Did I miss the memo about ESPN morphing into the YES Network

Let me try to get what you're saying right, spnited... As a beat writer in New York you just have to continue to have a baseball mouthpiece continue to feed you erroneous info and continue to report said info without regard to journalistic integrity? If a source -- WHOEVER IT IS -- proves time and again to be unreliable, it is your journalistic duty to no longer use that person as an unnamed source in the articles you ask your readers to trust.

I'd like to think a true journalist would have the balls to stand up to that type of manipulation and find a way to work this craft without being at the mercy of a mouthpiece who can hide in anonymity.

Guess that's how you're comfortable working your craft, but in that world, you're right... I have no clue how to be that type of journalist. Good luck with that.

 

What the fuck good are anonymous sources who feed you bullshit?

Fuck them. Hang 'em out to dry. Out 'em in public, and let them wipe the shit off their own faces.

Sure, they won't talk to you any more. Who gives a shit, if they were just using you as their stalking horse, anyway??

 

The last two posts are proof why Tenacious and starman -- and so many others of you with "fuck the source, hang 'em out to dry" mentality -- will be small timers in small markets their entire lives.

And one more thing... in the four or five days since all this bullshit went down not one caller -- out of thousands to WFAN and ESPN Radio in NY -- has said "boy, does Madden look bad." All they have said is "I'm glad George changed his mind," or "I wish George had fired Torre like he originally wanted too."
You see, children, NY readers and fans understand how the tabloid game is played far better than those of you in East Bum Fuck do.

 

Where did I ever say out the source? I never said out the source and I never would. I know its hard to read the screen with your lips pressed so firmly against Madden's ass, but read my posts again.. the one where I say never out the source, but its a journalists responsibility to not use that source as unnamed again.

I'm just 28, and I never did time, but I had phone records subpoenaed and was facing contempt for not outing a source in a murder case in Santa Fe in 2002. Last year, I got banned for a short time from practice of the DI football team I cover because I wouldn't out my sources. So quit talking shit about me just to cloud the reality of your original post being moronic and entirely against all journalistic integrity.

instead of saying, again, I'll be small town the rest of my life jersey boy, answer the question: Do you really believe, as you wrote earlier, that media in big markets have no choice but to continue use unnamed sources even when said source has proven to be wrong on multiple occasions?

Instead avoiding the question by getting personal, I know its hard, but try to answer it. Here's a start for you... "I messed up. What I meant to say was..."

I also think its sad that you dignify a lack of journalistic integrity by offering the NY fan's understand how the game is played. So you're saying they understand taht you can't really trust the newspapers, because the nature of the game is they are wrong, but eventually everything will get cleared up. You're right. No need to make any effort to get the story right the first time.

 

That's why tabloids have no credibility. Their reporters are wrong time and time and time again, and readers justifiably assume there's a good chance any story they read is bullshit.

The reason for THAT being that reporters go with anonymous sources who are using them to float trial balloons, create strawmen or whip up public opinion in some particular direction to promote their own personal agendas.

The only thing a journalist really has to sell is credibility. By using anonymous sources, you are placing that credibility at their mercy. If and when their information turns out to be bullshit, who looks like an idiot? You, the journalist.

The reader just assumes you are making up bullshit.

The privilege of anonymity is given by the journalist in exchange for the presumption that the source's information is valid. It's a contract. If the source's information is bullshit, the source has failed to live up to his end of the transaction, and the journalist has no obligation to protect the source's anonymity. So fuck him, out him, and hang him out to dry.

Sure, he'll probably get in trouble for leaking stuff to the media. Tough shit. He should have thought of that before feeding you a load of bullshit.

 

tenacious... With the competition in New York, you have to break news to be on top.

You usually check with other sources. But there are always unnamed sources on trades, free agent signings, etc. No source will be reliable 100 percent of the time. Things happen - the Ben Bardlee example about writing the story that LBJ would force J. Edgar Hoover's retirement is an example. It was accurate when Bradlee wrote it, and then something else happens.

In this case, the question is was the source good enough to risk being wrong. From what I can see, the answer is yes. The only way to always avoid being wrong is to wait for the press conference or press release, but that isn't real journalism and doesn't give your readers anything extra.

Another example - I know for a fact that a D-1 coach was going to be fired - the booster club and administration had met, everything was set up... then the coach's team won six of their last eight games, and won an NCAA tournament game before losing in the second round. The college extended a new contract.

 

The original Madden/TJ Quinn Sunday story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/10-08-2006/sports/baseball/yankees/story/459661p-386777c.html

Madden's Sunday column:

http://www.nydailynews.com/10-08-2006/sports/baseball/yankees/story/459624p-386753c.html

Somebody please tell me what is wrong with any of this when GEORGE STEINBRENNER is the source?