Best way to handle it when a source gives you bad intel

[Jim Luther Davis]

So as a young reporter, wanted to get the advice of some of the more seasoned vets in the field on this subject.

Recently, there has been a recent firestorm around Globe Pats beat reporter Shalise Manza Young and how she reported earlier this week that WR Aaron Dobson was benched due to "mouthing off" to Pats OC according to her source.

However, Bill Belichick denied that later and Manza Young posted a tweet today saying:

"I spoke to Aaron Dobson...he told me he didn't have an incident with McDaniels. we shook hands. sources can be wrong sometimes."

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/10/03/belichick-denies-dobson-benched-for-mouthing-off-to-mcdaniels/

Personally, I think she handled the situation best she could. But looking at her Twitter Feed, doesn't stop the haters from coming out of the woodwork.

What's the best way to handle these kind of situations? Especially with a matter that could paint a negative light around a player on the team you're covering?

 

[PaperDoll]

What's the best way to handle these kind of situations? Especially with a matter that could paint a negative light around a player on the team you're covering?

Aside from naming all your sources? (Some media organizations require that, except in some very limited cases which require sign-off from higher-ups.)

 

[MisterCreosote]

Stop using anonymous sources for gossipy bull****. That'd be step one.

Also, after the Belichick denial, since she says, "I spoke to Aaron Dobson," am I left to assume she DIDN'T speak to him about the source's allegation prior to going public? If so, she deserves whatever criticism she gets.

 

[SnarkShark]

Hard to give you an answer without knowing exactly what the source said and how it went down, and most crucially, how important the source is.

But I'm all for ****ing over sources who give bad info, especially if it's suspected that they did it for a nefarious reason.

 

[MisterCreosote]

What is so important about this piece of "news" that it merits protecting the source's identity?

A second-year wide receiver with one catch for 13 yards gets "benched," even though he's only suited up for one game so far?

 

[RickStain]

Go back to the good ol' days of real journalistic ethics and don't print things you can't verify with multiple sources?

 

[Doc Holliday]

This isn't real hard to figure out. Don't use anonymous sources.

 

[The Big Ragu]

This isn't real hard to figure out. Don't use anonymous sources.

There is a place for anonymous sources. I think others on here had this right. Anonymous sources should be used way more judiciously than they are.

 

[MisterCreosote]

By the way, she cited a "league source,." Any reason why it wouldn't be a "team source?" And, if it wasn't someone involved with the team, who was it and why should we care?

 

[Doc Holliday]

This isn't real hard to figure out. Don't use anonymous sources.

There is a place for anonymous sources. I think others on here had this right. Anonymous sources should be used way more judiciously than they are.

There is? In 20+ years I've never used one. If you're good, you don't need them. ;)

 

[Jim Luther Davis]

This isn't real hard to figure out. Don't use anonymous sources.

Isn't that all the Chris Broussards and Adam Schefters of the world use these days though?

 

[Doc Holliday]

This isn't real hard to figure out. Don't use anonymous sources.

Isn't that all the Chris Broussards and Adam Schefters of the world use these days though?

Ever since Al Gore invented this contraption doomahodgey thing called the Inter-Nets, it's pretty much been an accepted form of journalism for bloggers, message boarders and recruiting service guys.

All that mattered was being first. To hell with being right.

 

[PioneerVoice]

This isn't real hard to figure out. Don't use anonymous sources.

There is a place for anonymous sources. I think others on here had this right. Anonymous sources should be used way more judiciously than they are.

There is? In 20+ years I've never used one. If you're good, you don't need them. ;)

Sure there are. Issues surrounding victims of sexual assault or minors, for example. These are cases where you don't name them, but in many stories, they are most certainly sources. Other examples exist such as times when someone's life or occupation could be put at immense risk by disclosing the information.

The common theme here, though, is that it's necessary in the extremes. I'd agree that the use of anonymous sources to spread rumor, opinion, and trite stories is a sad practice.

 

[Double Down]

Why do we assume her original report was incorrect? Because Belichick and Dobson says so?

Bwahahaha! Excuse me while I step into the hallway to laugh.

 

[Songbird]

She got it right. The story sounds too legit to be wrong.

And all of a sudden player and coach shake hands and all's forgotten? Uh-huh, sure.

 

[Double Down]

By the way, she cited a "league source,." Any reason why it wouldn't be a "team source?" And, if it wasn't someone involved with the team, who was it and why should we care?

Serious answer is "league source" is often a way to disguise "team source" and give the team source more room to hide. (It could, however, be and agent, and typically is.) Both a team source and league source are in the league, after all. But by giving the team source a bit more room to hide, he/she can deflect blame and say 'Wasn't me, was an agent."

Obviously anonymous sources are overused. But the idea that you can write, say, investigative pieces without using them ("just put your name on it, you coward!") is ridiculous. If someone has to choose between losing their job/getting blackballed from the profession and keeping the truth to themselves, they're going to chose the latter 99 times out of 100. It's when we start using them for fricken hamstring injuries that it ruins it for real reporting.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

Mike Reiss of ESPN Boston essentially said a few days ago essentially what Belichick said today. He's seldom if ever wrong.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Mike Reiss of ESPN Boston essentially said a few days ago essentially what Belichick said today. He's seldom if ever wrong.

Considering Shalise Manza Young has made a public apology for a mistake, I'm going to buy some Reiss stock and say we should believe what Belichick said.

I would never apologize publicly for something I had written that was correct and I doubt Shalise Manza Young would either.

Haven't you ever heard a reporter say "I stand by my story" ... well I have spoken those very words myself. In this case Shalise is not. That's enough for me to know what happened.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

If you're wrong, you just have to own it. She did the right thing.