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

[Super_Kazuya]

To me, this story just underscores Dak's ability to lead. Part of his leadership comes from his background, part of it his education, and part of it his innate ability to read and understand people.

...and lastly, his uncanny ability to not get drafted by the Browns.

 

[Dale]

...and lastly, his uncanny ability to not get drafted by the Browns.

This is really critical to all of our success.

 

[Direwolf63]

...and lastly, his uncanny ability to not get drafted by the Browns.

Somebody better talk to Trubisky about this.

 

[Tejas25]

Even though he is, I don't think most people consider Romo as Mexican-American. They consider him white.

I can't believe they don't "consider Romo as Mexican-American" I think they just don't know....because the media doesn't go on and on about he is the first one to do this or that. I find it hard to believe that if someone knows you are Chinese, Puerto Rican, Somoan etc...they would "consider" you what ever they wanted. Because then my question is why if you know I'm Mexican- American do you still consider me "white"?[/QUOTE]

 

[HoosierCowboy]

thanks to the tone of the last decade, everything is racial but this stupid article assumes that Dallas was divided to begin with--until Sean Lee, Romo, and Dez come out and say that Dallas did not get along before, this is crap

 

[erod]

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.
If the editor had doubts about the source, he/she would have asked "Who is the source?".
If the reporter was indeed telling the truth, he would tell the editor, who likely would have asked for information to verify the quote.
If the editor discovered that the reporter had fabricated the source, the reporter would be reprimanded, discipled and/or fired.

There would be no mocking and ridiculing because editors work in places governed by professional codes of conduct and ethics. Workplaces aren't like message boards.

There was some tongue in cheek in that comment, but this isn't just some dart I'm throwing in the dark. I'm intimately experienced in these matters.

 

[erod]

That's one way to develop sources. But there are times when you're not going to get certain quotes on the record. Who's going to tell you openly Romo might not relate to the players like Dak does? No one.

Be that as it may, you still haven't provided any facts to support the fabrication of this unnamed quote.

I've provided as many facts that this wasn't said as this reporter has provided that it was. That's the trouble with unnamed sources.

If this was Todd Archer or Jean Jacques Taylor, the story would have more credibility. They're there every day. They know what's up in that locker room.

This was just a random interloper who swept through for a day and conjured up a story. Funny how the local reporters haven't used any unnamed sources for such a story, eh?

 

[tyke1doe]

There was some tongue in cheek in that comment, but this isn't just some dart I'm throwing in the dark. I'm intimately experienced in these matters.

If you had an editor who mocked and ridiculed an employee then you weren't working in a professional, ethical environment, and I can see why you hold the perspective that you do.

In the newsrooms I've frequented an editor would not divulge such information because it's confidential. If the employee was retained, it would mean the newspaper felt there's something redeemable about the reporter and that the incident would serve as a teaching moment. I don't see an editor ridiculing an employee in such a case.
If the newspaper felt the fabrication was too egregious, the reporter would be fired. Ridicule and mocking don't build up employees. That's what ethical, professional bosses understand.

 

[tyke1doe]

I've provided as many facts that this wasn't said as this reporter has provided that it was. That's the trouble with unnamed sources.

If this was Todd Archer or Jean Jacques Taylor, the story would have more credibility. They're there every day. They know what's up in that locker room.

This was just a random interloper who swept through for a day and conjured up a story. Funny how the local reporters haven't used any unnamed sources for such a story, eh?

No, you didn't provide facts that connect to the conclusion that he lied.
You gave your opinion based on a set of processes. But no evidence.
Or, if we were in a court of law ... yes, your honor, we know a man was killed, and yes, the defendant and the victim weren't the best of friends, these are the facts. But there's no connection between these facts and the prosecution's claim that my client killed this man.

See, that's the difference between stating a set of facts and tying those facts to support your conclusion. You have not done that.

 

[tyke1doe]

I've provided as many facts that this wasn't said as this reporter has provided that it was. That's the trouble with unnamed sources.

If this was Todd Archer or Jean Jacques Taylor, the story would have more credibility. They're there every day. They know what's up in that locker room.

This was just a random interloper who swept through for a day and conjured up a story. Funny how the local reporters haven't used any unnamed sources for such a story, eh?

Interesting that you raised this point. I worked for a local paper and, sometimes reporters at my paper would marvel at how the New York Times could talk to the same sources and get totally different quotes.
Do you know why?

1. The New York Times doesn't have to worry about burning bridges because it's reporters aren't local. They don't have to face the repercussions local reporters do. I see it happen all the time.
2. Quite simply, Todd Archer or JJ Taylor didn't think of the same angle. So, of course, they wouldn't ask the same questions to get the same response.
3. The New York Times like the USA Today has a national reputation and sometimes, by virtue of their status, they can get information from sources because some sources are more impressed by the bigger media organizations.

You say he conjures up the story, but did he fake the interview with Dak? Are you saying he made up being in the locker room?

If this story has no validity whatsoever, then we will hear Cowboys players roundly denouncing the article. Do you know if this has been done yet?

 

[erod]

Interesting that you raised this point. I worked for a local paper and, sometimes reporters at my paper would marvel at how the New York Times could talk to the same sources and get totally different quotes.
Do you know why?

1. The New York Times doesn't have to worry about burning bridges because it's reporters aren't local. They don't have to face the repercussions local reporters do. I see it happen all the time.
2. Quite simply, Todd Archer or JJ Taylor didn't think of the same angle. So, of course, they wouldn't ask the same questions to get the same response.
3. The New York Times like the USA Today has a national reputation and sometimes, by virtue of their status, they can get information from sources because some sources are more impressed by the bigger media organizations.

You say he conjures up the story, but did he fake the interview with Dak? Are you saying he made up being in the locker room?

If this story has no validity whatsoever, then we will hear Cowboys players roundly denouncing the article. Do you know if this has been done yet?

Sources worth quoting need to be developed and tested. You have to trust them even more than they trust you. That takes time and technique. There's a proving period for both sides.

That's the way it used to be.

Now, just throw whatever at the wall and see if it sticks. Thanks to a gluttony of medi - mainstream and social - nobody will remember or care anyway if it's right or wrong. "If we all do it, then we're all immune from criticism."

That's why America now detests the same media they used to cherish.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Personally, I don't see what's controversial about the article. Naturally, it's easier to relate to someone if you share a similar background. However, the ability to relate racially in the way the article is talking about clearly has very little impact on winning and losing in the NFL. The vast majority of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been white. I mean, I seriously doubt the turning point in last season was Peyton Manning's relationship with Demerius Thomas.

 

[Sportsbabe]

Personally, I don't see what's controversial about the article. Naturally, it's easier to relate to someone if you share a similar background. However, the ability to relate racially in the way the article is talking about clearly has very little impact on winning and losing in the NFL. The vast majority of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been white. I mean, I seriously doubt the turning point in last season was Peyton Manning's relationship with Demerius Thomas.

The more diverse and we'll versed you are culturally, socially, artistically, etc...the better you relate to people. Message boards are a proving ground.

 

[DandyDon52]

Even though he is, I don't think most people consider Romo as Mexican-American. They consider him white.

Yes I always saw him as a white guy with a mexican heritage, but he looks and talks white.

About players relating to Romo and Dak, that is more about personality and age etc.
Dak took leadership classes in college, so along with the psyche degree, he knows how to lead.
Then he proved himself on the field, and I think the few ints, is one thing that made him liked by the other players.

I hope Dak plays as good in the playoffs, No big mistakes, and then of course wins.

About Romo, the team played good for him in that td drive in phil, so it isnt like they dont like him
or have confidence in them, it is that they won all the games in a row with dak, and when a team
has that much success, they are afraid to make a major change like switch QB's

Tony got hurt at the wrong time, it is that simple, and if they had not drafted Dak, then Tony would have taken over game 7 or so,
and everyone would be behind Romo 100% right now.
I think at best with sanchez or showers, we would maybe at best be a WC.

Dak does all the right things, and says all the right things, and plays efficiently, so That just kept Tony on the bench.

I think if Tony was not liked by some other players, it was more to do with how he carried himself, and treated the other players.
More that than any racial reasons.

 

[vicjagger]

Is this a racist article? I can't tell.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Interesting indeed.

For an article so focused on race, it is not once mentioned that Antonio Ramiro Romo is Mexican American..

which isn't a race.....

 

[AmericanCowboy]

Dumb article

 

[T-RO]

thanks to the tone of the last decade, everything is racial but this stupid article assumes that Dallas was divided to begin with--until Sean Lee, Romo, and Dez come out and say that Dallas did not get along before, this is crap

I know what you mean...anyone who disagrees with the elites (on any topic in the world) is called a racist. It's bizarre. Bigoteering for profit and power...spreading and enflaming racism... is what it is.

But this article isn't about that. We all must concede that we are to a certain extent bound to our own flesh, background and history. It's inherently difficult to understand what it's like to grow up as someone different. Dak has a unique lineage and background to understand and connect. That fact doesn't belittle anyone else.

 

[NumOneQB]

Interesting indeed.

For an article so focused on race, it is not once mentioned that Antonio Ramiro Romo is Mexican American.

I think its interesting that the thesis appears to be that Prescott relates well to all his teammates in part because of his biracial identity. Is Romo unable to do that because he's Mexican American? Do African American players not relate to Romo because he is Mexican American? Is some of the vitriol aimed at Romo because he is Mexican American? Do African American fans and players prefer Prescott over Romo because he's African American and not Mexican American?

All questions raised, but not answered by this article. In fact, the article treats race as a binary (black or white). Very strange.

Mexican American (Hispanic/Latino) is not a race. It's an ethnicity. Romo's race is white.

 

[Tass]

A good leader is a good leader. A good teammate is a good teammate.

Who cares how much melanin is in a player's skin? Can he play? Is he a team player? That's really all that matters.