Speaking of media, here's exhibit A of a lazy, bad trend.

[Beck Water]

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Mitch said to the media he didn't know. He most likely does know but is the type of person that will keep it in house vs telling the media. Gotta stop taking what players and coaches say to the media as absolute fact.  

 

I don't take it as absolute fact, but I disagree with your premise - I think players and coaches generally speak the truth.  Maybe not the "whole truth", but truth.

 

What would be "in it" for Morse to say he's "blissfully ignorant" "doesn't know if it's in facility or outside the facility so doesn't think it's appropriate to speak" "my keys only open so many doors around here and that's not one of them" when he could just say "that's not something I'm going to discuss, but I'll be happy to answer any Football questions or questions you have about my off-season"?

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Beck Water

[Airseven]

This is standard. You’re only noticing now because it involves a Bills story. At least some of the stories actually reference the source so the reader understands it’s duplicative “reporting.” Also, problems 1 and 2 in the OP are entirely believable.

[billsfan714]

I think the Stef issue was he hugged Josh and McClappy too tight when he first saw them, he missed them so much.😉

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, billsfan714 said:

I think the Stef issue was he hugged Josh and McClappy too tight when he first saw them, he missed them so much.😉

 

OK, but we do have a thread for that

 

I'd really like to try to seed a discussion of the meta-issue here, the issue of one reporter or media outlet writing stories that simply rely on another reporter, without any independent source or verification, until things just blow up.

 

Maybe I'm naive and it can't be done here

[mjt328]

Many years ago, I was a journalism major and actually worked the first five years of my professional career as a newspaper reporter.

The media in this country is a pathetic mess.  And not just in the sports world.  

 

Editors used to require certain procedures to verify information and sources.  Printing false information was embarrassing, and something that could legitimately get a person fired.  Today, nobody cares.  Every outlet is more concerned with getting attention (clicks and ratings), or pushing some kind of political agenda.

[Not at the table Karlos]

13 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I don't take it as absolute fact, but I disagree with your premise - I think players and coaches generally speak the truth.  Maybe not the "whole truth", but truth.

 

What would be "in it" for Morse to say he's "blissfully ignorant" "doesn't know if it's in facility or outside the facility so doesn't think it's appropriate to speak" "my keys only open so many doors around here and that's not one of them" when he could just say "that's not something I'm going to discuss, but I'll be happy to answer any Football questions or questions you have about my off-season"?

 

Saying he doesn't know stops the line of questioning right there. Most coaches and players just use "coach speak" which is pretty much just bull#### to make the fans and media happy they got something. They for the most part say as a little as possible. People want it to mean something and to be informed so they want to believe everything said is the truth when it's not. 

 

You could probably do a study on football coaches and players responses to the media over the last 30 years and you'd end up with the same things said over and over in slightly different ways. It would be like the video of all the different news programs saying the exact same things all over the country. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Not at the table Karlos

[Saxum]

4 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Many years ago, I was a journalism major and actually worked the first five years of my professional career as a newspaper reporter.

The media in this country is a pathetic mess.  And not just in the sports world.  

 

Editors used to require certain procedures to verify information and sources.  Printing false information was embarrassing, and something that could legitimately get a person fired.  Today, nobody cares.  Every outlet is more concerned with getting attention (clicks and ratings), or pushing some kind of political agenda.

 

Agree.  Even editors are being phased out with automatic publishing software.  I was an assistant to the editor at Courier Express (I worked doing classified ads and it got known I was correcting typos so editor was was given use of me when I was not doing job I was being paid for) and he regularly rejected stories with no sources. A reporter could be the source but only if he or she witnessed it directly and would put that in the story.  Editor separated opinions being part of editorial pages and speculation as something not for the paper.

[The Avenger]

There's a reason I choose to get my Bills info from local reporters rather than anyone else - they have the connections to players and the organization to report on such things where others do not. If the news involves some sort of front office or transactional info (trades, contracts, etc,) I'll trust a large national reporter (Peter King, Shefter, etc.). I honestly don't care what a random Boston Globe reporter says about the Bills. There are lots of good sportswriters working for local outlets around the country (I.e. - Mary Kay Cabot for the Browns) and I'd trust them for info on their local teams, but not the Bills. I do agree that one weak story becomes a story because everyone references it but that is happening across the media spectrum, not just sports - it is concerning.

Edited June 20, 2023 by The Avenger

[The Jokeman]

33 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

Exactly in today's twitter verse all it takes is one person to state something and a bunch of others just copy and paste it, none check their sources to confirm etc. as that take too much time and someone else might "scoop" them. It's why I generally don't read too much into articles that don't name names. 

[nucci]

just stuff to fill the downtime before camp starts. It's a waste of time

[Sierra Foothills]

12 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Agree.  Even editors are being phased out with automatic publishing software.  I was an assistant to the editor at Courier Express (I worked doing classified ads and it got known I was correcting typos so editor was was given use of me when I was not doing job I was being paid for) and he regularly rejected stories with no sources. A reporter could be the source but only if he or she witnessed it directly and would put that in the story.  Editor separated opinions being part of editorial pages and speculation as something not for the paper.

 

You're an excellent poster andI enjoy reading your material but the bolded was hilariously ironic... intentional?

 

[Shaw66]

I agree with a lot of this.  It's all a mess. 

 

Some of it is driven by people like us, who have an insatiable appetite for information, so the publishers are desperate to give us something, anything.  If they don't, we go someplace else where they do.  The result is that we get more and more crap in the news, inaccurate information, rumor passing as news, etc.  Add to that the fact that the publishers are in it for a profit, so they're always trying to reduce expenses.   Good editors, therefore, are a double problem - they hold up the publication of the crappy news that we all get sucked into reading, and they cost money.  Goodbye editors.  And it's not just newspapers; it's books, too.  Since you can self-publish your book, the real publishers can't afford to spend a lot of time and money with one or more editors who actually will help make your book readable.  

 

Think about the Diggs issue for just a minute.  Start with the premise that none of us knows what's going on, because the Bills have been quite tight-lipped about it.   Just like Dawson Knox's brother, Kim's illness, Josh's elbow.   We don't find out what's going on until after the fact.   So, it's a given that there's no news.  And, in fact, the only news that would be meaningful at this time of year would be if Diggs were cut or traded.  If that happened, we'd find out immediately.  So, why are we reading stuff that we know has no substance to it?  And even if it did, and we got an in-depth article from verified sources that Diggs is unhappy about A, B, and C, and he's talked to D, E, and F, etc.   So what?  There is only one question:  Will Diggs be in the Bills lineup, with a good state of mind, on opening day?   And there is only one answer, which won't be known until kickoff.  

 

Still, we keep getting sucked into reading that stuff.  

[boyst]

this isn't just sports reporting. this is status of american journalism. it's been this way for a while and only gotten worse in the last 6-7 years as social media has flourished to make clickbait and traffic to websites.

 

anyone who works in journalism, by mere association, should be disrespected.

[78thealltimegreat]

51 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

This is how Adam Shefter earns a high salary with ESPN “a close source” could be the guy tending bar at the stadium he’s close but not in the lockerroom. 
Meet media coverage in 2023 all that’s missing is an anonymous source with direct knowledge of the situation stated off the record for fear of reprisal from McDermott….

[Malazan]

52 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propagated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

 

One of the biggest problems in journalism is the lack of attribution. There's very little effort made to do the right thing and identify the source as much as possible. I interned at a large regional newspaper in my college days where I cam across something I liked to call the reporter circle jerk. 

 

Step 1: Team reporter A calls Team Reporter B who covers a different team

Step 2: They talk back and forth and like with most people some stuff is coming from a source and other stuff is more 'gossip' so say something like, "Yea, everybody hates training camp" and the reason for that is the heat

Step 3: Team Reporter A now writes a source close to the team (Hey guess what! To him Team Reporter B *IS* close to the team) says "Everyone on the team hates training camp" without the context and then takes something like Player A who was cut and signed elsewhere saying "I felt like I didn't get enough reps in camp last year" (btw, this is not an interview reporter A even did.. it's in another publication).

Step 4: ..and now: "A source close to the team says players hate Team A's training camp. Players say they don't get enough work in to prepare for the season. "

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

very true, critical thinking is a handy skill.
 

I try my best to just watch and enjoy the games, there is altogether to much nonsense trailing around behind all the teams…, 

[BillsDad51]

Great post. I seriously wonder if a legitimate source "close to the Bills locker room" would talk to a Boston Globe reporter and not to any local reporters. The truth is, teams keep a tight lid on info. Reporters used to be able to walk through a team facility, talk to trainers, equipment managers and other insiders without a team media official listening in. Access is tightly controlled. And other outlets jumping on a single source story from the Globe is BS.

[Saxum]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

You're an excellent poster and I enjoy reading your material but the bolded was hilariously ironic... intentional?

 

 

No. When something is a side note I use smaller font (not bolded) like you would do in a document with a reference number.  It is so the original thought can be read and if reader is interested can read more context information.  When I could not find computer work in WNY after graduation I considered applying for work at Buffalo News since Courier Express closed but a friend got me an interview at job in Northern Virginia and I have been here since.

1 minute ago, BillsDad51 said:

Great post. I seriously wonder if a legitimate source "close to the Bills locker room" would talk to a Boston Globe reporter and not to any local reporters. The truth is, teams keep a tight lid on info. Reporters used to be able to walk through a team facility, talk to trainers, equipment managers and other insiders without a team media official listening in. Access is tightly controlled. And other outlets jumping on a single source story from the Globe is BS.

 

Bills used to be very leaky with information often being distributed externally faster than it was internally.  Some was Rex being a blowhard, some was from players/agents unhappy and there was actually people taking stuff out of trash and posting it. I think part of Coach McD's clean sweep was to get rid of the leaks but unfortunately many of the people he hired first year were not quality and were gone second year.

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, Beck Water said:

So Ben Volin, reporter for the Boston Globe, stated that "a source close to the Bills locker room" (whatever that means) revealed Diggs problem with the Bills (this is all being discussed in the thread about Diggs, so I won't rehash).

 

Now Volin is a serious, albeit not always correct in his info, reporter for the Boston Globe, so if he cites a "source close to the Bills locker room", I'm sure he has one.  From his past history, he's not AP like @Delete This Account aka John Wawrow - he doesn't always have two independent sources close to the situation and he does sometimes get things wrong. 

 

Problem 1: apparently players IN the Bills locker room, like Mitch Morse, don't actually know the problem

Problem 2: Buffalo reporters, who have cultivated sources IN the locker room, can't get much - the only tidbit was Tim Graham saying he was told "it doesn't involve Dorsey" (so how could it involve Diggs usage on the offense and not involve Dorsey?  Sorry, Sorry didn't mean to re-hash)

 

But here's the real problem: This morning, there are literally a dozen articles from SI, NBC, the NY Post, and numerous more "gossipy" outlets.  Some reference Volin as the source.  Some refer to him as "an insider".

 

None of them have any independent source or verification

 

This Is Fine

 

 

No, it's not fine - it's how information from one unidentified source gets propegated and becomes "widely reported", without one iota of added credibility or verification.

 

So what can you do, Gentle Reader?

 

Pay attention to the source given for everything you read.  And if something is being "widely reported" with the same slender source, please try to rate it's cred appropriately.

 

That's fair.  

 

But here's the thing, something's clearly up with Diggs.  We know what we know, but some of what we know is that McD hasn't been honest in dealing with the public.  So in part he's responsible for a lot, most, if not all of this.  

 

Secondly, there's clearly a rift between/among Diggs/Allen/Dorsey, and since Dorsey was (apparently) Allen's hand-picked OC choice, it would therefore line up that the rift is between Diggs and Allen/Dorsey.  

 

Point being, when you (McD) don't come clean, then contradict yourself, when it gets put out that it's not football related when it clearly is, you're more or less inviting the speculation and criticism.  

 

And frankly, which is worse, the lies/spin/contradictions, or what may very well be dishonest reporting as you imply here?  

 

Then there's the thing with Frasier.  More obscuration there.  Who was really responsible for "13 Seconds" and the idiotic Cincy D play-calling?  If Frasier was that problematic for McD, why didn't he get rid of him earlier?  Did Frasier quit?  Was he "forced" out?  It wasn't his contract like some state, he still had it.  There was obviously some dissent there between the two.  

 

What about Daboll?  There are also rumors there of similar.  

 

And what for the love of pete is this obscure "Process" that we've heard about.  Sounds more like some mechanism to say "STFU, you don't know anything" specifically designed to keep criticism at bay, more than anything that's been defined or which has even remotely become clear.  

 

This Diggs thing isn't going away whether we want it to or not, unless we play a perfect season that is and Dorsey makes the most of the offense while keeping Diggs and Allen, the two top paid players, satisfied.  Odds of that happening?  

 

This "lazy, bad media trend" that you point out has been around for decades in sports, probably longer.  It's nothing new.  

 

But couldn't similar be said about the media handling of the same issues and internal affairs by McD?  I mean we hear all this rhetoric about character, but when you behave like that you contradict yourself.  

 

Just something to think about in contrast.  

 

As much as many of us would like for this season to go smoothly, everything and all of the offseason changes to work our perfectly, for us to go 14-3, win the division, and finally win the AFC and the Super Bowl, that's incredibly unlikely with the way things sit right now.  

 

McD would do himself a service to start coming a lot more clean when addressing the media, aka the fanbase, because IMO he's in over his head this season taking on both the head-coaching duties alongside calling the D, in a league where D-minded coaches typically don't ultimately succeed, A, and also given his quite average 17th ranked scoring D performance over 6 seasons in Carolina, his only stint as DC.  Are we going to get his 2nd or 6th ranked scoring D in two of those 6 seasons, or are we going to get the 26th or 27th ranked ones, including his last season there, or something in between like his other two 18th and 21st below-average Ds?  He may wish he'd have bought that good-will with fans and media here at some point soon.  

 

Just sayin'.  

 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by PBF81