theesir Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Its absolutely amazing that these "respected" NFL writers are wrong as often as they are and still deemed "respected". The age of twitter has turned these guys from journalists into rumor mongers trying to scoop the other writers by throwing every guess they have at the wall (twitter wall) as a guarantee or near guarantee. Jason La Canfora, and Adam Shefter really take the cake. I'll give ONE example and you guys can fill in some others. The big report 2 days ago was Reid to the Cards- Done Deal! Yesterday- Talking to Chiefs first, Today- Going to Chiefs, Count on it! I have ABSOLUTELY NO faith in reports that Wisenhut is the Bills first choice and is the "leading candidate". Its just another guess so that someone can say "I said it first". I want to separate John Warrow and Tim Graham from this conversation. They have avoided making ridiculous guesses have only reported what they know to be true. I'm glad to see they still take their roles seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Sport journalists is kinda of joke field anyways (though I'm sure it is an awesome job). But guys like Jerry Sullivan have zero accountability. There's a reason why Mel Kiper does mock drafts for ESPN and has never sniffed a NFL FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Blaming the writers is easy and somewhat fair. But publishers, editors and producers are forcing their reporters into being more and more agressive on social media. He (or she) who has the most followers, retweets, etc., is getting the best gigs now. It is not hard to figure out what the masses want. They are just giving it to them. I do hope though that every reporter is being careful to maintain journalistic ethics. You can put speculation out there as long as you are clear in that is what you're pushing while differentiating what are confirmed reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Sports journalists should employ sabermetrics to their hypothocations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Jerry Sullivan is a columnist (meaning he's paid to express his opinion not report facts). This is a much different role that a reporter or true sports journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) I think the internet forces them to be more speculative. After all when people pay attention to the likes of Incarcerated Bob, you have to do something to win back attention. ESPN is not run by Edward R. Murrow. They want buzz. What do you expect from the network that reports how many chunks of corn were found in Tim Tebows BMs? PTR Edited January 3, 2013 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Jerry Sullivan is a columnist (meaning he's paid to express his opinion not report facts). This is a much different role that a reporter or true sports journalist. No. This idea is all wrong. Being a 'columnist' doesn't give you a free pass on the facts or doing actual reporting. Sports writing has always been like this...the internet has just opened up access and illuminated some weak writers who used having the podium to maintain positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 No. This idea is all wrong. Being a 'columnist' doesn't give you a free pass on the facts or doing actual reporting. Sports writing has always been like this...the internet has just opened up access and illuminated some weak writers who used having the podium to maintain positions. Columnists used to be reporters elevated to opinion makers because they had a high level of knowledge of the topic they covered. Jerry's job is to poke the beast with a stick so it starts frothing at the mouth. Something that gets easier to do every non-playoff season. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 More likely they are reporting what Andy Reid's agent told them which helps him get a better offer from the Cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 No. This idea is all wrong. Being a 'columnist' doesn't give you a free pass on the facts or doing actual reporting. Sports writing has always been like this...the internet has just opened up access and illuminated some weak writers who used having the podium to maintain positions. I don't think Sullivan is ever free and easy with the facts. He gets grief from people who think he should keep his opinion under wraps and report the facts. That is just not his job. On your second point. These aren't (by reputation) weak writers. These are some of the biggest names in the business posting rumors as a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I think the internet forces them to be more speculative. After all when people pay attention to the likes of Incarcerated Bob, you have to do something to win back attention. ESPN is not run by Edward R. Murrow. They want buzz. What do you expect from the network that reports how many chunks of corn were found in Tim Tebows BMs? PTR Problem is, espn used to have those aspirations and hired the personnel to match it about 20 years ago. Then they transitioned to the reality tv/scandalous talk show producers in their most recent hiring cycle. It went from reporting the news to creating the news. Being the self proclaimed world wide leader, it's certainly trickled down all over the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I don't think Sullivan is ever free and easy with the facts. He gets grief from people who think he should keep his opinion under wraps and report the facts. That is just not his job. On your second point. These aren't (by reputation) weak writers. These are some of the biggest names in the business posting rumors as a fact. That was my exact point. Are they big names because they have superior skills as a reporter or because they have a podium? Sullivan gets hammered because he's a poor writer and often writes entire articles that have no more depth than "BILLS SUCK!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Sports journalists should employ sabermetrics to their hypothocations. :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Its absolutely amazing that these "respected" NFL writers are wrong as often as they are and still deemed "respected". The age of twitter has turned these guys from journalists into rumor mongers trying to scoop the other writers by throwing every guess they have at the wall (twitter wall) as a guarantee or near guarantee. Jason La Canfora, and Adam Shefter really take the cake. I'll give ONE example and you guys can fill in some others. The big report 2 days ago was Reid to the Cards- Done Deal! Yesterday- Talking to Chiefs first, Today- Going to Chiefs, Count on it! I have ABSOLUTELY NO faith in reports that Wisenhut is the Bills first choice and is the "leading candidate". Its just another guess so that someone can say "I said it first". I want to separate John Warrow and Tim Graham from this conversation. They have avoided making ridiculous guesses have only reported what they know to be true. I'm glad to see they still take their roles seriously. I must have missed this. Of course we've all seen plenty of stories and tweets, but I don't remember any of them speculating as strongly as you say they did. I remember many saw Reid as "a good fit," etc., in Arizona, but "done deal"? Never saw that. I probably missed it. Shefter is a very respected reporter, and has been since he was in Denver. Try not to hate on anybody simply because they work for Big Evil ESPN or another major site/network. That being said, are there sports reporters who give journalists a bad name? Of course. Same goes with any profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) I must have missed this. Of course we've all seen plenty of stories and tweets, but I don't remember any of them speculating as strongly as you say they did. I remember many saw Reid as "a good fit," etc., in Arizona, but "done deal"? Never saw that. I probably missed it. Shefter is a very respected reporter, and has been since he was in Denver. Try not to hate on anybody simply because they work for Big Evil ESPN or another major site/network. That being said, are there sports reporters who give journalists a bad name? Of course. Same goes with any profession. Just an example.... Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter One league source said he was "95 percent" certain former Eagles HC Andy Reid will wind up coaching the Cardinals. Reading this, people assume someone like Schefters sources are solid. They obviously are not considering Reid never even made it to Arizona for an interview. Edited January 3, 2013 by theesir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Just an example.... Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter One league source said he was "95 percent" certain former Eagles HC Andy Reid will wind up coaching the Cardinals. I guess I'm just reading it differently. To me, he's reporting what a source told him. Is he using a source as a guise for his own speculation? That seems far-fetched, but I suppose it's possible. I don't see the harm in tweeting something like that, especially when you have so many followers who are thirsty for every last bit of information he has. In the end it's up to the reader to decide if what these guys tweet/write is valuable. I see some value in these kinds of things, others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 I guess I'm just reading it differently. To me, he's reporting what a source told him. Is he using a source as a guise for his own speculation? That seems far-fetched, but I suppose it's possible. I don't see the harm in tweeting something like that, especially when you have so many followers who are thirsty for every last bit of information he has. In the end it's up to the reader to decide if what these guys tweet/write is valuable. I see some value in these kinds of things, others don't. I think that's the point... if I can't count on an Adam Shefter source, who is 95% certain to even be in the ballpark (Reid never even interviewed with the Cards) than how can I trust any of his speculation. Its the throw it all and then take credit for the stories that stick approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Journalism in general is that way these days. How many false predictions have their been early in election cycles? What about rumors in various other industries? Tech? Entertainment? The most important thing is being FIRST, not being accurate. It's really a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I guess I'm just reading it differently. To me, he's reporting what a source told him. Is he using a source as a guise for his own speculation? That seems far-fetched, but I suppose it's possible. I don't see the harm in tweeting something like that, especially when you have so many followers who are thirsty for every last bit of information he has. In the end it's up to the reader to decide if what these guys tweet/write is valuable. I see some value in these kinds of things, others don't. ill agree here. part is people not processing the information actually given to them. i like that hed share that a league insider told him that. i hate that freeman will call smith to the bills almost guaranteed though. i just dont get where the editors and control is with some of these major brands (ESPN being the worst culprit often). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) I guess I'm just reading it differently. To me, he's reporting what a source told him. Is he using a source as a guise for his own speculation? That seems far-fetched, but I suppose it's possible. I don't see the harm in tweeting something like that, especially when you have so many followers who are thirsty for every last bit of information he has. Sports writing suffers from a lack of attribution. A 'league' source could be virtually anybody. It could be sue down in accounting. It could be another reporter. It could be someone that they have a friendly relationship with and the question was phrased, "how do you feel about Reid to Arizona?" Source attribution should be as specific as possible. If your source doesn't want to be named, then you ask, "Can I call you someone from the front office involved in the coaching search for Cardinals has said.." and you go down the line. The further down the line you get, the more you should look for an additional source(s). We're also part of the problem with the way we hang on every ridiculous rumor and go rushing to whatever site has the newest, zaniest information. Edited January 3, 2013 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts