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

[tyke1doe]

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.

Aspects of his job covers journalism. And as a beat reporter, part of his job is to talk to people on his beat - on the record, off the record and on background.

He is simply using the tools of his trade to get information and to get a story.

Beyond that, there's no proof that he's making this personal. That's just your opinion.

Be that as it may, T.O. makes himself a superstar and makes his dissatisfactions known. Don't get upset when the media follows that to the nth degree.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

That's the average fans' perception or a journalistic perspective?

If the former, then you need only those who agree with you to provide validation. From a journalistic perspective, using anonymous sources is a part of sports reporting. That's the way most stories are broken. It is hardly embarrassing to use anonymous sources in the highly competitive world of national sports reporting.

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.

Your point is subjective. Some people don't think football is important compared to other things in life. Some people think monitoring T.O.'s behavior is important to the overall story of football and coverage of the Dallas Cowboys. And as much as we give coverage to players' personal lives, this story fits into that focus.

I think what the issue is is that you and other Cowboys fans don't think it's important. But, obviously, ESPN and its readers think it's important because ESPN chose to air the story.

I believe many Cowboys fans are upset that ESPN and the broader community think this is an issue worthy of attention.

Now, you may think Werder deserves to be ridiculed for using anonymous sources, and that is your right. But few in the media industry are upset that he used anonymous sources because we know anonymous sources are one of the tools journalists use to get stories. And it's interesting that after his report, various media organizations reported essentially the same thing.

Unless it can be proven that Werder "fabricated" his sources, this will amount to nothing more than overzealous fans coming to defense of a player for their team.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

That was a very good post, trueblue.

It is true that in an effort to "Get it first" the media may overreact. And that has occurred, especially when official confirmation can't be obtained quickly.

The only thing I would add to counter is that when dealing with anonymous sources, usually, it's not just one source. The initial anonymous source may make the statement, but then the reporter tries to verify from other sources. Some of those sources may not want to go on the record but they will say, "You're right-on with your perspective."

The other balance to your point is that, yes, official confirmation would be best. But it has been my experience, when you give the official responders time to "PR spin" the story, it's not the same story, and the reporter has that gut instinct (based on his initial reporting) that there's a cover up.

At any rate, you made some good points.

 

[zeromaster]

I do agree with the idea of anonymous sources in the event leads are being developed to ultimately prosecute or mitigate certain activities. In the media's case, some "damage" is being done in the sense of statements being made that only seem verifiable by people's belief (or not) in the "sources". Mixed with the need to lead the pack that is often the case with reporting, it makes for a rather interesting base to build a story on.

I can agree that a personality like Owens makes for a convenient target, and being in the public eye makes him fair game in that regard. I happen to disagree with the lengths that some outlets choose to go in order to lead the pack or maintain their perception of market share. The argument that the use of such tactics based on the idea that it's always been done doesn't make for a compelling argument with me, but no one has to agree. The "everybody does it" approach has been used to justify a lot of scenarios, and not always wisely.

I happen to enjoy seeing the media twist in the wind once in awhile; it may remind them that they are neither infallible nor immune.

 

[tyke1doe]

I do agree with the idea of anonymous sources in the event leads are being developed to ultimately prosecute or mitigate certain activities. In the media's case, some "damage" is being done in the sense of statements being made that only seem verifiable by people's belief (or not) in the "sources". Mixed with the need to lead the pack that is often the case with reporting, it makes for a rather interesting base to build a story on.

I can agree that a personality like Owens makes for a convenient target, and being in the public eye makes him fair game in that regard. I happen to disagree with the lengths that some outlets choose to go in order to lead the pack or maintain their perception of market share. The argument that the use of such tactics based on the idea that it's always been done doesn't make for a compelling argument with me, but no one has to agree. The "everybody does it" approach has been used to justify a lot of scenarios, and not always wisely.

I happen to enjoy seeing the media twist in the wind once in awhile; it may remind them that they are neither infallible nor immune.

That was a good post too, zero.

And, yes, the media does need a good kick in the butt every now and then.

I can understand the "little man" syndrome, not in the sense that I'm calling anyone little, but that sometimes people want to see media guys get theirs when it appears they report something that's very irresponsible.

I understand and acknowledge that feeling.