Another rant against unnamed sources

fyi: Wrong information printed again today; credited to unnamed sources.

Where does it stop, peeps?

 

Nitpicking here, but the term should be "unidentified sources."

Every source has a name, so he/she can't technically be "unnamed."

 

Look for coverage of this search to be in "Print Journalism Run Amok 101" next spring. Waddafuckupforall.

 

I missed. Fill me in.

 

I think that question is dead-on. So-called breaking news does not have nearly the pop or lasting power it once did, and I think many young journalists have begun to focus on larger-scale, issue stories compared with hunting and pecking to get a 10-inch news story in tomorrow's paper ... and repeating the process the day after next.

The problem with this, and what I suspect has fueled much of the sourcing in Alabama, is that sports editors and executive editors have not yet embraced the trend. If you do nothing else, you damn well better get the big story.

I wonder how big Woodward and Bernstein would have been if they had to deal with InsideGovernment.com and dozens of Nixon "fan" sites that posted every rumor floating about.

 

Birmingham News had Auburn going to the Outback Bowl, based on information from several sources. Not possibly going. Going.

However, Cotton Bowl president Rick Baker said Sunday that Auburn has accepted an invitation to the Cotton Bowl.

Not a dis on the writer from Birmingham. It's a dis on the climate in Alabama right now. I know and appreciate the difference.

 

I agree. Here at my humble, NO PIDDLING ALLOWED! (hi murcielago, M_W!) shop, we have continued to take the stance that the "unidentified/anonymous source" shouldn't be broken out unless it is transcendent news. Like, say, a coach being fired at midnight.

The rest of the time, like now, we report what we can get on the record and leave the often-wrong reporting speculation to the rest of the pack. I like as much credibility as I can get, alas.

rb

 

In cases where the coach may be fired or there is a coaching search, you are not going to get any sources on the record 99 percent of the time.

So do you leave it out?

How about if it is the AD is telling you but won't go on the record?

What about if it is a well-connected booster telling you?

 

I'll take each one with a one-word answer:
1. Depends
2. Yes
3. Hellno

rb

 

Unnamed sources on a mid-level bowl bid? That's downright stupidity.

I imagine there will be a great deal of misinformation flying around on the Bama job, which is considered one of the great jobs in the country only by the bumpkin Bama fans who are waiting for Bear to rise from the dead and rescue a faltering program.
Writers have to be smart enough to not keep throwing every piece of questionable information into the paper. Sadly, many will not be because they think they have to write someting, anyuthing, that somebody else doesn't have. More stupidity.

 

For someone whose never been west of the Schuylkill, that's a very valid point.