ESPN's questionable ethics, or no?

I just read a blog post by Jeff Pearlman about ESPN not properly sourcing SI's Jon Heyman for breaking the Halladay trade news. Apparently, they originally cited him and then changed it to, sources said, and then ESPN's XXX is reporting, yadda yadda yadda.

Now, what's wrong with that? On my beat, if I'm beat, I get the issue confirmed and report it. I would never - nor could never - simply attribute something as big as a Halladay deal to my chief rival.

What say you?

 

I say a thread about ESPN's ethics usually is posted as often as smallpotatoes' threads on youth sports.

 

ESPN ethics = NO.
ESPN has no ethics.

 

When was the last time you saw the New York Post give credit to the New York Daily News by name for breaking a story, or vice versa?

 

Never, GB. But that's not the point.
I think all of this bullshit over giving credit--especially on the net--is a pile of crap.

I also think ESPN chucked ethics out the window years ago.

 

Could I ask why you came to that conclusion? I'm honestly interested.

 

Do you read ESPN.com? Do you watch the shameless self-promotion and sucking up to those sports that they televise on ESPN?
Do you really have to ask that question?

 

I think you are confusing that which appears on ESPN with that which appears on ESPN.com.

There is some seriously good, if not great, work being done on that site every week. To dismiss it, or say it is produced unethically, simply because it falls under ESPN's giant umbrella is, I think, false.

 

I never said everythning on the Web site is produced unethically.

 

But isn't that what we're discussing here, ESPN.com's reporting of this particular trade?

 

"ESPN has learned..." has been an SportsJournalists.com meme since long before I joined the board.

 

I'd be curious as to how every other news organization handled this very story. Go ahead and click on the story on your Web site (or turn to Page Whatever in your yellowing paper edition). Does it say "as first reported by SI.com" or some similar wording? Then why the hell does ESPN.com have to leave that in its story after it has performed the due diligence necessary to be able to report the story itself?