• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Anonymous sources

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sneed
  • Start date Start date
Fredrick said:
Every major story on ESPN.com, CBSsportsline.com, Foxsports.com break with the use of anonymous sources. Newspapers follow immediately not wanting to get beat on the story. It's all sad, really.

I notice the papers waiting for sources. Especially with NFL stories. That happened a couple times this year.
 
mustangj17 said:
Fredrick said:
Every major story on ESPN.com, CBSsportsline.com, Foxsports.com break with the use of anonymous sources. Newspapers follow immediately not wanting to get beat on the story. It's all sad, really.

I notice the papers waiting for sources. Especially with NFL stories. That happened a couple times this year.

I notice ESPN being wrong a lot too.
 
I say if it's a source known by the reporter to be credible but doesn't want to be ID'd in person, go for it. If they steer you wrong, all of the above would be persona non grata and they know it. That happened with me a couple of years ago with a local college hiring. Right church, wrong pew, but the bottom line was the source didn't get it right.
 
Football_Bat said:
I say if it's a source known by the reporter to be credible but doesn't want to be ID'd in person, go for it. If they steer you wrong, all of the above would be persona non grata and they know it. That happened with me a couple of years ago with a local college hiring. Right church, wrong pew, but the bottom line was the source didn't get it right.

If your anonymous source is not THE source ... ie, the guy who supposedly is going to be hired, or the AD ... you need more than one anonymous source to be able to go with it.

That's the rule at our place, and I think it's a good one.
 
I'd rather be right than first, every single time. You're almost always right if you have on-the-record sources. You're often wrong if you don't.
 
One of the last straws for me was Hebrsteit "breaking" the Les Miles story. I swear you can't believe anything any more until someone goes on the record. Everyone couches everything, too -- remember Peter Vecsey's, "The NY Post has learned the John Paxson MAY step down after the All-Star break." So no one's ever really wrong. I hate it.
 
I'm just stuck on this Selena Roberts book. I can't get past it, man. She says these things about A-Rod using 'roids in high school, about him using 'roids with the Yankees, all based on quotes from anonymous sources!

To quote an anonymous Twitterer: "WTF?"
 
Sneed said:
I'm just stuck on this Selena Roberts book. I can't get past it, man. She says these things about A-Rod using 'roids in high school, about him using 'roids with the Yankees, all based on quotes from anonymous sources!

To quote an anonymous Twitterer: "WTF?"

Well, anonymous sources DO have their place. Otherwise, news would rarely get broken.
 
Some Guy said:
Sneed said:
I'm just stuck on this Selena Roberts book. I can't get past it, man. She says these things about A-Rod using 'roids in high school, about him using 'roids with the Yankees, all based on quotes from anonymous sources!

To quote an anonymous Twitterer: "WTF?"

Well, anonymous sources DO have their place. Otherwise, news would rarely get broken.

yeah ... background.
 
You guys act like we are not in the Internet age. The Internet thrives on anonymous sources breaking stories. I mean the news has been cheapened the last 5 years. Use anonymous sources or you don't get the story first. Case closed.
 
I think they're fine and dandy for things like upcoming trades and contracts and the like, but not character-damning stuff like what's going on with Rodriguez.
 
Back
Top