Randy Gregory Impressing in Camp

[windjc]

he has a lot of bust potential, thats for sure..hope im wrong

What does that even mean??

I was at camp yesterday and Gregory looks fine. And he looks big. Do people around here even know what's going on? I wonder sometimes. Meanwhile we just finished week ONE of training camp. Smh

 

[DallasEast]

Social media has made us believe that people's opinions are what matters. I don't really care about your opinion unless you're an expert. I care about Garrett's opinion. I care about a retired NFL player's opinion. I care about a Hall of Fame player's opinion. I don't care about your opinion unless you have some special insight based on experience.

I would also add that named sources carry more weight than unnamed sources when the topic in question does not merit discretion or secrecy but I know that we disagree somewhat on that particular viewpoint.

@phildadon86, my agreement with tyke1doe and additional comment concerns all professional or semi-professional authors of content disseminated to the public regardless of medium. It is not meant as a direct criticism of your work. Please do not take it as such.

 

[cowboyblue22]

Broaddus says in Thursday practice he was good is getting better and better
each day against tyron smith. he also says he thinks scandrick has something he I s working through.

 

[xwalker]

This article isnt the one trending. Its the article i wrote on Greg Hardy. I appreciate the help. I dont have any sources to get this info, thats the problem. Im trying to make a name for myself so that i can eventually get sources. I dont even know how to go about that to be honest. Im learning as I go

That's why I pointed you to ND's work. He started out doing what you're trying to do with no sources. I think he has developed some sources, but I think most of his work is done without any input from those sources. There is a lot of information available via the internet if you do the research. Also, Gifs and stats are helpful to include in the articles.

 

[tyke1doe]

I would also add that named sources carry more weight than unnamed sources when the topic in question does not merit discretion or secrecy but I know that we disagree somewhat on that particular viewpoint.

@phildadon86, my agreement with tyke1doe and additional comment concerns all professional or semi-professional authors of content disseminated to the public regardless of medium. It is not meant as a direct criticism of your work. Please do not take it as such.

Actually, I don't disagree with you. The general rule is that unless the information is of a sensitive nature or would harm the individual then one should try to get information on-the-record.

But the lines have blurred now, and sports journalism is more into gossip and personal issues than on-the-field issues.

There was a time when journalists didn't care if TO was a "locker room" cancer, so there was really no need to rely on unnamed sources because that stuff wasn't newsworthy.

But now because we're in such an entertainment, I-need-to-know-all-your-personal-business, gossip-driven world, you get more stories like this, and reporters are more apt to use unnamed sources. And I think the rush to get stuff out on the Internet fuels a lot of stories that are just rumors and not really substantive. Social media reporting is more "feelings" than "fact" based, i.e., I "feel" TO is a locker room cancer. Story: Teammate says TO is a locker room cancer. He might not be, but when feelings rule the day, facts get pushed aside.

My beef, however, has always been that I don't think most reporters are "making up" sources. (Well, I didn't a few years ago when I had these debates with fellow posters. Now, I'm not so sure.) Granted, they might not be properly venting these sources, but there are standards (at least based on the newspapers I worked for) on how you use anonymous sources. And one of those standards was that you never use just one source unless that person is so close to the information, there's no doubt about its trustworthiness. Even then, you have to be aware that you could be the one being used even by a credible single source. But that's where your relationship with the source comes in.

 

[rynochop]

What does that even mean??

I was at camp yesterday and Gregory looks fine. And he looks big. Do people around here even know what's going on? I wonder sometimes. Meanwhile we just finished week ONE of training camp. Smh

ok, you think he looks fine, i think he has as good a chance at bêing a busy..one of us will be wrong

 

[DallasEast]

Actually, I don't disagree with you. The general rule is that unless the information is of a sensitive nature or would harm the individual then one should try to get information on-the-record.

But the lines have blurred now, and sports journalism is more into gossip and personal issues than on-the-field issues.

There was a time when journalists didn't care if TO was a "locker room" cancer, so there was really no need to rely on unnamed sources because that stuff wasn't newsworthy.

But now because we're in such an entertainment, I-need-to-know-all-your-personal-business, gossip-driven world, you get more stories like this, and reporters are more apt to use unnamed sources. And I think the rush to get stuff out on the Internet fuels a lot of stories that are just rumors and not really substantive. Social media reporting is more "feelings" than "fact" based, i.e., I "feel" TO is a locker room cancer. Story: Teammate says TO is a locker room cancer. He might not be, but when feelings rule the day, facts get pushed aside.

My beef, however, has always been that I don't think most reporters are "making up" sources. (Well, I didn't a few years ago when I had these debates with fellow posters. Now, I'm not so sure.) Granted, they might not be properly venting these sources, but there are standards (at least based on the newspapers I worked for) on how you use anonymous sources. And one of those standards was that you never use just one source unless that person is so close to the information, there's no doubt about its trustworthiness. Even then, you have to be aware that you could be the one being used even by a credible single source. But that's where your relationship with the source comes in.

In my opinion, the general rule is not followed as often as it should. Case in point: the NFL. For example, a writer may quote someone repeating a confidential conversation he or she had with Tom Brady concerning his appeal with the league. Anonymity is valid and warranted. The events surrounding the issue are confidential within both the confines of league or franchise offices and the court. The breaking of such confidentiality could lead to corporate or legal actions that could be inclusive of the source.

However, the majority of NFL stories in my opinion fall short of such measures of retaining confidential integrity. For example, a writer quotes a general manager who verbalizes his opinion that Tony Romo's quarterback skills are less than stellar. Is such commentary sensitive? The opinion might hurt arts-and-crafts Tony's delicate nature but the real Romo would probably blow it off as criticism. Will the GM's opinion damage his professional relationship with Jerry Jones? Doubtful. Jones loves everybody, especially if their words will stir controversy that will net his franchise greater attention. Will this NFL expert's words inspire a libelous or slanderous lawsuit? I extremely doubt it. Even so, this latter example has become common practice.

I don't know. I think the golden rule has dulled for a ridiculously LONG time and is in desperate need of heavy-duty cleaning.