News: USA Today: For Diverse Cowboys, Dak Prescott Is The Ultimate Unifier

[Staubacher]

I went to a Houston Rockets basketball game years ago, sat a a few rows behind the team. I was awed by the usher, although you could tell he was messing around, he made everyone laugh and feel welcome. He was Mexican American and when he spoke to Hispanics I heard him say "Que paso Vato?", he then spoke to an African American and said something like, "What's up bro" to a white couple he would say, " good evening Mr.and Mrs. So and So". Those are just examples but it was funny, they were all season ticket holders and and had an obvious relationship with him, so they played along and didn't seem to take offense. I got to talking to him during the game, he had a great rapport with everybody. I went back a few weeks later and he got me floor passes at Kareem's last game in Houston.
I know, so what? This story on Dak just reminded me of this. Sorry, carry on.

I'm white as Casper, but often I call dudes black or white "bro". Only once did a black guy take offense and say "I'm not your bro", and that was cause I was beating his *** on the baseball diamond.

Sports is generally a great unifier of disparate peoples.

 

[tyke1doe]

So says an unnamed source in a locker room. Never believe an unnamed source, especially in matters so trivial as this.

I was a reporter for more than 20 years.
I used unnamed sources. At every paper I worked at, there was a system of checks and balances employed when using unnamed sources.
A person who fabricates unnamed sources won't remain in the business long because it's pretty easy to catch people who make up sources. Nowadays, reporters can no longer be the sole person knowing who that source is. An editor also knows and has to sign off on the source's existence and the information the source gives.

That's how professional organizations governed by a code of ethics operate. The USA Today is still a reputable news outlet governed by professional ethics. Unless otherwise proven, I believe the reporter's account and that he did interview an unnamed source.

 

[erod]

Yes, it DOES make a difference. It's another clue into the person who wrote the story.

Second, what evidence do you provide that the story is made up?
I remember many in this forum castigated Ed Werder for fabricating the leaks in the locker room about the rift between Romo, T.O. and Witten.

Guess what? Werder was right. There was a strained relationship and for the good of the Cowboys, Jerry Jones released T.O.

The problem is that many fans don't want to hear about such stories because they shatter their preconceived notions of unity. But I'll remind you that the 85 Bears were a dysfunctional group from coaches to players and STILL won a championship.

The Cowboys will survive this story. Relax.

There was a time not that long ago that the editorial desk would not approve a story for publication if it was based on a premise that was unsourced. Those standards no longer exist. Print whatever the hell you want these days.

 

[jwooten15]

Why are so many things attributed to race? It's so short-sighted

 

[Toruk_Makto]

The "spice" was the author made up the anonymous quote to drive the article home

I find you spicey for assuming that a quote was made up.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

There was a time not that long ago that the editorial desk would not approve a story for publication if it was based on a premise that was unsourced. Those standards no longer exist. Print whatever the hell you want these days.

I mean that's not true. And often an author will share their confidential source with their editor. Also I'm not sure that the quote is all that exciting.

Oh hey a guy who is bi racial can easily interact with multiple races! I mean we have on the record quotes from Dak addressing this very thing. Clearly he's thought about it and acknowledges it exists.

 

[erod]

I was a reporter for more than 20 years.
I used unnamed sources. At every paper I worked at, there was a system of checks and balances employed when using unnamed sources.
A person who fabricates unnamed sources won't remain in the business long because it's pretty easy to catch people who make up sources. Nowadays, reporters can no longer be the sole person knowing who that source is. An editor also knows and has to sign off on the source's existence and the information the source gives.

That's how professional organizations governed by a code of ethics operate. The USA Today is still a reputable news outlet governed by professional ethics. Unless otherwise proven, I believe the reporter's account and that he did interview an unnamed source.

Then as a reporter (believe me, I know that business implicitly), you also know that you can't make a mass assertion about an entire locker room based on one random comment from an unnamed source. Not of a story of this whimsical nature. It's unprofessional at least, unethical probably.

An unnamed source is used when, for instance, a player or coach has been charged with a felony, and nobody is talking. You might need to protect a source that is providing you background to the situation. That is VERY different than this.

This is a back-handed smear to Romo for a condition that never existed by a reporter who flew through town, mocked up a story, and flew back out. In fact, he probably did this story over the phone.

 

[Direwolf63]

There was a time not that long ago that the editorial desk would not approve a story for publication if it was based on a premise that was unsourced. Those standards no longer exist. Print whatever the hell you want these days.

Without unnamed sources, Watergate would have never been revealed to the public.

Like it or not, it's an important part of the profession as long as certain standards are met.

 

[erod]

I mean that's not true. And often an author will share their confidential source with their editor. Also I'm not sure that the quote is all that exciting.

Oh hey a guy who is bi racial can easily interact with multiple races! I mean we have on the record quotes from Dak addressing this very thing. Clearly he's thought about it and acknowledges it exists.

Not for stories like this. Confidential sources are used for hard-hitting news of a different kind, not touchy-feely nonsense like this.

 

[erod]

Without unnamed sources, Watergate would have never been revealed to the public.

Like it or not, it's an important part of the profession as long as certain standards are met.

As I stated, that's entirely different. That's exposing an institutional cover up. Stories of that nature require protecting sources to get information.

This is a lazy feature piece, and unnamed sources have no place in such stories.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Not for stories like this. Confidential sources are used for hard-hitting news of a different kind, not touchy-feely nonsense like this.

What?

So people in a locker room might not want to be quoted on the record because they are just discussing relationships with their teammates and not nuclear codes?

I mean...what?

 

[tyke1doe]

There was a time not that long ago that the editorial desk would not approve a story for publication if it was based on a premise that was unsourced. Those standards no longer exist. Print whatever the hell you want these days.

No, that's not entirely correct. Depending on the nature of the story, the editorial desk may or may not approve a story using anonymous sources. Remember, Watergate was driven mainly by anonymous sources and produced a generation of young people interested in journalism, particularly investigative journalism.
The approach is if information can be obtained on the record or if the information doesn't need anonymity then you don't used unnamed sources. I used to talk to people all the time who wanted to remain unnamed. But I would tell them that the information you're giving me is not so confidential that it warrants anonymity.
But in the case of situations in which there is potential harm of reputation or otherwise to a source, you can use unnamed sources subject to the other guidelines I outlined above.
Unnamed sources have long been a part of journalism. And the infamous cases involving Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair have made respectable mainstream publications more skeptical of and ethical in their use of unnamed sources.

 

[Direwolf63]

Then as a reporter (believe me, I know that business implicitly), you also know that you can't make a mass assertion about an entire locker room based on one random comment from an unnamed source. Not of a story of this whimsical nature. It's unprofessional at least, unethical probably.

An unnamed source is used when, for instance, a player or coach has been charged with a felony, and nobody is talking. You might need to protect a source that is providing you background to the situation. That is VERY different than this.

This is a back-handed smear to Romo for a condition that never existed by a reporter who flew through town, mocked up a story, and flew back out. In fact, he probably did this story over the phone.

Assuming the unnamed source actually said what he said, it is very relevant to the jist of the story.

I didn't think the comment was a smear to Romo. And I love the guy.

Early in his career, Romo was not considered a leader in the locker room. But he worked really hard at it, and eventually did become a terrific leader. But it's not a swipe at him if somebody says that Romo may not have the leadership abilities that Prescoot has. His qualities are very rare.

 

[Nova]

I'm biracial.

It absolutely has helped me be a more well rounded person with regard to relating to a bigger, diverse group of people.

But that doesn't mean that others can't be well rounded or relatable, and being biracial doesn't make you a leader or successful either.

 

[erod]

What?

So people in a locker room might not want to be quoted on the record because they are just discussing relationships with their teammates and not nuclear codes?

I mean...what?

Not only was that not allowed at one time in the newsroom, you had to have at least TWO sources for anything of this nature. That's what made it so hard for reporters back in the day. They had to actually work for their news stories.

If you were going to use an unnamed source, you had to sit in a conference room and make a strong case for it to the publisher. Every avenue had to be exhausted. Sources were established over time. They were used as a last resort.

 

[erod]

Assuming the unnamed source actually said what he said, it is very relevant to the jist of the story.

Relevant? It was absolutely relevant. It was THE gist of the story. That's why it needed to be a named source. In fact, it needed to be three or four named sources because it's not based in fact. It's based in feelings. That needs more attribution.

 

[Nova]

Assuming the unnamed source actually said what he said, it is very relevant to the jist of the story.

I didn't think the comment was a smear to Romo. And I love the guy.

Early in his career, Romo was not considered a leader in the locker room. But he worked really hard at it, and eventually did become a terrific leader. But it's not a swipe at him if somebody says that Romo may not have the leadership abilities that Prescoot has. His qualities are very rare.

Romo became the QB before he was ready to lead, mostly because he was one of the younger players on an older team and was overshadowed by TO.

And once he became a great leader he had a crappy team and had a hard time staying healthy.

2014 was a great year. That's the Romo I will remember.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Lol Romo is biracial too. Article/author never brought that up because the premise would collapse.

Slight of hand.


Dak studies people and leadership. I'm sure his cultural background helps. But that's just one element in a stew of things.

 

[erod]

No, that's not entirely correct. Depending on the nature of the story, the editorial desk may or may not approve a story using anonymous sources. Remember, Watergate was driven mainly by anonymous sources and produced a generation of young people interested in journalism, particularly investigative journalism.
The approach is if information can be obtained on the record or if the information doesn't need anonymity then you don't used unnamed sources. I used to talk to people all the time who wanted to remain unnamed. But I would tell them that the information you're giving me is not so confidential that it warrants anonymity.
But in the case of situations in which there is potential harm of reputation or otherwise to a source, you can use unnamed sources subject to the other guidelines I outlined above.
Unnamed sources have long been a part of journalism. And the infamous cases involving Janet Cooke and Jayson Blair have made respectable mainstream publications more skeptical of and ethical in their use of unnamed sources.

Again, this isn't Watergate.

In true practice, you are supposed to use unnamed sources to gather information so you can then more effectively get actual quotes on the record from more pertinent sources. That's the real point of sources to begin with.

Then, if you can't get anyone to go on record, you carefully decide if your sources have given you accurate and complete enough information to run with a story without anyone on record. That's supposed to be a really hard decision. These days, it's just....whatever.

Lazy journalism and attention-whoring reporters have taken over the media. Alas, nobody trusts them anymore.

 

[Direwolf63]

Relevant? It was absolutely relevant. It was THE gist of the story. That's why it needed to be a named source. In fact, it needed to be three or four named sources because it's not based in fact. It's based in feelings. That needs more attribution.

I don't believe that the one comment from him was the jist of the story.

The jist of the story was Dak's ability to relate to others. The quote in question, while relevant, was just a tiny piece of the overall story. And you are right it was an opinion not necessarily fact. It was a fact as he saw it however.