Another rant against unnamed sources

[Ace]

In cases where the coach may be fired or there is a coaching search, you are not going to get any sources on the record 99 percent of the time.

So do you leave it out?

How about if it is the AD is telling you but won't go on the record?

What about if it is a well-connected booster telling you?

 

[Rockbottom]

In cases where the coach may be fired or there is a coaching search, you are not going to get any sources on the record 99 percent of the time.

So do you leave it out?

How about if it is the AD is telling you but won't go on the record?

What about if it is a well-connected booster telling you?

I'll take each one with a one-word answer:
1. Depends
2. Yes
3. Hellno

rb

 

[spnited]

Unnamed sources on a mid-level bowl bid? That's downright stupidity.

I imagine there will be a great deal of misinformation flying around on the Bama job, which is considered one of the great jobs in the country only by the bumpkin Bama fans who are waiting for Bear to rise from the dead and rescue a faltering program.
Writers have to be smart enough to not keep throwing every piece of questionable information into the paper. Sadly, many will not be because they think they have to write someting, anyuthing, that somebody else doesn't have. More stupidity.

 

[slappy4428]

I imagine there will be a great deal of misinformation flying around on the Bama job, which is considered one of the great jobs in the country only by the bumpkin Bama fans who are waiting for Bear to rise from the dead and rescue a faltering program.

For someone whose never been west of the Schuylkill, that's a very valid point.

 

[spnited]

Nice Schuykill reference.
Ever try driving on that god-forsaken road?

And I travel west of the Schuykill on a somewhat regular basis. It's going south of the Mason-Dixon line that really scares me.

 

[Ace]

In cases where the coach may be fired or there is a coaching search, you are not going to get any sources on the record 99 percent of the time.

So do you leave it out?

How about if it is the AD is telling you but won't go on the record?

What about if it is a well-connected booster telling you?

I'll take each one with a one-word answer:
1. Depends
2. Yes
3. Hellno

rb

You get a bunny sticker, rb.

 

[Twoback]

Simple as this:

If what you know is not true, and you tell people, then you're not much of a paper. You'd be better off telling people nothing, or sticking with what you can get on the record.

Papers write lots of stuff that's not true, simply because so-and-so is willing to say it on the record. I'm sure I've quoted lots of people who were lying. When I've used unnamed sources, it been to offer information that otherwise would not be available.
If absolute truth is the absolute standard, there's no way to print a paper because we can't hook all our sources, even those on the record, to polygraphs. You covered two basketball coaches who are fairly well known for their ability to massage the truth; do you really believe they never, ever lied to the media?

 

[scribeinwiscy]

<b>Several people who've talked to people</b> involved in the process say that <b>someone representing Alabama</b> contacted Saban's agent, Jimmy Sexton, and they discussed whether he would be interested in the Alabama job. <b>Those people</b> say he has an offer on the table.

Found this one this morning. Confused the hell out of me. Not knocking the writer, just sayin'.

 

[slappy4428]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Nick Saban pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

 

[spnited]

<b>Several people who've talked to people</b> involved in the process say that <b>someone representing Alabama</b> contacted Saban's agent, Jimmy Sexton, and they discussed whether he would be interested in the Alabama job. <b>Those people</b> say he has an offer on the table.

Found this one this morning. Confused the hell out of me. Not knocking the writer, just sayin'.

Never mind knocking the writer...shooting him is a better alternative, and the editor who let it go, as well.

 

[Chi City 81]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Nick Saban pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Thank you, Simone.

 

[Rockbottom]

<b>Several people who've talked to people</b> involved in the process say that <b>someone representing Alabama</b> contacted Saban's agent, Jimmy Sexton, and they discussed whether he would be interested in the Alabama job. <b>Those people</b> say he has an offer on the table.

Found this one this morning. Confused the hell out of me. Not knocking the writer, just sayin'.

Exhibit A of what has become a laundry list full of "questionable" (my word) "truthiness" (thanks, S. Colbert!) being performed in the Heart of Dixie.

rb

 

[joe king]

Simple as this:

If what you know is not true, and you tell people, then you're not much of a paper. You'd be better off telling people nothing, or sticking with what you can get on the record.

Papers write lots of stuff that's not true, simply because so-and-so is willing to say it on the record. I'm sure I've quoted lots of people who were lying. When I've used unnamed sources, it been to offer information that otherwise would not be available.
If absolute truth is the absolute standard, there's no way to print a paper because we can't hook all our sources, even those on the record, to polygraphs. You covered two basketball coaches who are fairly well known for their ability to massage the truth; do you really believe they never, ever lied to the media?

No, but if they lied and they said it on the record, with their name attached to it, people know where the misinformation came from. They can be held accountable. If you publish wrong information from an anonymous source, the only one accountable is you. Because to the reader, it looks like you just made something up. Yes, sources of all types lie, but in terms of credibility, there is a vast difference between getting someone on the record and citing an anonymous source.

 

[Point of Order]

I've tried to stay out of this, but alas, I'm weak-willed in the matter. Therefore:

rb spends too much time looking on other writers' laptop screens to determine just how hard they are or are not working in the press box, instead of minding his own house, sources familiar with people close to the press box situation said.

 

[Rockbottom]

I've tried to stay out of this, but alas, I'm weak-willed in the matter. Therefore:

rb spends too much time looking on other writers' laptop screens to determine just how hard they are or are not working in the press box, instead of minding his own house, sources familiar with people close to the press box situation said.

Ha!

rb

 

[Twoback]

Simple as this:

If what you know is not true, and you tell people, then you're not much of a paper. You'd be better off telling people nothing, or sticking with what you can get on the record.

Papers write lots of stuff that's not true, simply because so-and-so is willing to say it on the record. I'm sure I've quoted lots of people who were lying. When I've used unnamed sources, it been to offer information that otherwise would not be available.
If absolute truth is the absolute standard, there's no way to print a paper because we can't hook all our sources, even those on the record, to polygraphs. You covered two basketball coaches who are fairly well known for their ability to massage the truth; do you really believe they never, ever lied to the media?

No, but if they lied and they said it on the record, with their name attached to it, people know where the misinformation came from. They can be held accountable. If you publish wrong information from an anonymous source, the only one accountable is you. Because to the reader, it looks like you just made something up. Yes, sources of all types lie, but in terms of credibility, there is a vast difference between getting someone on the record and citing an anonymous source.

Bottom line, it's still a lie. It's still misinformation. And you're printing it and claiming you have nothing to do with it. Nonsense.
I'd rather have a wealth of sources I trust so that I know what goes on inside, say, a coaching search and share what I can from those sources than sit there on the outside and quote people who don't know what's happening.
"No one has contacted us for permission to talk to coach Jones," said the SID from State U.
Bleech!
Meanwhile, the coach's agent and the university's headhunter are talking up a storm, and your readers know diddly about it.

 

[murciélago]

Misinformation is bad. Auburn ain't going to the Outback Bowl. Mike Shula ain't staying. Stever Spurrier didn't accept an offer. Period. The readers don't care about the sourcing; the information was wrong.

 

[slappy4428]

I've tried to stay out of this, but alas, I'm weak-willed in the matter. Therefore:

rb spends too much time looking on other writers' laptop screens to determine just how hard they are or are not working in the press box, instead of minding his own house, sources familiar with people close to the press box situation said.

Ha!

rb

Yes, but for him, that's an improvement

 

[Leo Mazzone]

By Brian Curtis
CSTV.com
According to sources late Saturday, South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier will likely be named the next head coach at Miami.