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

[Wood]

What some might be missing is that Bradie James ok'd the report Werner was going to break before it was released. This is not one guy in the locker room....this is multiple people involvment

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

I am curious.. how does that work? How does the "anonymous source" get the info to someone.. like... lets say...... ED WERDER??

 

[Stash]

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.

Newsflash!

Your industry is dead.

It died along with its' morals and ethics.

Now it's all about making a buck.

At any cost.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Yes, I don't buy the conspiracy theory that ESPN is out to doom the Cowboys.
Run! Run! ESPN is trying to topple the Cowboys Empire.

Oh, and when last I checked, this was a discussion forum - which by definition means posters can offer opinions about issues and topics. I would hope for the sake of variety, all voices wouldn't sound the same and all discussions wouldn't be the same either.

 

[Stash]

Yes, I don't buy the conspiracy theory that ESPN is out to doom the Cowboys.
Run! Run! ESPN is trying to topple the Cowboys Empire.

Oh, and when last I checked, this was a discussion forum - which by definition means posters can offer opinions about issues and topics. I would hope for the sake of variety, all voices wouldn't sound the same and all discussions wouldn't be the same either.

This from the guy who just 5 minutes ago typed "your opinion doesn't matter"?

Do us all a favor and look up the word "hypocrite" in your journalism books and let us know what you find.

 

[casmith07]

Yes, I don't buy the conspiracy theory that ESPN is out to doom the Cowboys.
Run! Run! ESPN is trying to topple the Cowboys Empire.

Oh, and when last I checked, this was a discussion forum - which by definition means posters can offer opinions about issues and topics. I would hope for the sake of variety, all voices wouldn't sound the same and all discussions wouldn't be the same either.

It's not just the Cowboys though. Look at their coverage of the Lebron James/Knicks fiasco, and their coverage of the Boston Celtics - the way they kiss the proverbial butts of the New England Patriots, regardless of the fact that they are much more likely to miss the playoffs than the Cowboys.

Just saying. I mean you admitted you're a "media" worker, and I use the term media loosely

 

[casmith07]

This from the guy who just 5 minutes ago typed "your opinion doesn't matter"?

Do us all a favor and look up the word "hypocrite" in your journalism books and let us know what you find.

He's simply just hunkering down and defending his media fort -- he's admitted he works in the "journalism" industry...I'm not surprised that he's acting this way. It's normal for humans to get defensive when their opinions are under fire, regardless of the fact that they're simply opinions.

You, Sir, for attempting to have an intelligent conversation and see all sides of the argument, are unfortunately not in the norm for humans

 

[tyke1doe]

What does Watergate have to do with anything?

Uh, Watergate was made known through anonymous sources. The comment was made that anonymous sources has no place in the industry. Whoever made that comment doesn't understand journalism history because Watergate was all about anonymous sourcing ("Deep Throat") and lead to the explosion of teenagers wanting to go into journalism as a career.

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.

Are you paying attention to the conversation?

You asked whether anonymous sources are allowed on the witness stand. The witness stand is in a court room.

You made the prior attempt. I was just addressing the faulty comparison. We're not dealing with a witness stand because court proceedings are different and have different rules than journalism and writing a story with anonymous sources.

Now do you understand?

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.

Actually, I'm sure Werder DOES stand by his report.

Second, maybe you don't care if news organizations have their "own criteria" ... but they do.

But remember, this post started because someone was complaining about anonymous sources as if news organization just pull them out of thin area.

As a standard practice, they do not, despite what you think.

 

[Seven]

It was Lord Farve the Almighty :laugh1:

Nope. Ed Werder the puny..............

 

[SultanOfSix]

I am curious.. how does that work? How does the "anonymous source" get the info to someone.. like... lets say...... ED WERDER??

Apparently, these "anonymous sources" can infiltrate organizations like spies and then give secretive information to these "news" companies.

I wonder how people would feel if a news company printed an article about you accusing you of some wrongdoing or painting a negative picture of you, and credited an "anonymous source" with the information.

 

[tyke1doe]

Newsflash!

Your industry is dead.

It died along with its' morals and ethics.

Now it's all about making a buck.

At any cost.

It is?

You mean The Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, LA Times, et. al. have gone out of business?

Oh, and newsflash: journalism has always been about making a buck, especially in a free economy. What, you want the journalism industry to be state-owned?

 

[cowboys4life]

It was Favre being a jedi saying..."we dont need the story because of the anonymous sources...move along" hahaha

 

[tyke1doe]

This from the guy who just 5 minutes ago typed "your opinion doesn't matter"?

LOL!

You struggle with context too.

My statement was related to your opinion on FOX and ESPN being news organization vs. reality. What you think doesn't matter, their very existence proves they are news organizations.

I'm trying to differentiate between fantasy vs. reality not perception vs. perception.

Fantasy: FOX and ESPN are not news organizations.
Reality: They are because they report news.

Perception: I think ESPN sensationalizes news.
Perception: I think they don't.

There's a difference in the two situations. I'll leave it to you to figure out that difference. It's not hard.

Do us all a favor and look up the word "hypocrite" in your journalism books and let us know what you find.

Wow. You're getting desperate aren't you?

We all are hypocrites. It's part of the human flaw. So what does that have to do with anything?

 

[tyke1doe]

I am curious.. how does that work? How does the "anonymous source" get the info to someone.. like... lets say...... ED WERDER??

Werder, like most reporters who cover a beat, have access to players. He talks to them, he gets their cell numbers. He calls them. He shoots the breeze, and then he asks questions, asks for tips, asks what's the scoop inside the locker room.

And I've said previously, the Cowboys aren't unlike any other team. You have people with agendas, people who don't like other teammates, people who have axes to grind, etc. And they may either call Werder directly (they have his cell number also), or they'll field a call from Werder.

And they aren't adverse to giving him another player's cell number. (Just don't say you got it from me.)

Cultivating anonymous sources is easy.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Uh, Watergate was made known through anonymous sources. The comment was made that anonymous sources has no place in the industry. Whoever made that comment doesn't understand journalism history because Watergate was all about anonymous sourcing ("Deep Throat") and lead to the explosion of teenagers wanting to go into journalism as a career.

Seriously? Who cares? You're trying to justify something ("anonymous sources") because some "good" came out of them. I'm questioning the integrity of "anonymous sourcing" and you're going off on tangents that are awfully Machiavellian in character, i.e. the end justifies the means.

Are you paying attention to the conversation?

You asked whether anonymous sources are allowed on the witness stand. The witness stand is in a court room.

You made the prior attempt. I was just addressing the faulty comparison. We're not dealing with a witness stand because court proceedings are different and have different rules than journalism and writing a story with anonymous sources.

Wow. Do you even know what you just said? My analogy is invalid because it's invalid. The point is, since you obviously missed it, is that accusations are being made against people via anonymous sources. I'm arguing the ethical nature of such sourcing and thus my comparison with court proceedings.

Now do you understand?

Do you?

Actually, I'm sure Werder DOES stand by his report.

Second, maybe you don't care if news organizations have their "own criteria" ... but they do.

But remember, this post started because someone was complaining about anonymous sources as if news organization just pull them out of thin area.

As a standard practice, they do not, despite what you think.

I don't care whether these organizations have "criteria" for allowing "anonymous sources", because like I said, I'm arguing against the ethical nature of such sourcing.

 

[tyke1doe]

Seriously? Who cares? You're trying to justify something ("anonymous sources") because some "good" came out of them. I'm questioning the integrity of "anonymous sourcing" and you're going off on tangents that are awfully Machiavellian in character, i.e. the end justifies the means.

No, it's not a tangent. I'm sorry that you don't like it. But without anonymous sourcing, you're not likely to get any information about government corruption or the true interworkings of any organization.

Anonymous sourcing is a part of a free press.

Furthermore, you're arguing that being an anonymous source is a bad thing. I see it as a neutral thing depending on the issue.

My argument isn't that anonymous sourcing is inherently good or bad. Rather, my argument is that it is a part of journalism. You examine most investigative reporting which has caused a change for the better in our society, and I'm willing to bet it involved anonymous sourcing, from some secretary giving a reporter documents that reporter might not otherwise get to an insider telling a reporter that Nixon and his operatives tried to break into Democratic headquarters, which was illegal.

A knife can be used for good or evil. It aint the knife's fault. It's the intention of the person using the knife.

Wow. Do you even know what you just said? My analogy is invalid because it's invalid. The point is, since you obviously missed it, is that accusations are being made against people via anonymous sources. I'm arguing the ethical nature of such sourcing and thus my comparison with court proceedings.

I understand what I said. Do you know what you're arguing?

First, the witness stand was a bad analogy, especially with respect to an ethical argument. A witness stand is a legal concept.

Second, many states have ethics commissions, and those commissions often investigate anonymous complaints. So your analogy doesn't fit.

Third, journalists and journalism DON'T regard anonymous sources as unethical. In fact, one of the first things you learn in Journalism 101 is the category of sourcing ... On the record, Off the record, On back ground.

It is within journalism ethics to use sources. Now unless you can pull me a source book from a journalism school that says otherwise, I'll lean more towards what is standard in the profession rather than the rantings of a poster obviously mad that news organizations use anonymous sources.

Do you?

I understand fully.

I don't care whether these organizations have "criteria" for allowing "anonymous sources", because like I said, I'm arguing the ethical nature of such sourcing.

I really don't think you understand what you're talking about.

There are ethics governing sourcing, i.e., you must not rely on a single source, you must not reveal your source publicly, you must tell your editor who your source is, etc.

But you're arguing that the very nature of anonymous sourcing is wrong.

That's your opinion, however. That is not the opinion of those within the institution of journalism.

 

[Stash]

LOL!

You struggle with context too.

My statement was related to your opinion on FOX and ESPN being news organization vs. reality. What you think doesn't matter, their very existence proves they are news organizations.

I'm trying to differentiate between fantasy vs. reality not perception vs. perception.

Fantasy: FOX and ESPN are not news organizations.
Reality: They are because they report news.

Perception: I think ESPN sensationalizes news.
Perception: I think they don't.

There's a difference in the two situations. I'll leave it to you to figure out that difference. It's not hard.



Wow. You're getting desperate aren't you?

We all are hypocrites. It's part of the human flaw. So what does that have to do with anything?

You want to be associated with the likes of ESPN?

Feel free.

And you can type until your fingers are raw and it's won't change anyone's opinions of them, what they do, and what they're all about.

If this is what you aspire to be, that's on you.

Even the world's worst human beings didn't ever believe they were truly bad...

 

[Stash]

Cultivating anonymous sources is easy.

Almost as easy as making stuff up and attributing it to nameless, faceless 'anonymous sources'.

Great gig really.

 

[SultanOfSix]

No, it's not a tangent. I'm sorry that you don't like it. But without anonymous sourcing, you're not likely to get any information about government corruption or the true interworkings of any organization.

Anonymous sourcing is a part of a free press.

Furthermore, you're arguing that being an anonymous source is a bad thing. I see it as a neutral thing depending on the issue.

My argument isn't that anonymous sourcing is inherently good or bad. Rather, my argument is that it is a part of journalism. You examine most investigative reporting which has caused a change for the better in our society, and I'm willing to bet it involved anonymous sourcing, from some secretary giving a reporter documents that reporter might not otherwise get to an insider telling a reporter that Nixon and his operatives tried to break into Democratic headquarters, which was illegal.

A knife can be used for good or evil. It aint the knife's fault. It's the intention of the person using the knife.



I understand what I said. Do you know what you're arguing?

First, the witness stand was a bad analogy, especially with respect to an ethical argument. A witness stand is a legal concept.

Second, many states have ethics commissions, and those commissions often investigate anonymous complaints. So your analogy doesn't fit.

Third, journalists and journalism DON'T regard anonymous sources as unethical. In fact, one of the first things you learn in Journalism 101 is the category of sourcing ... On the record, Off the record, On back ground.

It is within journalism ethics to use sources. Now unless you can pull me a source book from a journalism school that says otherwise, I'll lean more towards what is standard in the profession rather than the rantings of a poster obviously mad that news organizations use anonymous sources.



I understand fully.



I really don't think you understand what you're talking about.

There are ethics governing sourcing, i.e., you must not rely on a single source, you must not reveal your source publicly, you must tell your editor who your source is, etc.

But you're arguing that the very nature of anonymous sourcing is wrong.

That's your opinion, however. That is not the opinion of those within the institution of journalism.

Wow. Filtering through your verbose rationalization, all of your nonsense amounts to is, the "journalistic industry" allows "anonymous sourcing", therefore it's ethical.

Thanks for that.

 

[bbgun]

http://img356.*************/img356/5971/ch21sundec72008064525pmlh4.jpg