Reporter thrown under the proverbial bus?

A reporter at a small Alabama paper does a story on a local kid signing with the Buffalo Bills. In the story, he quotes the player talking about the problems at Arkansas, his old school.

http://www.cullmantimes.com/localsports/local_story_180231331.html

Now today, the paper has this...

http://www.cullmantimes.com/cnhi/cullmantimes/localsports/local_story_183235557.html?keyword=secondarystory

The follow-up story is completely about Tubbs denying his previous quotes, but the final line of the story is "Editor’s note: The Times stands behind the original article published in the matter."

Why print this second story if you're standing behind the original story? Is it just an example of a small paper trying to appease a local kid?

 

Sounds like it.

 

Who's got the tape?

It's examples like this when tape recorders are the best. Makes 'em shut up real quick.

 

My thoughts, exactly.

 

Or handwritten notes for that matter.

I always have: A tape. Notes. And the notes transcribed in type in Apple Works.

 

This reeks of small-town publisher and editor just wanting to get through the day and thinking it won't kill them to do this.

 

Small town people trying to appease mommy, daddy and some advertisers.

If the newspaper "stands by its story" then it doesn't put that at the end of the story. It goes up higher.

That's why you use a tape recorder, transcribe the tape, keep the tape and then say, "Come down to our office and let's listen to the tape recording that was made in full view of Mr. Tubbs and with his agreement."

I hate transcribing tapes. But when your nuts are on the chopping block they are invaluable.

 

I will take a different approach here. This was stupid reporting and the result was predictable.

You write a 15-paragraph article about a guy going to the NFL and have three grafs of vague bitching about Alabama near the bottom.

Writer should either have let it go or asked follow up questions.

Who was lied to? What should the administration do? Etc.

You either keep it out and chalk it up to typical bitching that would happen anywhere or dig into the story. You don't just let this guy throw crap out there like that.

And you write the follow up but if you stand by your guy, you mention that the whole thing is on tape -- if it is ineed on tape. It's possible he assumed the guy was talking about Nutt and added that.

 

Sources have told the Slappy pipeline there is no tape. Can't prove he said it, can't prove he didn't.
But sources say that when the player was asked about the same situation during the season, another writer was told flat out "No comment"
And the quotes created a "shitstorm" in piggie-land.

 

I'm with Ace.
Not smart reporting.
Do the signing story. Leave the one-sided remarks about the school out -- of that story.
You want to go for broke write a second day folo, sidebar or column about the kid's comments. Like Ace said, when the kid starts spouting off with the generalized "they and some athletes" talk, ask specifics. Then call school officials for a rebuttal.
You have to be balanced.

If the paper stands by the reporter and his story, it should say so in the top four or five graphs. Not at the bottom like an afterthought.

I think the kid was running off at the mouth, it got him in trouble and he's backtracking.
Who knows, maybe the reporter is going along with it to be nice to the kid?

 

I think it's quite possible that the writer put words in the guy's mouth then. Good learning experience.