News: Schefter on Dez

[dallasdave]

Then there would be nothing left to say

 

[tyke1doe]

If you can verify a story with multiple, unrelated sources, that is considered ample evidence to go to print, whether you like it or not. Based on your earlier comments, you also don't seem to understand the role of anonymity in sources, either, but I'll let you figure that one out on your own once you decide to stop throwing your little tantrum.

It's called establishing circumstantial evidence.

What Mattjames conveniently - or maybe not, he may simply be ignorant - is that absent direct evidence, we have this concept called circumstantial evidence.
What is circumstantial evidence? It is all circumstances pointing to the fact that something we can't observe as direct evidence is credible. So what circumstantial evidence do we have to support Schefter's statement?

1. We have the credibility of Adam Schefter - who worked for a Denver newspaper, covered the NFL for years, established relationships with players and sources enough to advance through the sports journalism ranks. He worked for NFL Network and now ESPN. And he has had a successful career.
You don't get very far in this business if you're fabricating stories. And Schefter is more RIGHT than he is wrong.

2. As a journalist, you know that there is a vetting process involved in using sources. You cannot simply stated "my source says" because unscrupulous reporters have done that before and their organizations have paid for it. We had a policy that our editor is the one who had to know the name of the source and that all source information must be verified by at least two other "sources" before we ran with an anonymous story. And we had to sit down with our editors and explain the process of how we came about this information. If Schefter worked at the Denver Post (I believe that's the paper he worked for), then he is familiar with such a process, a process that follows you if you truly are concerned about the integrity of your work.

3. We have the pattern of Dez Bryant. It has been reported previously that he missed meetings or was late to meetings. We have this recent incident that he missed scheduled meetings. It's interesting that you never have these reports associated with Witten or Beasley or even T. Williams. I wonder why these reports are always associated with Dez.

These three pieces of information strongly suggest that there is the likelihood that this information is correct and that Schefter didn't just make up this information. But, I'm pretty sure that you know this.

Of course, those who don't can continue to assert that quoting sources is bull.

 

[Cmac]

Adam still have credibility?

 

[mattjames2010]

Adam still have credibility?

To tyke1doe, yes.

Apparently speculative garbage that leads nowhere other than a back and forth he said/she said is hard hitting journalism compared to the greatest information leak in US history.

 

[Common Sense]

To tyke1doe, yes.

Apparently speculative garbage that leads nowhere other than a back and forth he said/she said is hard hitting journalism compared to the greatest information leak in US history.

Jesus Christ, dude. Sports journalism is literally one notch above actual celebrity gossip. Get over yourself already.

 

[mattjames2010]

Jesus Christ, dude. Sports journalism is literally one notch above actual celebrity gossip. Get over yourself already.

Thank you for pretty much admitting sport journalism is trash.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Jesus Christ, dude. Sports journalism is literally one notch above actual celebrity gossip. Get over yourself already.

But this is in a response glorifying the profession and acting as if "he's been right more than he's been wrong" is an acceptable standard. Its actually a tacit admission of mattjames point, but couched in a defense of something you're admitting is akin to tabloid journalism.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think YOU are missing the point of my posts here.

First off, my argument is not that "sources" are not needed or is useless. You get this, right? Your arguing against something I've never stated. I am criticizing the reporting. You are referencing one of the greatest information leaks in US history. It LED to something. Deepthroat provided key information and actual evidence that helped in the investigation.

You're changing the argument. Here is what you said:

Actually, yes, it is how it works. I don't care about if they have a source, I want a name and somewhere they can point me to. "Sources" is not credible, same as it wasn't credible during the tape fiasco.

You said you want a name. Therefore, you're taking issue with anonymous sources. When I told you that sourcing is necessary and was necessary to uncover Watergate, you changed your argument.

So you're okay with sourcing. You're just saying it should be useful. Well, useful is subjective. I think it's useful to know whether Dez has a pattern of attending meetings, especially since I'm interested in the Cowboys.

This is not comparable, and you know this. No one is saying he HAS to name who gave out the source, but you have to give the reader a place to look. There has to be evidence somewhere.

You're changing the argument. You just contradicted what you said.

Do you agree, yes or no, unless evidence is provided this is rumor until proven otherwise? If you say yes, you're really arguing nothing here. You can go have that discussion with someone else.

See my above post where I explain circumstantial evidence.

Second, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get direct evidence to everything. If that were the case, then crime and legal investigations would stop.
That's why we rely on circumstantial evidence, piecing information together, using our skills of observation, cause-and-effect and drawing conclusions based on all the available information.

I do believe Schefter for the reasons I stated previously. I don't think he fabricated his sources, and I don't think he asked the janitor. I base my opinion on:
1. Schefter's overall credibility based on his career in journalism, his rise through the ranks of journalism and him being more right than wrong.
2. My knowledge and use of sources previously in my reporting and the process behind verifying and using sources.
3.The pattern Dez has established while with the Cowboys. Yes, he is a phenomenal receiver. But ... he has had to have handlers to help him with personal matters and the reports that have hounded him about his less-than-studious practice behavior and reports of his inability to grasp the offense.

 

[Common Sense]

Thank you for pretty much admitting sport journalism is trash.

Because of the type of information that sports fans are interested in consuming, yes. That's called market demand. You were arguing that it is a fundamental flaw in the journalistic process, which is where you are wrong.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Dollars to donuts David Wells is the source. The constant media releases concerning Dez have coincided with him cutting off the tap.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It's called establishing circumstantial evidence.

What Mattjames conveniently - or maybe not, he may simply be ignorant - is that absent direct evidence, we have this concept called circumstantial evidence.
What is circumstantial evidence? It is all circumstances pointing to the fact that something we can't observe as direct evidence is credible. So what circumstantial evidence do we have to support Schefter's statement?

1. We have the credibility of Adam Schefter - who worked for a Denver newspaper, covered the NFL for years, established relationships with players and sources enough to advance through the sports journalism ranks. He worked for NFL Network and now ESPN. And he has had a successful career.
You don't get very far in this business if you're fabricating stories. And Schefter is more RIGHT than he is wrong.

2. As a journalist, you know that there is a vetting process involved in using sources. You cannot simply stated "my source says" because unscrupulous reporters have done that before and their organizations have paid for it. We had a policy that our editor is the one who had to know the name of the source and that all source information must be verified by at least two other "sources" before we ran with an anonymous story. And we had to sit down with our editors and explain the process of how we came about this information. If Schefter worked at the Denver Post (I believe that's the paper he worked for), then he is familiar with such a process, a process that follows you if you truly are concerned about the integrity of your work.

3. We have the pattern of Dez Bryant. He has been reported previously that he missed meetings or was late to meetings. We have this recent incident that he missed scheduled meetings. It's interesting that you never have these reports associated with Witten or Beasley or even T. Williams. I wonder why these reports are always associated with Dez.

These three pieces of information strongly suggest that there is the likelihood that this information is correct and that Schefter didn't just make up this information. But, I'm pretty sure that you know this.

Of course, those who don't can continue to assert that quoting sources is bull.

I'd add that guys like him are complete hypocrites too. When it's favorable information (paints Cowboy players or franchise in favorable light) he's all over it, hook line and sinker. When he doesn't like the info, it suddenly becomes fake journalism. Mattjames quoted me a blog post article that amounted to pure speculation and you would have thought he discovered a new Dead Sea Scroll.

 

[mattjames2010]

You're changing the argument. Here is what you said:



You said you want a name. Therefore, you're taking issue with anonymous sources. When I told you that sourcing is necessary and was necessary to uncover Watergate, you changed your argument.

So you're okay with sourcing. You're just saying it should be useful. Well, useful is subjective. I think it's useful to know whether Dez has a pattern of attending meetings, especially since I'm interested in the Cowboys.




You're changing the argument. You just contradicted what you said.



See my above post where I explain circumstantial evidence.

Second, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get direct evidence to everything. If that were the case, then crime and legal investigations would stop.
That's why we rely on circumstantial evidence, piecing information together, using our skills of observation, cause-and-effect and drawing conclusions based on all the available information.

I do believe Schefter for the reasons I stated previously. I don't think he fabricated his sources, and I don't think he asked the janitor. I base my opinion on:
1. Schefter's overall credibility based on his career in journalism, his rise through the ranks of journalism and him being more right than wrong.
2. My knowledge and use of sources previously in my reporting and the process behind verifying and using sources.
3.The pattern Dez has established while with the Cowboys. Yes, he is a phenomenal receiver. But ... he has had to have handlers to help him with personal matters and the reports that have hounded him about his less-than-studious practice behavior and reports of his inability to grasp the offense.

Then change my "and" to or. My point still stands.

Is this, or is it not, a rumor until we have actual evidence? And THANK YOU, "impossible to get direct evidence" - So this is speculative ******* garbage. My point exactly.

 

[mattjames2010]

I'd add that guys like him are complete hypocrites too. When it's favorable information (paints Cowboy players or franchise in favorable light) he's all over it, hook line and sinker. When he doesn't like the info, it suddenly becomes fake journalism. Mattjames quoted me a blog post article that amounted to pure speculation and you would have thought he discovered a new Dead Sea Scroll.

Actually, no, I did not. I pointed you to an article that discussed NFL Rewind not releasing their all-22 until Wednesday. PFF releases their grades on Monday. These are both facts.

The rest of the blog post was simply discussing their opinions on why they disagree with certain scoring PFF gives. The part I quoted, because you asked, was to show you that PFF releases their grades before the all-22 comes out. That was all.

 

[Cmac]

Adam needs all 5 or 6 cell phones he has......smashed.

 

[tyke1doe]

To tyke1doe, yes.

Apparently speculative garbage that leads nowhere other than a back and forth he said/she said is hard hitting journalism compared to the greatest information leak in US history.

Not just to me, but to people in the business, which is why he went from the NFL Network to ESPN.

Do you know how many reporters/journalists want Schefter's job? Do you know the incredible competition for jobs like his?

Do you know that if he were lying about sources, someone would easily out him?

It is very difficult to thrive in sports journalism without relationships and sources. And if you're lying and making things up, those things come to light.

Schefter literally has thousands of personal and private phone numbers and is constantly calling people. You don't get that unless you are highly thought of and have a high level of credibility.

But to people who have no understanding of how the process works, well, they can make baseless claims that people are fabricating information.

 

[Cmac]

Coming soon.....Dez with the hoodie.

 

[tyke1doe]

Then change my "and" to or. My point still stands.

Is this, or is it not, a rumor until we have actual evidence? And THANK YOU, "impossible to get direct evidence" - So this is speculative ******* garbage. My point exactly.

Yes, if you dismiss the concept and practice of verifying evidence through circumstances.

 

[mattjames2010]

Not just to me, but to people in the business, which is why he went from the NFL Network to ESPN.

Do you know how many reporters/journalists want Schefter's job? Do you know the incredible competition for jobs like his?

Do you know that if he were lying about sources, someone would easily out him?

It is very difficult to thrive in sports journalism without relationships and sources. And if you're lying and making things up, those things come to light.

Schefter literally has thousands of personal and private phone numbers and is constantly calling people. You don't get that unless you are highly thought of and have a high level of credibility.

But to people who have no understanding of how the process works, well, they can make baseless claims that people are fabricating information.

I haven't said he's lying. I simply have questioned his sources.

You listen and believe due to reputation. I, personally, don't care if someone is 100 out of 100 stories written and nailed every one of them. That 101 story better still provide something that leads me directly to evidence that confirms the accusations. A source saying something and the one being accused saying the opposite IS tabloid fodder. You accept that, I don't.

 

[Hoofbite]

In the same week where Dez just up and disappeared for a couple of days you have people who know for a fact that Adam Schefter is a complete liar.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Actually, no, I did not. I pointed you to an article that discussed NFL Rewind not releasing their all-22 until Wednesday. PFF releases their grades on Monday. These are both facts.

The rest of the blog post was simply discussing their opinions on why they disagree with certain scoring PFF gives. The part I quoted, because you asked, was to show you that PFF releases their grades before the all-22 comes out. That was all.

And I provided you an article from 2015 that interviewed an actual PFF analyst who stated that he used All22.

Your point doesn't exist.