So if Torre stays...(a journalism question)

Eh, maybe you're right, Murdoch wouldn't have sold to Spnited anyway, since Spnited consulted on the decision to send Murdoch's prisoner relatives to Australia back in the day.

 

This paper is one of Hamilton's many babies. And Joseph of Arimethea cried.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

 

Why, yes. Thank you for asking.

And the crying about how hard it is shows how desperately many people in this industry need to start developing spines, guts and brain cells.

If you don't have confirmation of an issue, DON'T RUN WITH IT. It's that fucking simple.

 

Exactly. My problem with this while situation is that everyone has some unnamed source willing and able to talk about the future of the Yankees, of A-Rod, of Torre, etc. And I do realize that unnamed sources are sometimes a necessary evil to get the scoop in a highly competitive market like New York during the Internet age, but those same unnamed sources can say whatever they want. Torre's a goner? Got an unnamed source. Torre's staying? Got an unnamed source.

I don't like unnamed sources. I like confirmations by people on the record, and if that doesn't come, so be it.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!


The unnamed source in Madden's original story was GEORGE FUCKING STEINBRENNER!

The unnamed source in George King's "Joe is staying" story was GEORGE FUCKING STEINBRENNER!

What don't you fucking morons understand????

 

Then have GEORGE FUCKING STEINBRENNER go on the record and say it. Don't speculate when the source can still change his mind and thus change the story, making you look foolish when they come to the press conference.

 

Makes for a pretty boring paper with nothing in it when your readers are clamouring for some -- any -- news. It's not like we're talking about rumored, unconfirmed news of a planned invasion or a political resignation. It's just sports. It's supposed to be fun. For some people that includes gossipy bullshit.

Granted, my paper would never (and did never) run anything of the sort on Torre or similar situations, but that's part of the reason why I think it's a dinosaur that's losing readers and is boring as hell to read day-to-day. If I want so-called confirmed news I already heard the day before, I'll just google it.

 

Boy, that's a real slippery slope there Nathan. In a way, I understand what you're saying. But we're not in the business of producing gossipy rumors and passing them off as fact, especially considering that most papers break their news on the web now instead of print.

Didn't we go through this a couple of years ago with the Larry Brown is leaving the Pistons to go to Cleveland situation? Some said you HAD to have a story on this because ESPN was reporting it. The problem was that no one ever went on the record and said Larry Brown was coming to Cleveland, or even considering Cleveland. Yet it was all reported as fact. Then of course, Brown never went to Cleveland, so we all looked really dumb.

 

That might work for you in East Bum Fuck with some Division 3 athletic director, Oz.
But if you're the baseball columnist for the NY Daily News and Steinbrenner (or his mouthpiece) calls you and goes into a rant on Torre you have two choices -- write it or start looking for a new job.

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 to."
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.

 

This argument completely sums up the chaos of the bandwagon reports.

The DN has every reason to run the story--they KNOW who the source is. They have a veteran reporter speaking directly to the team owner. And even if it was just good old Yankees gamesmanship among the classic characters (as spnited and Boom have both repeatedly noted here), the original story was still accurate as written.

BUT: you then have every other media outlet in the world relying on that unnamed source as well, without knowing who it is or the extent of the credibility. Is it Steinbrenner? Is it a groundskeeper who thinks he heard Cashman talking in the men's room? So at first you have 'the Daily News is reporting'....then it becomes 'according to sources'....and then it completely dissolves into 'expecting news today of Joe Torre's firing.'

And then, when Torre ultimately keeps his job, all the bandwagon boys point at the DN and blame them for getting it wrong. Fair? Ridiculous?

 

You are 100% correct 21.

Despite those who believe Madden should be "outing" his sources and whining about the bad info they gave him, the fault lies with those bandwagon jumpers who did no work on their own (all of whom, incidentally, are national outlets outside of NYC) and simpy balme the NYDN for bad info...that was NOT bad info at the time Madden wrote it

Maybe, eventually, some people here will get that.
But I doubt it. They're too stubborn and stupid to understand.

 

I would be completely in favor of hedging on an non-life-or-death report that's unconfirmed. You wouldn't label it as real news or treat it as real news. You might have a well-connected columnist write "here's what we're hearing" just so you can prove to the readers that you're on top of things. If you say nothing, you look like you missed the story.

I would never sanction this approach for something important like whether Lidle was on that plane or even anything unconfirmed from a player's personal life. But informed analysis of coaching changes, trade rumors, etc., are the kind of stuff that makes it worth it to me to read the paper. (A good feature or analytical piece is cool too.) But game stories, rewritten press releases and official transaction reports are pointless when I can get all that on my own.