Sources say once again

[Stitch]

ESPN thinks it's doing some real journalism with another "sources said "story, this time on Percy Harvin traveling with the team to New Orleans.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4852032

The Strib story doesn't use anonymous sources.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/82515857.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU&elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

Does anyone say anything on the record to an ESPN writer anymore?

 

[Point of Order]

Doesn't appear that the Strib used any source for the proposition that he was on the plane. They just state it flat out unsourced.

 

[EagleMorph]

Doesn't appear that the Strib used any source for the proposition that he was on the plane. They just state it flat out unsourced.

They, unlike ESPN, probably had someone at the facility and saw Harvin arrive there. They also reference the Twitter page and the conversations with people in contact with Harvin.

 

[Babs]

They, unlike ESPN, probably had someone at the facility and saw Harvin arrive there. They also reference the Twitter page and the conversations with people in contact with Harvin.

Right, if it's something directly observable, like someone's presence, you don't need a source to tell you that. You observe it, and you write it.

 

[flexmaster33]

"Excuse me, Mr. Favre, but are my eyes decieving me or is that Percy Harvin across the way?"

lol

 

[Point of Order]

Not buying it. If that's the case they should have made it clear.

 

[Stitch]

Not buying it. If that's the case they should have made it clear.

I'm not buying why ESPN needs to use anonymous sources.

 

[bob]

this whole "source" thing is getting out of hand, and not just with ESPN. i see so many writers quoting "sources," like they've done some kind of investigatuve reporting, and it often turns out to be the team's PR director. wow. that's impressive reporting.

 

[armageddon]

Not buying it. If that's the case they should have made it clear.

Just curious:

What if you, the reporter, have discovered a way (area/vantage point/whatever) to observe certain things and the team is ignorant of this?

Is it worth spelling it out and tipping the team off and allowing them to do something to take away your ability to observe and report to your readers?

 

[Point of Order]

Not buying it. If that's the case they should have made it clear.

Just curious:

What if you, the reporter, have discovered a way (area/vantage point/whatever) to observe certain things and the team is ignorant of this?

Is it worth spelling it out and tipping the team off and allowing them to do something to take away your ability to observe and report to your readers?

No, if that was the situation I would just say "a source close to the team observed" XYZ, whatever. There's nothing untrue about it and you won't be burned.

Reporters do this kind of thing all the time. If Urban Meyer tells me that he submitted his resignation to Jeremy Foley this morning, will let you write it, but doesn't want that information attributed to him yet, then you say a source close to Urban Meyer said Meyer submitted his resignation this morning. Jeremy Foley declined to comment on the story, but did not deny that Meyer had resigned.

 

[Stitch]

So lying is OK?

 

[Point of Order]

Stitch,

You obviously can't discuss things like a grown-up, so I'll forgive your ignorance and naivete. You posted two articles, one which used an unnamed source, and one that contained no source at all for the main proposition. You criticized the first one, legitimately, because unnamed sources are a problem and overused. You held the second one up if it were a beacon for journalistic excellence, which it certainly is not. In my opinion, it's on more unstable footing than the first because it is destitute of a source. Go back to playing with your Legos.

 

[Stitch]

I asked a simple question. Why is it OK to write "sources close to" when the subject is the source?

Obviously your short posts are grown-up conversation, but my replies are juvenile. In any of my stories, if I observe something on my own, I don't attribute it. Who knows what the Strib reporter saw?

As for the ESPN article, it's a ****-poor job of reporting, but reporting that is commonplace with ESPN or the NY Times.

 

[MCbamr]

So you would trust a source more than your reporter's own eyes? You must be next in line for a corporate job.