Why’d ESPN Let Multiple Anonymous Sources Fly on the Owens Story, But Not Favre One?

[jcollins28]

Glad someone is pointed out the obvious...

Why’d ESPN Let Multiple Anonymous Sources Fly on the Owens Story, But Not the Favre One?
ESPN, Media Gossip/Musings, NFL TheBigLead December 12th. 2008, 4:15pm

Hmmmm. A few months back, when Fox Sports reported that Brett Favre had called Lions GM Matt Millen to edcuate Detroit about the Packers offensive strategies, ESPN refused to acknowledge the report, allegedly because it was anonymously sourced. (Surely, you remember this epic DO NOT REPORT edict.)

Yesterday, ESPN’s Ed Werder provided a blockbuster report on the tenuous relationship between Terrell Owens and Tony Romo … and a large portion of the quotes were anonymously sourced. It was surprising to see “anonymous source” in a graphic during Sportscenter. Double standard? Was one story more believable than the other?

Does ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber need to tackle anonymous sourcing in a column?

http://thebiglead.com/?p=10015

 

[Yeagermeister]

Glad someone is pointed out the obvious...



http://thebiglead.com/?p=10015

It was Lord Farve the Almighty :laugh1:

 

[tyke1doe]

Glad someone is pointed out the obvious...



http://thebiglead.com/?p=10015

Sigh.

Guys, please stop reaching.

ESPN used its own "anonymous source" with the Werder story.

But ESPN will not use FOX's "anonymous source" for a story without having its own sources verify the story.

That's standard practice in the journalism industry.

 

[Alweezy]

plus ESPN"s own Ed Werder broke the story. Why wouldn't they run with it?

Im more bothered by what the source said . He didn't just confirm some facts ...he went ahead and threw his 2 cents in as well. The fact that these comments were made anonymously doesnt sit well with me.

 

[Stash]

Looks like someone else has picked up on ESPN's agenda...

Hopefully it's the start of peole waking up and seeing that company for what it it.

 

[casmith07]

Don't you all mean BSPN?

 

[SultanOfSix]

Sigh.

Guys, please stop reaching.

ESPN used its own "anonymous source" with the Werder story.

But ESPN will not use FOX's "anonymous source" for a story without having its own sources verify the story.

That's standard practice in the journalism industry.

Who cares. "Anonymous sources" shouldn't even be allowed in the industry.

Are anonymous witnesses allowed on the witness stand? Why should anyone accept the testimony of someone who can't stand behind his own words?

The anonymous source is like an anonymous post on the internet.

 

[tyke1doe]

Looks like someone else has picked up on ESPN's agenda...

Hopefully it's the start of peole waking up and seeing that company for what it it.

No. It was a stupid reach and highlights the fact that the blogger lacks an understanding of journalism and sourcing.

ESPN is not averse to using anonymous sources. It just won't use another network's anonymous sources.

The fault of ESPN was that it didn't have a source in the Detroit Lions organization and relied on Favre's account of the story. But ESPN cares little for the Lions - as do most of the people outside of Detroit.

The Cowboys, on the other hand, command ESPN's attention, which is why it hired Ed Werder, who knows the organization and has contacts inside Valley Ranch.

 

[Stash]

Sigh.

Guys, please stop reaching.

ESPN used its own "anonymous source" with the Werder story.

But ESPN will not use FOX's "anonymous source" for a story without having its own sources verify the story.

That's standard practice in the journalism industry.

If you think ESPN is in the 'journalism industry' you're more naive than first thought.

'Journalism' died along with 'integrity' at ESPN.

 

[Stash]

No. It was a stupid reach and highlights the fact that the blogger lacks an understanding of journalism and sourcing.

ESPN is not averse to using anonymous sources. It just won't use another network's anonymous sources.

The fault of ESPN was that it didn't have a source in the Detroit Lions organization and relied on Favre's account of the story. But ESPN cares little for the Lions - as do most of the people outside of Detroit.

The Cowboys, on the other hand, command ESPN's attention, which is why it hired Ed Werder, who knows the organization and has contacts inside Valley Ranch.

You're the guy who's lacking here.

While rushing to protect 'journalism', you're defending a meida ginat who couldn't give a rat's *** about 'journalism' or 'integrity'.

ESPN is concerned with nothing more than its' bottom line.

And until they - like the National Enquirer they currently emulate - get caught in their lies and get sued, they'll continue to quote their 'anonymous sources' as protection for lying.

 

[marchetta]

Sigh.

... That's standard practice in the journalism industry.

When did BSPN become part of the journalism industry? You probably believe that Faux News is also a news network. Lets get this straight. You have to practice journalistic ethics in order to be considered a journalistic enterprise. Both Faux News and BSPN fail at this miserably. They're both entertainment/commentary networks.

 

[tyke1doe]

Who cares. "Anonymous sources" shouldn't even be allowed in the industry.

Without anonymous sources we wouldn't know anything about Watergate.

Are anonymous witnesses allowed on the witness stand? Why should anyone accept the testimony of someone who can't stand the credibility behind his own words?

Not another attempt to compare journalism with court proceedings?

The anonymous source is like an anonymous post on the internet.

No, it's not.

As I've stated previously, most news organizations have strict rules about using anonymous sources. And most information from anonymous sources must be verified by at least two or three other sources. Furthermore, because of past scandals involving anonymous sources, an editor or someone in management must know the name(s) of the anonymous source.
That's how it's done at my media operation, which is smaller, by comparison, to ESPN.

I would think an organization like ESPN with much more at stake legally would safeguard itself in regards to anonymous sourcing.

 

[casmith07]

I think what many of us are seeing with ESPN is that it has largely become what MOST media is nowadays - simply an organized print edition or television blogosphere with profits.

 

[casmith07]

That's how it's done at my media operation, which is smaller, by comparison, to ESPN.

Well now we know why you're defending journalism so hard

 

[tyke1doe]

If you think ESPN is in the 'journalism industry' you're more naive than first thought.

'Journalism' died along with 'integrity' at ESPN.

You're just frustrated.

Your opinion doesn't matter. ESPN IS a part of the journalism industry.

 

[tyke1doe]

You're the guy who's lacking here.

While rushing to protect 'journalism', you're defending a meida ginat who couldn't give a rat's *** about 'journalism' or 'integrity'.

ESPN is concerned with nothing more than its' bottom line.

And until they - like the National Enquirer they currently emulate - get caught in their lies and get sued, they'll continue to quote their 'anonymous sources' as protection for lying.

More frustration being tossed against the wall.

I'm lacking nothing. I'm merely trying to educate you into the policies and procedures of media and newspaper, which I've been connected with for more than 20 years having worked at radio, television and newspapers.

I could care less what you think of ESPN's reputation. I'm merely trying to get you to understand that policies exist with regard to anonymous sourcing.

In fact, contact any major newspaper or television station, and they will tell you the same.

Moreover, if ESPN is lying all the time (truth being the ultimate defense against libel/slander) then why hasn't ESPN been sued yet?

 

[Stash]

You're just frustrated.

Your opinion doesn't matter. ESPN IS a part of the journalism industry.

As long as I have an opinion it matters.

You keep defending those scumbags in Bristol all you want if that's what you 'aspire' to be, you're the one who has to live with himself, not me.

Doesn't change what they are or what they do.

 

[Stash]

More frustration being tossed against the wall.

I'm lacking nothing. I'm merely trying to educate you into the policies and procedures of media and newspaper, which I've been connected with for more than 20 years having worked at radio, television and newspapers.

I could care less what you think of ESPN's reputation. I'm merely trying to get you to understand that policies exist with regard to anonymous sourcing.

In fact, contact any major newspaper or television station, and they will tell you the same.

Moreover, if ESPN is lying all the time (truth being the ultimate defense against libel/slander) then why hasn't ESPN been sued yet?

Do all of us a favor.

Keep your 'educating' for yourself.

You're obviously blinding yourself to what ESPN is truly all about.

Lie to yourself, don't lie to me.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Without anonymous sources we wouldn't know anything about Watergate.

What does Watergate have to do with anything?

Not another attempt to compare journalism with court proceedings?

I wasn't aware there were any prior attempts, either here on this forum or elsewhere. Regardless, the comparison isn't invalid just because you roll your eyes.

No, it's not.

As I've stated previously, most news organizations have strict rules about using anonymous sources. And most information from anonymous sources must be verified by at least two or three other sources. Furthermore, because of past scandals involving anonymous sources, an editor or someone in management must know the name(s) of the anonymous source.
That's how it's done at my media operation, which is smaller, by comparison, to ESPN.

I would think an organization like ESPN with much more at stake legally would safeguard itself in regards to anonymous sourcing.

I couldn't care less if they have their "own criteria" for determining the validity of their anonymous sources.

If you can't stand behind your words, don't say them.

 

[tyke1doe]

When did BSPN become part of the journalism industry? You probably believe that Faux News is also a news network. Lets get this straight. You have to practice journalistic ethics in order to be considered a journalistic enterprise. Both Faux News and BSPN fail at this miserably. They're both entertainment/commentary networks.

LOL!

Do you even know what you're talking about?

ESPN and FOX News are news organizations - and major ones at that. And most news organizations print/broadcast ... news ... public service announcements ... commentary ... and ... entertainment.

Where does it say to qualify as a news organization you have to print only news?

Oh, and newsflash: entertainment news IS news.