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!

the burden of proof

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by DyePack, Aug 4, 2006.

  1. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Zeke has suggested I start some threads offering solutions for specific problems. I thought I'd take him up on it, even though I already know what the outcome will be.

    First topic: A syndicated columnist is suggesting he doesn't need or want proof any more when it comes to steroid use among athletes.

    This is simply asinine. Journalism calls for having proof. If you don't have it, STFU.

    That is all.
  2. imjustagirl2

    imjustagirl2 New Member

    So I'm confused. When do you start offering solutions?
  3. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    The solution is to either have proof, or not write a column saying no proof is necessary.

    To write a column saying no proof is necessary is sort of like writing a column saying, "I am not really a journalist. Try and stop me."

    Hence the "If you don't have it (proof), STFU."
  4. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I agree with the premise, Dye.

    To do so as a syndicated columnist is particularly bad.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page