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

[mjt328]

1 hour 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.

 

Yep.  In the old days, the idea of an "anonymous source" was almost always laughed at.

 

If a source wasn't willing to go on the record, then it probably wasn't true.  Very few newspapers were willing to put their reputation on the line to print unverified rumors.  So if a reporter got some information off the record, they needed to do MORE legwork investigation behind the scenes to 100% verify it was true.

 

Today, reporters can just talk to the building janitor (or just make something up themselves), stamp it with the standard "inside sources tell me"... and then face absolutely zero repercussions if the story turns out to be B.S.

 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, The Avenger said:

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.

I don’t know about this approach.  I don’t doubt that the Bills beat guys have an idea what happened.  But they won’t report on it because the team doesn’t want it out there.  They’re not controlled by the team, but they don’t mess with the organization because they need the access the organization provides. 

 

The bigger question, in my mind, when I read the Volin article is who is the leaker and why.  The operative theory here is that it’s someone who wants to shake Diggs out of Buffalo.  Sow a little dissension in the ranks here, if you will.  So who would be a “source close to the locker room,” but not in the room, want Diggs out of Buffalo (for the source’s own benefit), maybe have an axe to grind with McD (or not, it’s not essential to the theory), and have and use a Boston connection to throw the less devious off of the scent (in other words, use somebody not local to Buffalo or to his current location, lest suspicion be cast upon him)?  

 

The prime suspect here is Brian Daboll.   I don’t doubt for a moment that he still talks to people here.  And I’m sure there’s other people there who still talk to folks in Buffalo.  It’s my understanding that he was close with Diggs when he was here, and I think there’s obvious upside on his end to shaking Diggs out of Buffalo.  He spent a lot of time in NE and has at least access to Volin.  And, as the chef’s kiss, he gets to mess with McD a little bit if he so desires.  

[benderbender]

Exhibit B would be the “disrespect” narrative that Cincinnati contrived with ZERO pushback or clarifying questions from any competent journalist. 

 

Exhibit C would be the past 3 years of current events.

[BillsVet]

Could be Diggs' agent.  Might not be...who knows?  Who cares?

 

As someone who's been on TBD some time, I have seen the attention paid to the NFL grow exponentially over the past 10-15 years.  Now, threads garner 100+ pages in a day or 2 and this is only a small subset of fans.          

 

Heck, I was on the driving range the other night and 2 normies were discussing this asinine issue like there is nothing else going on.      

Edited June 20, 2023 by BillsVet

[In Summary]

Does anyone still take legacy media seriously?  

[EasternOHBillsFan]

2 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).

 

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.

 

It's the Boston Globe... Boston... come on, people should see "Boston" and immediately discount that they have aa scoop on ANYTHING Buffalo sports related.

[Doc]

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.

 

Welcome to "news" reporting.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Doc

[EasternOHBillsFan]

4 minutes ago, In Summary said:

Does anyone still take legacy media seriously?  

 

Yes, because social media news sites are usually full of utter BS... "legacy" as you call it are the last vestiges of old school journalism. In this case, their sports department has the issue and since it is Boston, our rivals, it's suspicious.

[Nextmanup]

This isn't Watergate for Christ's sake.  They're talking about a prima donna athlete's temper tantrum.

 

To the OP: Do you really not understand what "a source close to Bills locker room" means in journalism speak?

 

Were you expecting names?  It doesn't work that way.

 

 

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, Malazan said:

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.

 

This is true, partly because search engines actually punish articles that link to off-site destinations. The articles will lose SEO (search engine optimization) points for doing so.

 

I write for an e-magazine and I've been told not to provide external links to my sources. My editor said, "You can name the source, but don't link to it - they can Google it if they want to find it." As a journalist who's familiar with academic research, scientific research, and the history of the WWW, this drives me crazy. And as one who researches my articles and tries to find primary (i.e. original) sources, it makes my job that much more difficult. And it completely thumbs its nose to the whole purpose of the WWW: to provide information and easy-to-follow links to related information. The SEO craze is crippling what could be a decent research tool. And just when you figure out what the SEO bot wants, someone figures out how to manipulate it, making the search engines change their algorithms and the SEO bots respond with new rules. I've seen at least one website that posts the URLs of its sources but removes the hyperlink, so you can copy/paste, but not click on it.  That satisfies the SEO bots and saves me the trouble of Googling something, but it's still a PITA.

 

And if you think I should be disrespected for being associated with the publishing industry, please be aware that some of us still do legit research and seek out original sources; it's not our fault that the industry is discouraging that. I've already made it clear to my editor that my integrity is important to me, so I don't use click-bait titles and I do cite my sources. As long as I don't hyperlink to the sources, he's cool with that. And when he tried to "spice up" one of my titles with a phrase that screamed "click bait" to me, I told him that if he insisted on that title, then he should remove my name from the byline and publish it under "Staff." Both he and the editor-in-chief decided to keep my name in the byline and use a non-click bait title. 

 

 

[BuffaloBillyG]

2 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.

Some very excellent points here. I like to pay attention to the wording as well. A source "close to the Bills locker room". Boy that's a wide net to cast, eh?

 

Could be an agent. Could be a friend of a friend of the wife of a player. Could be an ex teammate (why does this whole thing scream of McKenzie being the culprit 😂?). Could be a lot of people. The validity of the report comes down to who it is that told Ben, and that's not something we will ever know.

 

One thing is for sure. The way it's phrased the information isn't coming from a source "inside the Bills locker room". And most likely the only ones that know accurately are the ones that were not only in the locker room...but those that were in the meetings with Diggs, McDermott and Beane or the people those 3 informed (such as Josh Allen).

[Saxum]

47 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Just sayin'.  

 

 

You are speculating just like reporters and treating it like facts. 

They have no obligation to reveal internal issues and in fact most employers WON"T for worry of lawsuits.

My employer for example has a policy of not do any more than verify employment dates for me even though I have had 7 years of excellent or better ratings

 

You Are Just sayin'

[GoBills808]

57 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

Yep.  In the old days, the idea of an "anonymous source" was almost always laughed at.

 

If a source wasn't willing to go on the record, then it probably wasn't true.  Very few newspapers were willing to put their reputation on the line to print unverified rumors.  So if a reporter got some information off the record, they needed to do MORE legwork investigation behind the scenes to 100% verify it was true.

 

Today, reporters can just talk to the building janitor (or just make something up themselves), stamp it with the standard "inside sources tell me"... and then face absolutely zero repercussions if the story turns out to be B.S.

 

So Deep Throat was actually his name then

[PBF81]

5 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

You are speculating just like reporters and treating it like facts. 

They have no obligation to reveal internal issues and in fact most employers WON"T for worry of lawsuits.

My employer for example has a policy of not do any more than verify employment dates for me even though I have had 7 years of excellent or better ratings

 

You Are Just sayin'

 

So it's speculating that there's an existing issue between Diggs and Allen/Dorsey?  

It's speculating that we were told that the issue was non-football related, but that this "non-existent issue" actually is football related?  
 

Well, OK.  

 

I suppose if they were talking about the actual pigskin ball then sure, it wasn't football related, so technically they were telling the truth.  LOL 

 

 

[JerseyBills]

4 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.

Ya and to add to your point,  when he posted that on Twitter,  even a boatload of Pat's fans were trashing his reputation.  Basically saying they were happy to hear the news until they found out who said it. He has a reputation in Boston of being dead wrong on these type of accusations 

 

But at the same time that makes the most sense why he's upset. Doesn't mean it's against Dorsey but maybe he saw things and floated ideas to adjust and the coaches didn't listen 

 

I love his competitive 🔥 . Dude just wants SBs, knows this team is fully capable to achieve it

Edited June 20, 2023 by JerseyBills

[BillsFanSD]

Part of the problem is that people in the Boston media take their jobs as journalists more seriously than people in the Buffalo media.  Almost everyone who works this beat -- that includes credentialed reporters and Cover 1 -- is basically a cheerleader for the club.  The fact that Tim Graham won't dig into the situation with Diggs is why we have to go to the Boston Globe to find out what's going on.  And those of us who complain about it get written off as being "entitled," as if there's something weird or inappropriate about wanting to know what's happening in the corners of the world that are important to you.  It's a bad combination of bad local media meets bad online fanbase.

Edited June 20, 2023 by BillsFanSD

[That's No Moon]

3 hours 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.

Because we, the consumers, demand speed over accuracy and slurp up political nonsense as much as we seem to complain about it. If we didn't do that, the model wouldn't have changed.

[Beck Water]

17 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:

Ya and to add to your point,  when he posted that on Twitter,  even a boatload of Pat's fans were trashing his reputation.  Basically saying they were happy to hear the news until they found out who said it. He has a reputation in Boston of being dead wrong on these type of accusations 

 

But at the same time that makes the most sense why he's upset. Doesn't mean it's against Dorsey but maybe he saw things and floated ideas to adjust and the coaches didn't listen 

 

I love his competitive 🔥 . Dude just wants SBs, knows this team is fully capable to achieve it

 

I can entirely believe that Diggs wants more input into the offense - which, as a vet, he should be listened to about, as Beasley was.

 

But I can't by any stretch of the imagination square up that particular issue as being his "Untll we settle this, I'm Outta Here" issue IF Tim Graham is correct that the issue did not involve Dorsey.  Because there's no way input into the offense, play design, and how players are used doesn't directly link to Dorsey.

 

And if he wants more targets or more use overall, he's trippin'.  He already gets as much on a per-snap basis as the two top WR in the league.  If he wants more overall, stay on the field, take yourself out less, Diggs.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Beck Water

[jkeerie]

1 hour 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.

It wouldn't surprise me if the source is still Isaiah McKenzie...even though he is no longer a Bill.  He's never hesitated talking to the media and offering his opinion as fact.  I think it made him feel important.

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, In Summary said:

Does anyone still take legacy media seriously?  

 

Well, yeah.  Yeah, I do.  Or at least, I want to.

 

Please be clear, it's not Volin and the Bostin Globe I have an issue with here.  I'm sure Volin has a source, and the source said what the source said.  Whether the source really knows what they're speaking of, I can't say. 

 

What I have an issue with is all the little echo chambers picking up Volin's story and running with it, with no independent attempts at verification.

3 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

It wouldn't surprise me if the source is still Isaiah McKenzie...even though he is no longer a Bill.  He's never hesitated talking to the media and offering his opinion as fact.  I think it made him feel important.

 

I don't think McKenzie has any connection to Ben Volin.