Sourcing question

Yes. All the more reason to cite it in the first place.

Just a question: What is the harm in citing it? In any other form of writing, you have to cite your sources. Every time. And one of the cardinal rules of journalism is: Attribute, attribute, attribute.

This reporter didn't observe the game in question, he/she has no other way to verify that the detail being discussed here is actually true, and he/she might be about to report it as "fact" with no attribution. That's bad reporting.

 

I see so much Voice of God reporting now, I'm almost numb to it. Clearly, a lot of editors and copy desks already are, or at least they're not doing anything about it.

 

I guess it depends on the detail.

If someone hit a 3 to win, it would show up in the fourth quarter of the scorebook (assuming many coaches/schools keep old ones) as that player's final made shot. In my state, many state tournament games (including play by play) can be found online from more than a few years ago.

Now if he hit a 3 with two defenders on him while coming back from a sprained ankle or illness? Yeah, cite that.

But is it necessary to say someone scored 12 points in a tournament win over Podunk in 2002 and have to cite yourself (meaning your paper)?

Just because you confirmed something in an old book doesn't mean it has to be cited.

Guess it would have helped me to know just how detailed we were getting when going back in time.

 

That was my first question in this thread:

 

That's already been discussed up-thread. We're talking about specific, observable, reported details about a particular play, not a statistical fact like someone scoring 12 points (and, no, you don't have to cite something like that.)

 

I get that.

Probably would have helped Rhody give me an example of how detailed the research in the archive was.