1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Murray Chass and "sources"

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Left_Coast, Dec 8, 2006.

  1. Left_Coast

    Left_Coast Active Member

    An interesting read

  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Guy has a point. What good are guidelines if you don't follow them? And the NYT sure as hell needs some direction.

    Beyond that, who cares if people are griping about collusion if no one is willing to say it on the record? If they say it on the record or make a complaint it's a story. If they are just griping, who gives a crap?
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Of course, you must consider the source.

    Besides being a Red Sox houseboy . . .
  4. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    It's not even Boom's birthday.
  5. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Murray always seems to write with an agenda- his own.

    The problem is that real sports fans would know better, but the type of reader the Times attracts will take Murray's work as gospel.
  6. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    But wait a minute, Boom. I thought you said Chass was anti-Yankee and pro-Red Sox. How would that jibe with this column?

    Also, if someone would like to compare the credentials, sources, credibility and reputations of Seth Mnookin and Murray Chass, I don't think Seth is exactly held in the same regard.
    I think I'll go with Murray.
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Murray is a columnist who's earned an awful lot of latitude. In this case, he's just reporting some good industry gossip. I see no problem.
  8. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Just because Seth obviously has an agenda of his own (pro-Sox) doesn't mean he doesn't have a point about the Times ethics policy. Either have one and apply it, or don't, but don't just put it out there for show to pretend like you have higher standards than the rest of the media monster, when you quite obviously do not.

    All this industry "gossip", as far as I'm concerned, is only slightly more pointless than 90 percent of political gossip. It's just a chance for people to settle scores and bitch like cowards behind the scenes. "The Red Sox aren't playing nice. WA, WAH!"

    Mnookin, in my opinion, is taking the conspiracy angle way too far though. The entire East Coast national baseball media conglomerate has treated the Sox vs. Yankees as if it were Sparta vs. Athens for three quarters of a century now. It might make sense for the Times national baseball columnist to write about Boston roughly once for every two times he writes about the Yankees.
  9. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I agree with Double D.
  10. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Larry Lucchino must have stopped talking to Murray and now he hates the Sox also.
  11. Or, Murray could be right and Seth could be carrying water.
  12. casty33

    casty33 Active Member

    One question ... who the hell is Seth Mnookin?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page