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

[tyke1doe]

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...

Here's the problem with many posters here. They think that because someone takes an opposing view they either are in cahoots with ESPN/Goodell/the Pats/the refs/the Steelers, etc.

Can it be that people just see things differently? Could it be that even though we may be Cowboys fans, we just have a different perspective?

Nahhh, that can't be it. If you defend anonymous sources, you must be a ESPN supporter.

How immature is that?

For the Record, I think ESPN does sensationalize many of its stories with respect to the Cowboys. I know how national media organizations work because they're not as loyal to the team/organization as local media.

I've been shocked out how coverage of a local story gets played with in The New York Times compared to the local newspaper. But that's because the nationals aren't concerned about burning their bridges. They have the power and clout to gain access whereas the local newspaper doesn't.

But having said that, I'm not irrational, or try not to be. I can compliment ESPN and criticize ESPN. It's not an all-or-nothing with me.

I understand anonymous sourcing because I've used it. And I don't think many people here really understanding anonymous sourcing. They think reporters just make up these stories and point to the rare Jayson Blair occurrences as if this is standard. It is not.

Werder works for his sources. I don't have to repeat his credentials. And I'm sure that he has a vetting process with his producers and editors about his sources, especially because if it were discovered that he "lied" he would lose a gig that many other television reporters would love to have.

Lying would ruin his career. I don't he's going to put that on the line to simply "make up" a story. Now, maybe another player has an agenda. That's possible. But I don't believe Werder isn't making this up.

Be that as it may. I simply disagree with the thread's main comparison. It's not a very knowledgeable comparison. And since I have some experience in anonymous sourcing, I thought I would share my two cents.

I'm sorry if you or others feel that's arrogant or feel I'm somehow defending ESPN.

You're entitled to your opinions, even if I think you're wrong.

Peace.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

You welcome.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You welcome.

Sure. Now go and look up circular reasoning.

 

[tyke1doe]

Sure. Now go and look up circular reasoning.

:laugh1:

I love how you guys toss around words, phrases and analogies with no regard for their appropriate application.

It's kind of cute like a 7-year-old trying to read Shakespear.

 

[jimmy40]

:laugh1:

I love how you guys toss around words, phrases and analogies with no regard for their appropriate application.

It's kind of cute like a 7-year-old trying to read Shakespear.

Man, I'm almost embarrassed for these guys. Total and complete ownage sir.

 

[Vintage]

Tyke, you are forgetting....

ESPN is anti-Dallas. So naturally, anything not sucking our teat, is a conspiracy.


Its probably the inner workings of Goodell and Bellicek. They conspired together.

 

[monkey]

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.

Honestly, all I have gotten from your arguments against ESPN is that "anonymous sources are unethical because I say they are unethical." It makes more sense to say that anonymous sources can be used responsibly or irresponsibly and the journalistic industry needs to use them responsibly.

Clearly, there are situations in which individuals would want to provide anonymously for fear of retribution. And clearly that are unethical journalists who will be willing to make up or publish stories without verification. But the latter does not negate the former.

(Not affiliated with any media outlet and I have no plans to ever be a part of the media.)

 

[SultanOfSix]

:laugh1:

I love how you guys toss around words, phrases and analogies with no regard for their appropriate application.

It's kind of cute like a 7-year-old trying to read Shakespear.

My argument isn't that anonymous sourcing is inherently good or bad. Rather, my argument is that it is a part of journalism.

Wow. That's not even an argument. And you're attempting to ridicule me with your petty little cracks?

But it doesn't stop there. Further on down the line, your argumentative skills conclude that journalism accepts anonymous sources because they have defined it to be ethical.

Excuse me if I take your ridiculing lightly.

 

[tyke1doe]

Wow. That's not even an argument. And you're attempting to ridicule me with your petty little cracks?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You argued whether anonymous sourcing is ethical. I responded by saying it's a part of journalism.

You're taking the "all or nothing" position, not I.

Anonymous sourcing CAN be bad, but it also CAN be good. I haven't painted myself in a corner, you have.

Second, you offered the "petty little cracks" first with your "circular reasoning" argument. You have no idea what that means, apparently, because nothing I've said involves circular reasoning. It appears that's one of those phrases you heard in another debate and thought it would work here.

Sorry, if indepth analysis constitutes "circular reasoning."

You offered an opinion; I countered with fact.

You offered an analogy, I countered that it was a poor analogy by offering proof - real world proof.

That's not circular reasoning. Therefore, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

But it doesn't stop there. Further on down the line, your argumentative skills conclude that journalism accepts anonymous sources because they have defined it to be ethical.

Excuse me if I take your ridiculing lightly.

No, I said that journalism accepts anonymous sources but creates policies around the practice so that it is done ethically, kind of like society accepts the fact that people have a right to defend themselves so government creates policies to determine what is and is not legal self defense.

But I don't expect you to understand this. Often times, when posters try to make arguments, they take an all-or-nothing/black-or-white approach instead of deciphering the nuances in life that often make two distinct acts different.

You have taken this approach with anonymous sourcing. But your perspective doesn't comport to reality.

 

[tyke1doe]

Honestly, all I have gotten from your arguments against ESPN is that "anonymous sources are unethical because I say they are unethical." It makes more sense to say that anonymous sources can be used responsibly or irresponsibly and the journalistic industry needs to use them responsibly.

Clearly, there are situations in which individuals would want to provide anonymously for fear of retribution. And clearly that are unethical journalists who will be willing to make up or publish stories without verification. But the latter does not negate the former.

(Not affiliated with any media outlet and I have no plans to ever be a part of the media.)

Thank you for your intelligent post.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Rather, my argument is that it is a part of journalism.

That's not an argument.

"You argued whether anonymous sourcing is ethical. I responded by saying it's a part of journalism."

And clueless boy, that's an exemplification of circular reasoning, which isn't a wise crack.

 

[mmillman]

It is not uncommon for people to only speak to reporters if their names are left out of it due to possible reprecussions. Deep Throat

 

[monkey]

Thank you for your intelligent post.

Sure thing. It just seems easy to see that the responsible use of anonymous sources is a necessary part of journalism.

 

[tyke1doe]

And clueless boy, that's an exemplification of circular reasoning, which isn't a wise crack.

Never let children handle adult concepts. They'll only misuse them.

 

[tyke1doe]

It is not uncommon for people to only speak to reporters if their names are left out of it due to possible reprecussions. Deep Throat

True. And what's so funny about their opposition to this practice is that much of the insider information we get from the NFL and on the Cowboys comes from anonymous sources.

 

[RoadRunner]

Never let children handle adult concepts. They'll only misuse them.

You are pretty damn annoying you know that? Stop acting like an elitist snob. Your debate skills sure do have a lot of resorts to name calling in them. You are not smarter than the guy you are debating with, but you sure are more condescending and arrogant.

I believe I know what your politics are just based upon the way you have conducted yourself. You give too much away.

 

[tyke1doe]

You are pretty damn annoying you know that? Stop acting like an elitist snob. Your debate skills sure do have a lot of resorts to name calling in them. You are not smarter than the guy you are debating with, but you sure are more condescending and arrogant.

I believe I know what your politics are just based upon the way you have conducted yourself. You give too much away.

LOL! :laugh1:

Please go back and re-read the thread. See who started attacking whom first.

And annoying, elitist and snobbish are perceptions. They measure what you feel not necessarily reality.

I'm sorry if I know a little bit about the newspaper industry and journalism and can refute opinions formed without knowledge or evidence.

If that's arrogance, so be it.

Second, don't start nothing, won't be nothing.

I am willing to have a civil conversation with anyone on this board. But apparently, there are those here who can't stand for someone to give a differing opinion or who feel the need to attack anyone who sides with Werder or ESPN on this issue.

Well, if you're going to launch the attack, be careful who you attack. Insults on an Internet forum don't bother me in the least. My feelings aren't easily hurt, especially by someone who I don't know.

But I figure, based on how many people react when their opinions are challenged, that many here are ultra-sensitive, and they can't take it even as they dish it out.

If you can't, don't start.

Oh and SoS is a big boy. He doesn't need anyone to breast feed him or come to his defense.

Fight your own battles. This doesn't pertain to you.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Never let children handle adult concepts. They'll only misuse them.

It's not my fault your too stupid to understand a logical fallacy.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Sure thing. It just seems easy to see that the responsible use of anonymous sources is a necessary part of journalism.

Of course. It's necessary according to journalists, and also ethical too, if you ask journalists.

 

[tyke1doe]

It's not my fault your too stupid to understand a logical fallacy.

Still using words and concepts inappropriately.

Cute. Real. cute.

Oh, and it's you're not your.

Shakespear and 7-year-olds. Shakespear and 7-year-olds.