North Andover Mass. paper says NFL lockout ending

A paper in my neck of the woods says it has a source that says the NFL lockout is "over" or "almost over." They're being lampooned by PFT and others.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/09/small-massachusetts-newspaper-claims-lockout-almost-over/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/10/massachusetts-newspaper-sticks-by-its-lockout-almost-over-repor/

My journalism question is this: Does credibility matter anymore? No doubt this paper's Web site got its most hits ever as this thing was linked around the country last night. Will the brass eventually come down on this guy for being wrong/premature? Or does being right not matter because of the traffic and "no press is bad press" mentality?

My first thought when I saw this was with Twitter and the Web you can't get away with printing something so bogusly wrong these days. Thinking about it further, maybe those outlets just make it worth it to be bogusly wrong?

That's assuming it is wrong. It hasn't ended in the 20 hours since they posted the story but if it ends this weekend.

 

You know what's pretty damn ironic? PFT/Florio making fun of anyone for being wrong and premature. I guess he has put the "Aaron Rodgers hates cancer patients" post behind him.

 

May as well link the article in question. http://www.eagletribune.com/sports/x2088983289/SOURCE-NFL-lockout-is-over

So is the body of the story the same and there is a new headline? Or has the body of the story changed since it was originally posted?

 

Here's an interesting possibility to consider: What if he's right?

 

I'll be astonished if anyone but a reporter for the house network breaks the lockout over story for reals.

 

Not for nothing, but I think Bill Burt is a pretty legit guy.

 

There's a good chance that the guy is wildly off base, but I'll say this:

A few years ago my station broke the news that Marlon Brando had died, about 18 hours before anyone else confirmed it. A good friend of mine was the reporter who had it. We got to listen to a whole lot of international mockery on that one (including a thread on SportsJournalists.com) about how hilarious it was that a local TV station 400 miles from Los Angeles thought it could scoop the networks on a big celebrity death... and we were right.

 

I don't doubt Bill has a source saying this, and I know from experience that he's got an in with at least one major figure in the league, but is it really kosher to go with a story like this based on just one unnamed source?

As a side note, the Eagle-Tribune was also the paper that broke the story that George O'Leary was leaving Notre Dame.

 

If he's right, the writer will have a new job by the end of the month.

If he's wrong, he should be fired.

 

This is not true.

 

Fired?

 

Why should he be fired? For being wrong, or for daring to go for a scoop that is not rightfully his by virtue of the place he works? There have been dozens of similar or bigger reporting errors by writers at huge outlets -- hell, probably dozens just from ESPN alone -- and they rarely have to pay with their jobs.