BLOG! hammers Miami Herald editors, newspapers in general after story pulled

This from profootballtalk.com, a "respectable" blog:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/02/12/disappearance-of-parcells-story-raises-eyebrows/

A Miami Herald story about Bill Parcells walking away from the Dolphins was pulled off the paper's Web site because it relied on only a single source.

From the link:

I don't necessarily agree with this. News is news whether it falls under the umbrella of the sports department or any other and an incorrect story, regardless of what section of the paper it's printed in, hurts a publication's credibility as a whole.

It's never a bad idea to get more than one source - it's called VERIFYING information. I realize that there's a lot of pressure to be the first to break news on a high-pressure beat, and if you have breaking news from an OFFICIAL source and can attribute the story to that source, I could see that being acceptable.

But even then, I would still want to get some kind of confirmation or reaction from another source.

Am I out of my mind?

 

One-source stories are not good most of the time, but I think exceptions can be made with official sources on rare occasions.

 

If it relied on only one anonymous source -- and a source that Armando Salguero's apparently weren't comfortable going with solo -- I have no problem.

Now, if the source is Parcells and the Herald is being anal about the rules, I would have a problem.

But it's very easy to get burned by one-source stories -- even if the source is the coach. I've seen that more than once.

 

Hard to know how right or wrong all this was, indeed, without knowing who the source was.

 

I agree with the premise that sports should be entertaining, that's what makes the Hot Stove League so great and coaching rumors, etc. But it doesn't take long before an outlet loses credibility if it runs with every story it gets just by talking to one person. What good does it do to break a Bill Parcells story that you have to retract the next day? Every situation is different, but information has to be double-checked to some degree.

 

In other news, Bill Parcells just swam across the Atlantic Ocean in 25 days[/crossthread]

 

Here's a link to the original Herald story, archived by Google:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cacheTHY76VYtksJ:miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2009/02/source-parcells-told-huizenga-ross-he-would-walk.html+source-parcells-told-huizenga-ross-he-would-walk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The source was unnamed. But, oddly, the reporter did get Wayne Huizenga on the record about some other stuff without specifically addressing whether Huizenga would confirm or deny that Parcells was going to leave.

 

Red Flag! Red Flag!

 

Thus yet another example of the difference in some blogs BLOGS! and legitimate journalism.

One-source stories better be a special situation. The risk of being burned or used as an ax-grinding tool is too great.

 

Those bolded links are just off the top of my head. I would argue that sports and political coverage are very much alike, that the two coverage worlds intersect very much in theme and execution. And if you think sports don't involve business and life and death, you're an idiot. And you might want to tell Darren Rovell he's no longer needed.
I get what that's trying to say, but running with something just because you have one source saying something is most of the time irresponsible and, as lollygaggers said, can erode your credibility real quick. Not to mention your relationships with sources if you're wrong.
On top of that, throwing shit out there that isn't 100% confirmed continues to create this fat gut of ideas the media world feeds daily. Look, I don't want to be bombarded every 10 minutes with a little nugget of information that might be true. I want to read a well-sourced account later that is absolutely true.

 

That's Florio's specialty. And it's why, whenever he "breaks news" and someone excitedly runs back to our site with the story, I always tell them to wait until someone reputable confirms it before believing it.

 

Good thing Florio's a journalist and investigated why the Herald removed the post. Why couldn't he investigate the story or was that too difficult for a blogger?