Another ESPN sourcing issue

Anyone know whey Feldman would even get this in the first place? Not aware of any in he has with FSU that would trump the Tally Democrat, which usually nails stuff like this first by a mile.

 

I thought there was a newer thread on this, but if there is, my searching skills failed me. Anyway, it looks like not much has changed:

ProFootballTalk, CBSSports.com, Sports Illustrated, National Football Post and all local media outlets -- hell, even Bleacher Report -- cite Graham and/or The Buffalo News in their stories.




A while later, ESPN checks in:

The link:

Whether or not Schefter checked with his own source -- I'm guessing he did -- ESPN remains the only outlet I've found which didn't at least mention the earlier report.

Oh, and for added hilarity, Rodak's tweet came from the same account Graham started when he was their AFC East blogger.

 

In the Kolb example, ESPN specifically says Adam Schefter confirmed it. So you at least have acknowledgement by ESPN that one of their own employees did some legwork to confirm the report.

The Jenkins example sees ESPN using the generic "sources" remark in one report with no acknowledgement that one of their own employees worked to confirm the story. If somebody for ESPN did that, then ESPN should say so and, while Feldman may not like getting credited as "first with the news," he's not likely to tear into ESPN for shady journalism practices.

Using the word "sources" implies you actually talked to somebody with firsthand knowledge. So ESPN better be careful how they use the word.

 

Schefter is usually pretty good about giving credit. If you go through his tweets, there are countless mentions of not just the name of the paper, but the name of the writer.

 

Indeed, as he did earlier yesterday with Mike Garafolo's report on Bills working out Leinart. My issue is with "ESPN.com news services," not Schefter.

 

The issue is petty.

 

Considering ESPN's reaction to Graham's decision to leave, "petty" was precisely the word that sprang to mind last night.

 

Here's my very strong hunch for what happened:

1. Tim Graham reported the story and tweeted it.
2. Adam Schefter called his Bills sources and confirmed t.
3. Adam Schefter called his ESPN desk person and gave them the news, mentioning that he was confirming it.
4. The ESPN desk person didn't ask who broke the story and simply didn't care enough to look for who to credit.

Not everything is some giant conspiracy. Most things are just the product of laziness or a systemic lack of ideal quality control. This barely even qualifies as that. The story does not suggest Schefter was the first to report it. It just doesn't bother to credit Graham. It should, but it doesn't. That happens all the time at every website. The Associated Press does it. But people only really get angsty when ESPN is involved (and, I suppose, particularly when a former staff member is the offended party).

 

When ESPN "confirms" something, doesn't that simply mean admitting they got beat?

 

Yes and no.

It could just mean rumors are verified as facts. But generally, the usage is for when writers "confirm" stories with their own sources.