Reporter outs anonymous source on purpose

Isn't off the record not usable info for print? Or am I missing something here?

 

"Off the record" is reporterish for "go find it from someone else."

 

There's a difference between off the record and using info without attribution. Most times -- at least in my interviews -- people are willing to allow you to use certain info, but people are very reluctant to have their name tied to sensitive stuff. You use it, just not with their name attached. Most times, people such as Parcells who are used to dealing with the media, will be absolutely specific if they don't want something printed. They will literally say not to print it. That's my experience at least.

 

The premise of this thread is ridiculous. I like this place, but you really shouldn't be able to just pull accusations of unethical conduct out of your ass anonymously and then say, "discuss." I don't know Mr. Salguero well, but there is no evidence here that he did anything wrong whatsoever.

 

You're joking right?

I've had extensive conversations with general managers where it was known that I was not to publish one word... When you're a beat writer, OTR conversations happen daily...

 

From what I understand, Parcells has two ways of saying things. When he says "I don't wanna see this in the paper," it's off the record. When he says "you didn't hear this from me ..." is usuable but not for attribution.

 

I should have mentioned this off the top, I guess. I work in the Miami market and so does my friend who sent he e-mail that led me to post here.

It's come up on the desk and I have been at events the last couple days and spoke to other reporters who noticed Salguero switch the attribution and who know others who noticed it also. It's pretty much common knowledge down here. About half I talked to seem to think it was no big deal, while the others thought it was very unprofessional. That's why I thought to post it on here because it seemed worthy of discussion.

Maybe another debate is whether reporters should have total control over their blogs because I hear the Herald higher ups aren't too happy about Salguero switching his quotes in the middle of the day from an anonymous source to Parcells. Like a lot of newspaper blogs Salguero has total control over his blog and can go in and make changes whenever he wants without editorial input. Maybe we should discuss whether a reporter should need to go through an editor before making a change like that.

Some have come on here and said that switching attribution is common, but I have NEVER seen this before and would love to see some examples. I still think it's dangerous to lift the veil on a source who can be very helpful down the road.

I would at least have gone back to Parcells (if Salguero did that before making the switch) and ask for a couple new comments. Parcells might have been OK with Salguero using the same stuff, but we are the reporters and know the business and sometimes we have to protect a source from himself. Parcells could come off as someone with the potential to be a chickenshit whistle blower who won't go on the record and likes to plant stories. Salguero comes off as an amatuer to me.

The other thing I don't understand is that the other two papers also got Parcells on the record. Why would Parcells choose to go off the record with the largest paper in the market and not the other two or ESPN?

 

Ok ... Here's the perfect example of what I thought could happen when I started this thread.

http://www.miamiherald.com/616/story/507219.html

''The only way Jason Taylor doesn't play for the Dolphins in 2008 is if he retires,'' Parcells said March 3. ``The team is not going to trade him.''

Of course, while on this limb attached to the pliable Things Change tree, I recognize Parcells might have forgotten or otherwise dismissed that unequivocal March statement.

There is, after all, much circumstantial evidence the Dolphins will trade Taylor. This very newspaper reported Wednesday the Dolphins have fielded calls about a Taylor trade.

So I call a Dolphins source and ask if the team has changed course on trading Taylor.

''We've already addressed this whole thing about Jason Taylor getting traded,'' the source growls. ``Nothing's changed. I'm telling you. Nothing has changed.''

Now, who in his right mind doesn't think the Dolphins source is Parcells himself based on him changing the attribution from "Dolphins insider" or whatever to "Parcells said" before?

Salguero does himself know favors by using the word "growls," which allows the reader to pretty much hear Tuna's voice.

Why would a high-ranking team executive give anonymous quotes to a guy who makes it so obvious?

 

Yes, great call. Because NO ONE ELSE ever growls. Especially people involved in football.

Jesus, dude. Get over it.

 

Yeah, get over it because I've been harping on it every day since ... Oh, I guess I haven't ... My last post was almost two months ago.

This is the first example -- and a five-star example, at that -- of why I started the thread. That's the only reason I posted it.

 

Yet it has stuck with you for two months, enough to dredge up this thread for a story that in no way says both quotes are from Parcells.