BLOG! hammers Miami Herald editors, newspapers in general after story pulled

[Wonderlic]

This from profootballtalk.com, a "respectable" blog:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/02/12/disappearance-of-parcells-story-raises-eyebrows/

A Miami Herald story about Bill Parcells walking away from the Dolphins was pulled off the paper's Web site because it relied on only a single source.

From the link:

And so the slow-motion death spiral of the newspaper industry continues.

Attention, newspaper editors. The sports page is about sports, not politics or business or life-and-death stuff.

At some point in the development of the newspaper industry, telling people what’s happening in and around their favorite sports team became intertwined with the Edward R. Murrow and Woodward and Bernstein stuff that journalists sometimes wear on their sleeves to justify working in a job that pays far less money than their skills would harvest if applied to other pursuits. (We’re not being sarcastic about that last part. Many of the journalists we know would be great lawyers.)

It’s sports, folks. It’s one of our primary diversions. And the coverage of sports is part of the diversion.

We want to be entertained by sports, and we want to be entertained by the coverage of sports.

So the traditional media companies should trust their writers and provide interesting content to their readers, even when they have only one source. Alternatively, media companies can cling to concepts that simply are irrelevant to the coverage of sports, deprive their audiences of interesting information, and continue to wonder why people are flocking to blogs.

I don't necessarily agree with this. News is news whether it falls under the umbrella of the sports department or any other and an incorrect story, regardless of what section of the paper it's printed in, hurts a publication's credibility as a whole.

It's never a bad idea to get more than one source - it's called VERIFYING information. I realize that there's a lot of pressure to be the first to break news on a high-pressure beat, and if you have breaking news from an OFFICIAL source and can attribute the story to that source, I could see that being acceptable.

But even then, I would still want to get some kind of confirmation or reaction from another source.

Am I out of my mind?

 

[budcrew08]

One-source stories are not good most of the time, but I think exceptions can be made with official sources on rare occasions.

 

[Ace]

If it relied on only one anonymous source -- and a source that Armando Salguero's apparently weren't comfortable going with solo -- I have no problem.

Now, if the source is Parcells and the Herald is being anal about the rules, I would have a problem.

But it's very easy to get burned by one-source stories -- even if the source is the coach. I've seen that more than once.

 

[SF_Express]

If it relied on only one anonymous source -- and a source that Armando Salguero's apparently weren't comfortable going with solo -- I have no problem.

Now, if the source is Parcells and the Herald is being anal about the rules, I would have a problem.

But it's very easy to get burned by one-source stories -- even if the source is the coach. I've seen that more than once.

Hard to know how right or wrong all this was, indeed, without knowing who the source was.

 

[Lollygaggers]

I agree with the premise that sports should be entertaining, that's what makes the Hot Stove League so great and coaching rumors, etc. But it doesn't take long before an outlet loses credibility if it runs with every story it gets just by talking to one person. What good does it do to break a Bill Parcells story that you have to retract the next day? Every situation is different, but information has to be double-checked to some degree.

 

[Wonderlic]

In other news, Bill Parcells just swam across the Atlantic Ocean in 25 days[/crossthread]

 

[Wonderlic]

Here's a link to the original Herald story, archived by Google:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cacheTHY76VYtksJ:miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2009/02/source-parcells-told-huizenga-ross-he-would-walk.html+source-parcells-told-huizenga-ross-he-would-walk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The source was unnamed. But, oddly, the reporter did get Wayne Huizenga on the record about some other stuff without specifically addressing whether Huizenga would confirm or deny that Parcells was going to leave.

 

[Ace]

Here's a link to the original Herald story, archived by Google:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cacheTHY76VYtksJ:miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2009/02/source-parcells-told-huizenga-ross-he-would-walk.html+source-parcells-told-huizenga-ross-he-would-walk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The source was unnamed. But, oddly, the reporter did get Wayne Huizenga on the record about some other stuff without specifically addressing whether Huizenga would confirm or deny that Parcells was going to leave.

Red Flag! Red Flag!

 

[SixToe]

Thus yet another example of the difference in some blogs BLOGS! and legitimate journalism.

One-source stories better be a special situation. The risk of being burned or used as an ax-grinding tool is too great.

 

[MartinEnigmatica]

And so the slow-motion death spiral of the newspaper industry continues.

Attention, newspaper editors. The sports page is about sports, not politics

Oh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Olympic_Winter_Games_figure_skating_scandal

or business

Hmmm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Major_League_Baseball_strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-05_NHL_lockout

or life-and-death stuff.

Maybe you should tell that to these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Coolbaugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Kile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Cherepanov


At some point in the development of the newspaper industry, telling people what’s happening in and around their favorite sports team became intertwined with the Edward R. Murrow and Woodward and Bernstein stuff that journalists sometimes wear on their sleeves to justify working in a job that pays far less money than their skills would harvest if applied to other pursuits. (We’re not being sarcastic about that last part. Many of the journalists we know would be great lawyers.)

It’s sports, folks. It’s one of our primary diversions. And the coverage of sports is part of the diversion.

We want to be entertained by sports, and we want to be entertained by the coverage of sports.

So the traditional media companies should trust their writers and provide interesting content to their readers, even when they have only one source. Alternatively, media companies can cling to concepts that simply are irrelevant to the coverage of sports, deprive their audiences of interesting information, and continue to wonder why people are flocking to blogs.

Those bolded links are just off the top of my head. I would argue that sports and political coverage are very much alike, that the two coverage worlds intersect very much in theme and execution. And if you think sports don't involve business and life and death, you're an idiot. And you might want to tell Darren Rovell he's no longer needed.
I get what that's trying to say, but running with something just because you have one source saying something is most of the time irresponsible and, as lollygaggers said, can erode your credibility real quick. Not to mention your relationships with sources if you're wrong.
On top of that, throwing **** out there that isn't 100% confirmed continues to create this fat gut of ideas the media world feeds daily. Look, I don't want to be bombarded every 10 minutes with a little nugget of information that might be true. I want to read a well-sourced account later that is absolutely true.

 

[pseudo]

I get what that's trying to say, but running with something just because you have one source saying something is most of the time irresponsible and, as lollygaggers said, can erode your credibility real quick. Not to mention your relationships with sources if you're wrong.
On top of that, throwing **** out there that isn't 100% confirmed continues to create this fat gut of ideas the media world feeds daily. Look, I don't want to be bombarded every 10 minutes with a little nugget of information that might be true. I want to read a well-sourced account later that is absolutely true.

That's Florio's specialty. And it's why, whenever he "breaks news" and someone excitedly runs back to our site with the story, I always tell them to wait until someone reputable confirms it before believing it.

 

[Stitch]

Good thing Florio's a journalist and investigated why the Herald removed the post. Why couldn't he investigate the story or was that too difficult for a blogger?

 

[Hustle]

Good thing Florio's a journalist and investigated why the Herald removed the post. Why couldn't he investigate the story or was that too difficult for a blogger?

I was going to add that I was curious when PFT turned into a reputable site. I could honestly be wrong since I don't pay attention to the thing.

Good enough for Florio isn't good enough for us.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I hate seeing goddamned editors get in the way. Never has this business more needed an unedited Web entry to result in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit/settlement.

 

[SF_Express]

I hate seeing goddamned editors get in the way. Never has this business more needed an unedited Web entry to result in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit/settlement.

You know, it's really not fair when you post examples obviously supporting your side of the debate we've been having.

 

[Pancamo]

Florio is a jackass. His "reports" from the SB cried of fanboi.

 

[Wonderlic]

I don't know. I think he does some good work.

He sure did hang himself with that post, though.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

I find it funny the BLOG! wouldn't have had a post if wasn't for the newspaper in the first place.

 

[TheMethod]

The only times I've used a single, anonymous source was when that source was also the subject of the story, but didn't want to be on the record.

I can't imagine that anybody would have a problem with that, unless they thought that the guy had some reason to lie to me.

 

[Fran Curci]

The fact that Salguero put Parcells' alleged statement in direct quotes was undoubtedly another red flag for the editors. Unless Armando got the info from Parcells (VERY UNLIKELY) or Huizenga, how would anyone know the exact wording?

Salguero probably got the info from an agent or a broadcaster or a friend of Wayne who heard it second- or third-hand.