NY Daily News using anonymous sources

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/ny-jets-players-bash-mark-sanchez-peyton-manning-gm-mike-tannenbaum-trade-young-quarterback-article-1.1004395?pgno=2

I've always been of the opinion that you should use named sources or not use sources at all. Otherwise, it comes across as just one giant rumor.

 

I hate the use of unnamed sources in sports, but it's par for the course in the industry. How would ESPN.com have any stories if it didn't use unnamed sources?

 

So, none of the players talked for this story on the record.

Sanchez himself wasn't available for this story.

None of the coaches or team management talked for the story.

And yet it ran.

Wow.

 

if manish had dome more to gain my trust i'd be accepting of the piece. giving players anonymity is the only way to accurately give readers a genuine look into a team. i'm just not convinced more than one or two players were the voices here and it doesnt take rocket scientist's to hazard a qood guess. i'd also suspect a player's agent could be at work here.

the quotes here werent very meaty. good for a tabloid on a slow day before the giants playoff hype resumes after the 'tuesday' day off.

 

Sounds like the backup quarterback is the only one on the team who has any balls.

 

You're stunned? It's a New York tabloid. They have one rule: no rules.

 

This is a big non story that should not have ran but does ordinarily in the Post and Daily News. Throw shit against the wall and see if it sticks. This will smear.

 

Not using sources? If you squint real hard you can see that ship's mast on the horizon.

 

Without regard to what it's lacking, which I also might agree with Shockey on, I certainly think he's right on the other point: You get this story only because people are willing to talk anonymously, and it does say something about the feelings on the team right now.

We could sit here all day and debate the merits of this kind of work, but in 2012, that's the work being done, and if you want to say, "We're simply not going to do that kind of thing," you'll be one of the only ones. Good stance on the ethical high ground; not good for readership.

 

I think anonymous sources should only be used to provide news. For instance, I would be OK with a story saying, "Sources: Jets look for quarterback to replace or challenge Sanchez," if you had executives saying that off the record. I'd be OK with a story saying, "Sources: Sanchez blames Ryan for Jets' woes behind closed doors," if you had Jets players saying that off the record.

This isn't even rumor mongering. It's just a way for players to rip into a teammate. If you have an opinion, you need to state it on the record. We've lowered our standards too much just for actual news already.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the things that I've been forced to accept in 2012, I never would have remotely considered in 1985. The sad reality is that the alternative it to be left behind. You can try to hold the line the best you can, but you can't operate by the same exact standards now. If you make it black and white, you're going to be giving up an edge.

 

That horse has left the barn, won the Kentucky Derby and returned for a sponge bath.