that when a negative story occurs, PR people round up the troops, tell them not to comment, until an OFFICIAL statement can be given. In fact, in many situations where there is negative publicity, usually the first response is the more honest response, until people have time to think about it and alter the story to make it look more positive. Just based on human nature and my understanding of how these things work, the fact that Witten and others come out several days after the incident and say "Nothing happened" speaks volumes, especially when they didn't say that initially.

3. Journalism, particularly breaking news, is not static. It's every evolving. A newscast gets information, tries to verify it, and then "runs" with it. The information may not be complete. If later additions to a story occur, the newscast will update those developments. Unfortunately, in the breaking-news industry, you can't wait to get all the complete information, especially when you're trying to break a story before the PR spin cycle gets to it. That's the nature of the business.

4. I'm not an apologist who defends poor journalism. Rather, I'm a journalist who understands a bit more about the business than your average Joe. I'm not defending Werder. I'm defending the practices used to get stories, namely anonymous sourcing.

5. To the average fan, Werder looks stupid. I can assure you to those in journalism and to his bosses, Werder looks anything but stupid.

6. T.O. is the one who looks stupid, if you ask me. Maybe not to the average fan, but whenever someone goes on and on and on about an issue and doesn't put it to rest, he reveals that either ... 1.) there's some truth to the story or 2.) he has conflict-resolution issues.
T.O. can take the approach that the story was inaccurate and refuse to talk to Werder. But, as is characteristic of him, he can harp on and on about it, making himself look like an idiot and allowing Werder to get the best of him.

7. I guarantee you this doesn't stop Werder from getting stories. If the players think less of Werder, then they will freeze him out. But I'm pretty sure that won't happen. It will only be T.O.'s crusade. The other players probably realize how silly it is. But T.O. is T.O.

Well, I'm certainly not a journalist, but you bet I understand windows of opportunity, so I get your point about "over-verifying" the story (point #3)(for lack of a better term). That said, what still irritates the average fan (incidentally, that is why sports reporters have jobs, not to impress his boss or uppers) is the never-ending double standard with the media. For instance, even you defend Werder's story because he has to "run with it", then cast doubt on the very players who were supposedly involved because they didn't come out IMMEDIATELY and say they weren't involved! If they say they weren't, there are no legs to that part of the story...it then becomes simply speculation and assumption...a reach. By the way, I think it was intimated that Bradie James had to seperate Witten and TO because, as werder said on one interview, James told him he had to step in when the flames got high or something to that effect. To be honest, the thought process that you and other media guys take on this type of thing is disturbing. Your mindset appears to be that if a given story is reported, and the involved parties don't say something to refute it, or worse yet, say something quick enough to refute it, then the story should be assumed true (your points #1 and #6-1). And since I have followed this story, I have seen TO talk about the story a few times, not "harping on and on about it"...that would be the media playing with it ad nauseum. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the whole thought process you describe robs the media (at least the sporting media) of credibility if that is true. It stinks of fringe skating...doing stories that can't actually be "proven" to be false, but gets the desired result of days of top media coverage. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Oh, last thing...I'm ok with anonymous sources, I've had to make my living using them to....literally, but when they turn out to be unreliable, admit it and move on. Werder does that and he saves his credibility with the audience...he doesn't and I for one will consider him a sensationalist if not a flat out liar for perpetuating a story that has had all of his spices removed from it.