Dibs Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Yes, admit that his sources used a bad choice of words. it was not his word, so he shouldn't apologize for that. He should have just admitted his sources used poor wording. ..... IMO he should have conveyed what his sources actually meant rather than directly quote something that he(very most likely) knew was going to be misrepresentative of the situation. ..... Of course, and Dibs might not be aware of this (though he probably is--dude seems to have more info down under than most here) "going rogue" has become quite the popular term in the states the last few years. So I suppose there is a possibility both guys used the term, independently. But still, I kind of doubt it. Actually, I wasn't aware of that. I guessed the concept in my attempts to be fair to TG (trying to think of reasons why 2 individuals would both incorrectly use an uncommon term).
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) That has really nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking intentionally knowing a certain circumstance was going to happen that showed a member of the Bills organization in a different light than was the truth. He knew this would happen. I could give a crap about the last 15 years of the Bills and their futility. This is a new era and new owner and relatively new GM and new coach and new coordinators and new team and fresh start. And he basically, on purpose, got one of its main cogs trashed on a national level even though TG knew it wasn't really true. Right. You neglect MY point.......you care about that sh*t.......and I do not. Mind over matter, if you will. Why don't I care?........because it absoposilutely does not matter one bit wrt what happens on the field. I... unlike you purportedly....do care about the 15 years of losing........it's been a lot of laughs........mostly at the tailgate parties to be honest......... but I am ready to watch competitive football and I'd like the factory of excuses boarded up once and for all. I am sorry if people think it shines Whaley.....who is no lock to be the GM beyond this season..............or the Pegula's.....who have had their stewardship questioned after a really rough start with the Sabres.......in a negative light. That's only possible because there are no results yet to justify praise for the management of football operations. That will play itself out and this matter will long be forgotten if the results on the field are a lot of W's. I am expecting big things and I don't care what Adam Shefter or some other national media member thinks about Whaley. Honestly, I think you guys are veiling your disdain for a perceived slight of management with this ridiculous "journalistic integrity" nonsense. This is mere entertainment...reporting on the games within the game, so to speak.......and "rogue" is what his sources told him. End of story. I have taken into account that the Dean might be into the sauce a bit......but you specifically asked my opinion and I gave it. Here is what I care about: Show me the baby! I don't care about the media pains! . Edited September 6, 2015 by #BADOL
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 I have to agree with Dibs, that it seems unlikely both sources would use the term "rogue". But then again, they could have discussed what they would say to Timmy beforehand. That alone should have tipped Tim off. Of course, and Dibs might not be aware of this (though he probably is--dude seems to have more info down under than most here) "going rogue" has become quite the popular term in the states the last few years. So I suppose there is a possibility both guys used the term, independently. But still, I kind of doubt it. It seems odd to me. But it would be pretty low for TG to completely make it up, or miss tweet it and blame it on sources. Because he said several times that it wasn't his word, it was the word of his sources. If this didn't catch on in the national media, it would have been forgotten by now. I know we all hate ESPN/ NFL network for obvious reasons, but I still watch them. It was pretty dishearting hearing them talk about this "rogue" story and talking in detail about how the bills are dysfunctional because there is no communication between the HC and GM. I mean, what a buzz kill over what has been a pretty exciting off season. IMO he should have conveyed what his sources actually meant rather than directly quote something that he(very most likely) knew was going to be misrepresentative of the situation. Actually, yes, this probably would have been better. And would have been an easier pill for him to swallow too
Dibs Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 ... Here is what I care about: Show me the baby! I don't care about the media pains! . Yet you jump into this thread early on with strong opinions. I think you care about the media pains....just a little bit.
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Yes, admit that his sources used a bad choice of words. it was not his word, so he shouldn't apologize for that. He should have just admitted his sources used poor wording. In my opinion, that is what a good journalist would do. Whether they are reporting about a Niki Minaj concert, the stock market, or a little league baseball team, I have respect for journalists that do their job the right way. If their sources make something up or report wrong, then there is a retraction by respectable journalists. You think it doesn't matter because football is an entertainment topic so it doesn't matter since it isn't a serious issue, and that is fine. I personally like my journalism , sports or otherwise, to be a higher standard then what was displayed. There are plenty of journalists I have stopped following because of that. There are too many good journalists out there for me to follow someone that isn't meeting those standards. So a good journalist re-interprets what his source tells them and then apologizes for the source...unsoliticed of course...... if necessary. And yes.........that is exactly what you are telling me. Probably doesn't sound so smart when I say it though.
Dibs Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 So a good journalist re-interprets what his source tells them and then apologizes for the source...unsoliticed of course...... if necessary. And yes.........that is exactly what you are telling me. Probably doesn't sound so smart when I say it though. If you get told that someone is...." Just as proficient with their left hand as they are the right. They are amphibious.", do you report that they are ambidextrous....or indeed amphibious?
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 So a good journalist re-interprets what his source tells them and then apologizes for the source...unsoliticed of course...... if necessary. And yes.........that is exactly what you are telling me. Probably doesn't sound so smart when I say it though. I am not saying he should re-interpret anything. This is another case of you not reading. If you ever read any news pieces where something was falsely reported, due to errors/bad sources, they issue a retraction. plain and simple. no apologizing, no re-interpreting anything. You really pull these things out of thin air when you quote me If you get told that someone is...." Just as proficient with their left hand as they are the right. They are amphibious.", do you report that they are ambidextrous....or indeed amphibious? well, obviously amphibious, because sports writing is for entertainment purposes only. Like an extension of the funny pages. All laughs with nothing being accurate
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Yet you jump into this thread early on with strong opinions. I think you care about the media pains....just a little bit. "My source said this......but IMO this is what they meant". Okeedokee.
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 "My source said this......but IMO this is what they meant". Okeedokee. or.... the reporter could just ask the source for clarification. like "wow! Whaley really went Rogue?! does that mean he didn't tell the pegulas? didn't tell rex? went behind the backs of the entire organization?!" I mean, I am not a reporter or anything, but if a source dropped a bombshell on me, or gave me something that didn't make sense, then I totally would ask a source for clarification. Which Tim obviously did because he came back and said, oh by the way, Terry Pegula knew about fred jackson's release
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) I am not saying he should re-interpret anything. This is another case of you not reading. If you ever read any news pieces where something was falsely reported, due to errors/bad sources, they issue a retraction. plain and simple. no apologizing, no re-interpreting anything. You really pull these things out of thin air when you quote me well, obviously amphibious, because sports writing is for entertainment purposes only. Like an extension of the funny pages. All laughs with nothing being accurate So even if his source doesn't want him to apologize for poor wording, he should? Again, he was reporting what a source told him not HIS OPINION. If you get told that someone is...." Just as proficient with their left hand as they are the right. They are amphibious.", do you report that they are ambidextrous....or indeed amphibious? Anyone else have some wonderful analogies that make the assumption that Graham knows immediately that his source is absolutely, 100% incorrect? Edited September 6, 2015 by #BADOL
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 "My source said this......but IMO this is what they meant". Okeedokee. one other point I wanted to add to this, this is actually a common thing. Usually with interviews . but the reporter will insert "sic" when there is something that is odd, thinks it might be wrong, or mean something else. I take it you must get most of your reading done on the funny pages of the news
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 or.... the reporter could just ask the source for clarification. like "wow! Whaley really went Rogue?! does that mean he didn't tell the pegulas? didn't tell rex? went behind the backs of the entire organization?!" I mean, I am not a reporter or anything, but if a source dropped a bombshell on me, or gave me something that didn't make sense, then I totally would ask a source for clarification. Which Tim obviously did because he came back and said, oh by the way, Terry Pegula knew about fred jackson's release I think you are getting closer to the point where you realize that it's not really a great idea for a reporter to twist the words of his source.
DanInUticaTampa Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 So even if his source doesn't want him to apologize for poor wording, he should? Again, he was reporting what a source told him not HIS OPINION. I asked you to please read my posts before you blindly reply to them, yet to decide not to. I never ever said Graham should apologize. Not once did I ever say that. Go show me exactly where I specifically said Graham should apologize. What I said was, graham should have admitted his sources were wrong. That is not me asking to admit blame. It is not his fault his sources were wrong. He should put the blame on where the info came from, the sources. But rather than admitting his sources made a mistake, he stood by them. I was never ever in this thread asking for TG to apologize. You are making that up. I think you are getting closer to the point where you realize that it's not really a great idea for a reporter to twist the words of his source. I never said he should twist the words of his source. Again, another thing you are making up. Go find where I said TG should twist, change words of his source. you won't find it, because it doesn't exist it is something you made up, because I did not say those things
Nervous Guy Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 If this didn't catch on in the national media, it would have been forgotten by now. I know we all hate ESPN/ NFL network for obvious reasons, but I still watch them. It was pretty disheartening hearing them talk about this "rogue" story and talking in detail about how the bills are dysfunctional because there is no communication between the HC and GM. I mean, what a buzz kill over what has been a pretty exciting off season. Actually this is why there has been outrage by a lot of fans...I know it's the case for me. Since we are all fans of the Bills this left us not only with the disappointment of losing Fred, but also with egg on our face. I think a lot of people feel that TG threw Whaley under the bus and by extension the fans as well. We've been through a lot over the years and now finally we have reason to feel excited and proud and optimistic...then this.
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Actually this is why there has been outrage by a lot of fans...I know it's the case for me. Since we are all fans of the Bills this left us not only with the disappointment of losing Fred, but also with egg on our face. I think a lot of people feel that TG threw Whaley under the bus and by extension the fans as well. We've been through a lot over the years and now finally we have reason to feel excited and proud and optimistic...then this. Yes....exactly. A very vocal minority of fans are pissed because they care about the national perception of the team/organization.......and so they are coming up with all these convoluted ideas about journalistic integrity and how he should edit the words of his source. Literally contradicting themselves in an attempt to justify their disappointment. He merely reported what his source within the organization said. The question is should they really care about that national perception? It's meaningless. Has no impact on results on the field. If you want a higher/more esteemed national profile the team will have to earn it on the field anyway. Winners are respected and admired.....losers are rejected and ridiculed. Respect has to be earned......it's not going to be given on spec.
Nervous Guy Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 If you want a higher/more esteemed national profile the team will have to earn it on the field anyway. Winners are respected and admired.....losers are rejected and ridiculed. Respect has to be earned......it's not going to be given on spec. Bingo. I am truly longing for this to happen.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 one other point I wanted to add to this, this is actually a common thing. Usually with interviews . but the reporter will insert "sic" when there is something that is odd, thinks it might be wrong, or mean something else. I take it you must get most of your reading done on the funny pages of the news IMO you and Dibs are missing the point. TG knew exactly what they meant. It's a common term that has a specific meaning. He knew who Whaley was (allegedly) dissing by not discussing it with him, he knew it wasn't Pegula or Rex or Roman because I'm sure he asked that question or the sources offered it. And then he just reported it knowing what would happen.
KD in CA Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 or.... the reporter could just ask the source for clarification. like "wow! Whaley really went Rogue?! does that mean he didn't tell the pegulas? didn't tell rex? went behind the backs of the entire organization?!" I mean, I am not a reporter or anything, but if a source dropped a bombshell on me, or gave me something that didn't make sense, then I totally would ask a source for clarification. Which Tim obviously did because he came back and said, oh by the way, Terry Pegula knew about fred jackson's release That would assume the goal for self-serving douchebag "reporters" like Timmah is to report accurate information. It's not. The goal is to get noticed and get twitters and see their name mentioned on ESPN for a few minutes. That's the new game -- they don't want to report on the celebrities any more, they want to be the celebrities. If they have to invent some bullsh-- like Timmah did with Whaley, so be it. Which is the reason why this kind of crap should be ignored (or mocked) from the outset.
Kaz Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Wasn't this post supposed to be about, in some way shape or form, the absurdity of Coller (who I actually do like) using his college baseball days as a point of reference on a talk show? He's not a former athlete in the media like, say, a Steve Tasker or Ray Bentley, who I'd listen to if they wanted to draw a parallel to their playing days. Furthermore, the past week's instance wasn't the first time MC has pulled out the "I was a player, dude" card: https://twitter.com/MatthewWGR/status/630903103865364480 I just think its very disingenuous and smacks of egotism. Graham certainly went over the top, but he proved his point. I'm sure Coller won't be recalling his playing days on-air henceforth.
BADOLBILZ Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 That would assume the goal for self-serving douchebag "reporters" like Timmah is to report accurate information. It's not. The goal is to get noticed and get twitters and see their name mentioned on ESPN for a few minutes. That's the new game -- they don't want to report on the celebrities any more, they want to be the celebrities. If they have to invent some bullsh-- like Timmah did with Whaley, so be it. Which is the reason why this kind of crap should be ignored (or mocked) from the outset. Always amazes me how people let their soft underbelly get exposed by this essentially meaningless fluff.
Recommended Posts