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!

Ray Rice and the elite sports press

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Sep 8, 2014.

  1. RecoveringJournalist

    RecoveringJournalist Well-Known Member

    I thought the foundation of journalism was, "GET IT ON THE WEB NOW!!! CLICKS! WE NEED CLICKS!!! TWEET IT! LINK IT ON FACEBOOK!!! EDITED, YOU WANT SOMEONE TO READ OVER IT? WE DON'T HAVE COPY EDITORS!!! DO YOU THINK THIS IS 1999?"
     
  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    King admits to dropping the ball in his MMQB Tuesday Mailbag:

    LOSING A READER. I consider myself a devoted reader of The MMQB. I am a sports fanatic and I have used The MMQB to consume information related to the NFL. As of the writing of this email, I will do so no longer. Mr. Peter King has proven to be nothing but a corporate shill who prioritizes access and connections over accuracy and completeness. There is no excuse for Mr. King’s abject failure to do his job with respect to the Ray Rice arrest, investigation, suspension, and the controversy that followed.

    Mr. King’s statement today concludes by saying the following: “I hope when this story is fully vetted, we all get the truth and nothing but the truth.” Do you know how Mr. King could ensure that the statement is fully vetted and that we get nothing but the truth? He could do his job. He could ask the tough questions. He could investigate the answers to ensure their accuracy. He could press for more direct answers rather than a recitation of talking points. He could be a journalist.

    But nope, Mr. King has made no such promise to get to the bottom of it. He seems content merely other people will do it for him.

    —Andrew S.

    I appreciate you writing and I appreciate you reading over the years. You should be upset with what happened today. I didn’t do my job the right way. I will attempt to earn back your trust and the trust of others and I hope that at some point in the future you will give us another shot. I could argue with you about some of your points, but I feel that your main point is a valid one: I let you down.
     
  3. RecoveringJournalist

    RecoveringJournalist Well-Known Member

    I appreciate you writing. I failed you. Lucky for me, I am UNTOUCHABLE!
     
  4. I don't either. But I don't see what's to be gained by lying (then).
    Someone lied? Ok. I just don't think it was "the source."
    Why? What's to be gained? Or not lost? Or reinforced?

    And how many "guys" are talking about: King, Schefter, Mort? Maybe six NFL reporters? Maybe? I'd assume the ESPN folks prolly share sources. So maybe one or two sources in the league office. If Goodell told those sources (Goodell lied) "Yeah, I saw the tape," they pass it on.
    I don't see a reason - as a source - to lie to the reporters about something that at the time was detail stuff.

    You think a lack of second source is a Red Herring, why? I am missing this.
     
  5. RecoveringJournalist

    RecoveringJournalist Well-Known Member

    I would not assume at all that the ESPN guys share sources at all. If you took Mort, Clayton and Schefter, I would bet those guys talk to completely different people. Same with King.
     
  6. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    By the way, this is yet another solid argument as to why using anonymous sources should be severely limited, if not completely banned.

    I know, I know. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, at this point. That's a big part of the problem.
     
  7. RecoveringJournalist

    RecoveringJournalist Well-Known Member

    I completely understand what you're saying, but I can only imagine what NFL coverage would be like without anonymous sources.

    You can't report contract info without anonymous sources. You can't report 95 percent of free agent info without anonymous sources.
     
  8. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Maybe that's what it should be limited to, then. And, even still, get TWO anonymous sources to say it - if they're not accountable to you (which anonymous sources won't be), at least make them somewhat accountable to each other.

    If you're going with one anonymous source and you get burned, it's no one's fault but your own.
     
  9. RecoveringJournalist

    RecoveringJournalist Well-Known Member

    We had anonymous source issues and we had to sit down with an editor and show him all of the things we would not be able to do without anonymous sources. A lot of them don't realize that to get contract details, we have to call an agent and have them send us the contract, which he is obviously doing anonymously. If we want to find out which guys a team worked out each Tuesday, you have to get the information from either the team or from an agent because they get the lists of who works out for which teams every day. Obviously, this is done anonymously. He had no idea.

    Coaching or GM searches? Forget about it.

    Obviously, it's abused. You read a lot of stories where a source says one thing about someone and you can't help but wonder if the anonymous comment is the popular feeling in the league, or if the writer just called people until someone agreed with the premise.
     
  10. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Here's the thing, a smart person who wants a certain angle out there can manipulate sourcing to look like two, independent, anonymous sources into saying the same thing to reporters.

    But why anyone would go to that level of trouble for Ray Rice is a complete mystery.
     
  11. Meatie Pie

    Meatie Pie Member

    Good read.

    Thanks for posting.
     
  12. sportbook

    sportbook Member

    What I don't understand is that PK seemed to imply that there were mitigating circumstances from the video (fiance was the instigator) that the league used when deciding to make RR's suspension less than what others thought it should have been.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page