Waco paper calls out other papers in Baylor blog

I heard Russ Grimm was getting the job.

 

I'll say it again: I'm not a big fan of blogs.
Why not let the message board posters debate the issues of the day with their anonymous "voices" and wait for the daily news to come out.
I know, we then have the problem of the ubiquitous ESPN-type shows which serve up "instant news".
But aren't most of them simply getting their info from blogs and message boards? Or from various newspaper websites which post the same MacNews bites throughout the day?

 

I've got no problem with the use of blogs. Used correctly, they can be an informative and informational beat tool.

I have a problem with the misuse of blogs.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, to quote an old cliche.

 

Between this, Gundy, the Fran stuff ... damn, it seems like the Big XII is the most interesting conference to cover.

 

If only its overall quality of play were as interesting ...

 

Wow ... what a horrendous blog.

Yuck.

He makes some great points ... but yuck.

 

Three teams in the BCS Top 5. But otherwise, you're dead on Editude.

 

The big problem I have with this is that w/ this "Be first, not necessarily right" approach to journalism, no one is calling out the people are being allowed to run single-source, unnamed stories just on the off chance they will be right.
When the story turns out to be false, it's just sort of assumed. I'm not a big fan of having to call out someone else covering your beat (and I've had to do it before via these same methods), but I'm more of the belief that someone has to do it.
Distrust is growing, and it's because being right has become less important.

 

Baylor's writer shouldn't have gone there. I know it's tempting, but just don't do it.

 

One of my competitors comes from a good-sized paper, and their writers use anonymous sources all the damn time — and not just for super-important stuff — and it irritates the holy hell out of me. But I can't use them, so why bitch about it? All you can do is go find someone on the record and know that you can always point the finger at a source if the information is wrong.

They can't, and when they fuck up, everyone else laughs at them. It's great.

I shouldn't say I can't use anonymous sources ever. But I've been able to like three times in the past five years, and it needed eight milllion levels of clearance.

 

It's not about just being able to use anonymous sources -- often there's a use for them.
But I believe being able to use them is extending beyond the necessity. Because of that, there are reporters who throw shit against a wall to see if it sticks. Why shouldn't they be called out then it's not accurate?

 

They should be called out. If you use an anonymous source, and you're wrong, you've really screwed yourself, and you've damaged your credibility.

If I had an anonymous source intentionally screw me over, I wouldn't be able to trust them ever again, so I would seriously think about running their name.

And I don't mind anonymous sources in some instances. They can be extremely helpful, especially when you've got a consistently solid one that you and your boss know you can trust. I just can't use them unless it's an emergency.