To narc? Or not to narc?

Newspapers regularly put datelines on games the reporter didn't actually attend, or attended and watched on television (like World Series games).

 

Sorry. Wasn't trying to correct you. Rather was building off of you point.

Besides, there are plenty of ways to brew coffee without using a filter.

 

Care to prove this bold statement?

 

Examples? Good, respected newspapers?

Are you talking about reporters who watched from an auxiliary press room, or reporters who didn't attend at all?

 

There is a paper needing an SE right now that does that. No byline, though.

 

Right, but TheSportsPredictor said "the reporter," and his statement if he simply meant dateline without byline is enough to warrant him taking over your handle.

 

We had a big discussion no here about reporters covering the World Series from TVs in a room the last time the Yankees were in it.

 

A room in the Stadium?

 

Here's one post about it, referring to the Stanley Cup playoffs. I'm sure plenty more on that thread post examples:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/2657769/

 

They then went to the availability sessions and did all the reporting themselves. They were at the event. They chose the room with the better view. This is basically how NASCAR is covered, since if you're not using a TV you miss three-quarters of the race.

You suggested there are newspapers intentionally and knowingly running byline-dateline combinations when the reporter was not at an event. There's a huge difference.

 

They didn't all do that. Plenty of people offer examples in that thread where people without clubhouse access were simply at the event covering the game off the TV.

And find me a small-town newspaper that hasn't covered a local HS's away game via the radio and written it up with a dateline and I'll find you a newspaper that doesn't try it's hardest to get the best info for its readers.

 

LOL