Marvin Harrison is not a suspect, but Paolantonio, Florio and Smith are

by BigBlueShoe on May 7, 2008 10:08 AM EDT in Bad Journalism

Until we see the words Marvin Harrison Arrested the incident outside Harrison's North Philly bar is a non-story, and the people pushing the baseless rumors as if they were facts (Mike Florio, Michael David Smith) continue to make the rest of us bloggers look like amateurs. Despite what Florio and Smith have suggested, Marvin Harrison is not a suspect in the shooting. In fact, we don't even know if the gun recovered was his.

Bullets found at the scene of a shooting in Philadelphia last Tuesday came from a handgun owned by Indianapolis Colts receiver Marvin Harrison, according to reports on ESPN and the Philadelphia Daily News, both citing unnamed police sources. But Philadelphia police are not calling Harrison a suspect.

"He's not a suspect at this point," police spokesperson Tanya Little told The Star this morning, declining further comment.

Translation: The reports are not officially from the police. They are from ESPN and the Philly Daily News, via "unnamed sources" they claim are within the police department. We have no idea what their credibility is or even if they are police assigned to the case. They could be a desk sergeant or Moe the janitor. "Unnamed sources" are never good sources, and are not used by real journalists reporting on anything credible. Anyone who works in journalism will tell you that. And no, I do not consider Sal Paolantonio, the ESPN reporter covering this incident, a real journalist, nor do I consider anyone else who uses "unnamed sources" in this way. The always "objective" Paolantonio also came out recently and criticized Marvin Harrison for committing the sin of all sins: Opening a bar in a bad neighborhood, which Marvin just so happened to grow up in.

If the gun recovered did indeed belong to Harrison, and if the shell casings did indeed come form that gun, you would think Marvin Harrison would be a suspect. However, since the police have stated that Harrison is not a suspect, that should call into question ESPN's reporting, especially these "unnamed sources" they are rolling out as credible.

And since we have absolutely no firm, concrete proof on the key details of this investigation, it was irresponsible of people like Florio and Smith to blog about them as if they were fact. To even suggest that they were facts, using "unnamed sources" that they know nothing about as back-up, is bad journalism DEFINED. Now, I've never fancied myself a journalist, but Mike Florio works for The Sports News, and Michael David Smith works for the NY Times.

Somehow, I don't think both those entities would agree with how these two have conducted themselves. I'm sure ESPN is fine with Paolantonio though, which is typical ESPN.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments | Add your comment

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Not true

Sometimes “unnamed sources” are the only sources you can use in journalism because people fear that they may be harmed by divulging information. However, this usually occurs in political stories such as Watergate. I mean “deepthroat” was an unnamed source that brought forward some of the most startling reservations about our government.

So yes I agree with you that Marvin is innocent, but you are wrong to attack them for just using unnamed sources.

by MasterRWayne on May 7, 2008 10:48 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Nope

“Unnamed sources” are good for finding leads, but they should never be THE sources you have for a story. Watergate was an extreme case. That involved government corruption and a subsequent cover-up. This is a shooting incident that does not involve any cover-up. So, using unnamed sources here is not appropriate, especially when those sources are supposedly police sources who can’t seem to get the facts of the case right.

Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by BigBlueShoe on May 7, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Wrong.

There isn’t anything wrong with naming unnamed sources as a source, so long as you own up to the fact they’re unnamed sources. If MDS and Florio are repeating reports from ESPN.com, they’re hardly doing anything untoward or rumor mongering. You seem to assume that people are too dumb to tell the difference between a story citing unnamed sources and named sources. I think people are capable of drawing those conclusions without your help.

Second issue, if it is a non-story, why are you treating it as a story?

Third issue, you conclude (quite prematurely I think) that the ESPN sources couldn’t possibly be police. Maybe they are the police. It’s logically consistent that the bullets came from a gun Harrison owned AND that he isn’t a suspect. Whether you consider unnamed sources good journalism or not is quite irrelevant. Similarly, I doubt Sal Paolantonio much cares what you or I consider journalism. We aren’t journalists. In any event:

They could be a desk sergeant or Moe the janitor.

Do you have a source for that? If you don’t, why even suggest it?

If the gun recovered did indeed belong to Harrison, and if the shell casings did indeed come form that gun, you would think Marvin Harrison would be a suspect.

Do you have a source for that?

And since we have absolutely no firm, concrete proof on the key details of this investigation, it was irresponsible of people like Florio and Smith to blog about them as if they were fact.

It’s irresponsible to quote an ESPN article now? As a blogger, do you really want to go down that road? I certainly don’t.

It is one thing to question the particular substance of an article. It is quite another to make broad, sweeping generalizations about journalism, about unnamed sources, and about individuals who repeat stories. Part of what we do is repeat what is reported, and some of the reported news is done through unnamed sources. That’s simply the nature of the business, and someone as familiar with the business as you can’t possibly be sincere in expressing surprise or frustration in the manner it is performed.

If you really think that either TSN or a NY Times BLOG disagree with the methods employed by Florio or MDS, then why don’t you email them? Because they wouldn’t give a shit. TSN picked up Florio because of his work at PFT, and his MO has been, from day one, repeating the news as reported, speculating, and creating rumors from his limited base of sources. I doubt they much care that he relied on an ESPN article that used unnamed sources (or even if he relied on unnamed sources himself). Do you really think the NY Times BLOG cares that MDS repeated an ESPN article? If so, I’d encourage you to contact them.

Overall I’d simply caution you against sweepingly determining that unnamed sources are so reprehensible that bloggers can’t even cite to them. If that were the case, one wonders about this. As a blogger, I personally depend on others to report news in order to provide content for my website. Sometimes those sources are unnamed. So long as it is either clear from the article, or you point it out to your readers, that the sources are unnamed, what is dishonest about citing unnamed sources? In a perfect world all sources are named, but the world isn’t perfect. Fans are interested in rumors as well (hence the enormous popularity of sites like PFT) and are interested in hearing them.

You can’t simply decide that rumors and unnamed sources are only wrong when it comes to your own team. It’s better, and perfectly sensible, to question those more ferociously when they tend to cast your favorite players in a bad light, but you can be a scrutinizing fan without effectively saying that unnamed sources have no value in journalism, period, ever, for the rest of history. I think it’s very counter intuitive for a blogger to do that.

Just my two cents.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

There's just a frustrating number of unnamed sources that turn out to be full of shit

The unnamed sources from when this story came out are already being contradicted by the new, current unnamed sources and the official police statements. The hugely incriminating “gun was found in a bucket” detail is no longer part of the story. The gun was apparently handed over by Harrison.

A source told WIP that ballistic tests showed the shots were fired from a custom-made Belgian weapon, and police determined Harrison owns that kind of gun.

Police went to a Philadelphia car wash about a half-mile away that is owned by Harrison and questioned him about the gun, the station said. Harrison acknowledged owning such a weapon, but told officials it never left his suburban Philadelphia home, the radio station reported.

The source told the station a gun was discovered in a bucket at the car wash, and tests showed it had fired bullets that matched those at the scene.
link

As to those reports of the Belgian gun being found in a bucket, the Daily News writes that Harrison handed the gun over.

link

Sources said that Harrison had a Belgian firearm, an FN5.7, in his garage. Harrison handed the high-powered weapon – which fires armor-piercing rounds – over to investigators.

link

This unnamed source citing BS, is also still fresh in Colts fans minds.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 7, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Re:

That’s the nature of news, I guess my main question was why does it surprise anyone that details of a story like this change over time? Has there ever been a story, ever, in the history of journalism, that was 100% consistent from start to finish? That’s the nature of the business.

I don’t know why it is any more or less incriminating that a gun was found in a bucket or handed over by Harrison, but regardless, it’s hardly untoward for bloggers to cite, and I’m only using the above examples, an AP article, PFT citing to the Philly News, or directly to the Philly News.

Sometimes news reports aren’t correct. That doesn’t mean bloggers have to wait to repeat a news story until the blogger has fact checked the story, as if that were at all possible in 99.99% of cases. We’re not reporting things, we don’t have sources, we don’t access the stories. We sit in front of computers, frequently hundreds of miles from where the story takes place. If the Philly News, or ESPN.com, or any other news outlet is willing to put themselves on the line for a story from an unnamed source, that alone is newsworthy, even if it later turns out to be partially or entirely false. That’s on the news organization, not on the bloggers or others who simply repeat the story (such as MDS, BBS, or Florio).

The las story you linked has “police sources” that aren’t named. It seems like reliable information, and I’d be prepared to, if it were at all Redskins related, make a post saying “Philly.com says XYZ per police sources.” The story isn’t effectively dead, though, up until that moment names are put to the police sources.

We all know this is how news works. We’ve all chased enough of someone else’s story to understand that details (especially where they involve guns, conflicing reports, missing participants, late night disputes) are hard to come by and frequently disagree. During the Sean Taylor episode, all fans were bombarded with frequently inconsistent details, many from unnamed sources. That’s just how the story goes. If you are honest with your readers about the nature of the source, if you refrain from making too definitive of a conclusion from someone else’s reports, you haven’t done anything wrong, in my opinion. I think what probably rubs Colts fans the wrong way is when the story breaks, everyone reacts as though Harrison is already guilty. But are you guys surprised by that? This is the internet. That is the nature of the beast.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

One comment

I won’t go into too much depth here, but one thing I can’t let go:

You say, “I don’t know why it is any more or less incriminating that a gun was found in a bucket or handed over by Harrison…” Surely you don’t believe this. It’s one little thing in your long post, but in a way it is a perfect microcosm of what this entire argument is about. Do you really not see the difference between Harrison voluntarily surrendering the weapon that police are looking for and it being “discovered” in a bucket at a car wash—as if it’s been purposely hidden? Obviously the second scenario is far more incriminating; people who hide things by definition have something to hide.

And ultimately this is what this whole conversation is all about. Someone fabricated details of a story to make it more sensational and to make the player involved look guilty. I can see it now: “I heard they found the gun at his car wash.” “Oh yeah, I heard it was hidden in a bucket.” This kind of thing might make the slack-jawed troglodytes of the world salivate as they gleefully take joy in the misery of others, but it is neither responsible journalism nor responsible blogging.

Incidentally, at a time when bloggers are clamoring to be taken more seriously, this kind of thing does not help.

by ctnyc on May 7, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Well...

I guess I didn’t go the extra step you went with “as if it’s been purposely hidden”. Also, who is to say Harrison isn’t the one who found it in a bucket? He said “Here’s the gun, officers, I found it in a bucket on my property.”

Incidentally, at a time when bloggers are clamoring to be taken more seriously, this kind of thing does not help.

I totally agree. We’re talking about this post, right?

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 9:15 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

The "extra step"

you mention is what everybody reading the unsubstantiated crap is supposed to think. If it was Harrison who found the gun in a bucket, why wasn’t it mentioned in the original reports? Did it slip the writers’ minds? You don’t get hits to your website if you don’t stir up controversy.

Sure it’s perhaps true that both of the things you mention are factual—that the gun was in a bucket and that it was Marvin who found it and turned it in. I’d be very happy if that were the case. But that is not what was reported. What was first reported was that the gun was found in a bucket. I did not see a mention of who found the gun. If it was Marvin who found the gun, don’t you think that might be a little nugget of information that a responsible journalist or blogger might want to pass along? So even if your scenario is true, it’s still bad journalism and/or bad blogging.

by ctnyc on May 7, 2008 10:27 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Re:

I did not see a mention of who found the gun.

So why assume it was the police? It’s just as easy, easier actually, to write “by the police” as it is to write “by Marvin Harrison.”

Supposing the person writing the article doesn’t know? Suppose their source didn’t or wouldn’t or couldn’t clarify?

In any event the discussion is ridiculous. The person who puts their credibility on the line is the guy who lists the unnamed source that turns out to be reliable. They are the ones with credibility to lose. If I merely repeat a story form a credible news organization that happens to be wrong, it isn’t my credibility on the line.

Let’s clarify what this ISN’T… bad blogging. ESPN.com ran the story. Florio and MDS repeated the story. If you really think this is an example of bad reporting, then get indignant towards reporters. But you shouldn’t pretend that this is abnormal, that this is somehow unusual just because it’s about Marvin Harrison.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Believe me

I’m plenty indignant towards reporters.

My hope was that blogs would be the populist response to hold sports reporters accountable.

You seem to be making the argument that it’s OK to simply spew the same shit that the reporters do. After all, ESPN ran the story! I know most bloggers don’t have the resources to cover a story like ESPN does. But is it really too much to ask that bloggers call bullshit when they see it?

by ctnyc on May 7, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Re:

I love it when bloggers call bullshit on ESPN. I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea to call bullshit on the entire process of citing ESPN, or of citing anonymous sources.

Obviously BBS doesn’t htink it’s a bad idea to cite to ESPN using anonymous sources either… since he does so. He uses it to make a post.

Some bloggers happen to disagree with BBS’s position on the entire affair. ESPN is sticking to much of its story. Maybe some of their story is still bullshit, maybe it’s not.

If it is bloggers’ responsibility to call bullshit when they see it, that doesn’t mean it is on them to check the credibility of anonymous sources. You can cite to an ESPN article w/ an anonymous source, say something like “But remember, this is an anonymous source so it might not have the weight of a named source…” without saying “FUCK THIS ESPN ARTICLE FOR USING AN UNNAMED SOURCE. THATS JUST DISHONEST BULLSHIT. UNNAMED SOURCES ARENT PART OF JOURNALISM. BLA!”

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 11:55 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Beat me to it

Big Blue Shoe is holding ESPN’s feet to the fire. Which I don’t blame him for.

That doesn’t mean bloggers get a free pass if they unfairly roast MDS. Or, hell, every reporter who’s ever cited a story containing anonymous sources.

Everyone’s accountable. If ESPN’s reporter is wrong here, Big Blue Shoe is busting their balls. But if Big Blue Shoe is out of line roasting MDS – whose professional record I find beyond reproach – he’s accountable to the peanut gallery as well.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on May 7, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

In other words...

perhaps more simply stated: Bloggers like Big Blue Shoe can hold a particular story that was poorly resported responsible by calling bullshit, without making sweeping (and false) statements about journalism and the inherently imperfect business that is reporting. It’s especially erroneous of him to equate a failure of bad “journalism” to two people who aren’t journalists. MDS does what BBS and I do; he’s a blogger. And a very good one at that.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 8, 2008 12:01 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Amen

I don’t object to Big Blue Shoe taking issue with the report filed by the ESPN journalist. That’s totally fair game. And I can especially sympathize because Harrison is a Colt.

It’s his trashing of a blogger (or anyone, for that matter) citing the ESPN report in discussing the matter that’s unfair.

And bloggers should be held accountable for irresponsible writing as much as reporters deserve to be.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on May 8, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

There is a distinction

I agree that characterizing the use of anonymous sources as “always bad” journalism is wrong. But I also believe that it is wrong to go the other way and say that it is always OK. Sources are often anonymous in order to protect the source, or state secrets, or the like. In other cases, lazy journalists hide behind anonymous sources in order to juice up a story without having to dig too deeply in their investigating. None of us know what happened in this case, but I suspect it’s the latter.

Of course bloggers can not fact-check stories that they did not write—they don’t know who the sources are! But when the story is found to be full of holes, they can publicly take to task the journalists who did not properly vet the sources. At the very least, they can immediately issue a retraction and stop repeating the known-to-be-false information, neither of which seems to have happened here. I don’t know why any blogger would think otherwise, after all it’s their reputations that are on the line. Everybody got up in arms over the dust-up on the Costas show, but unless bloggers can self-police and at least try to adhere to journalistic standards, they will never be considered as anything other than gossip columns or soap operas.

One example from today’s news: There are still many people in this country who believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. This is ironic considering the enormous amount of national coverage that has been devoted to his relationship with his Christian pastor, but whatever. Why do they still believe it? Because they’re getting false emails about it and because bloggers are reporting it. These bloggers are using the same dishonest tactics I’m talking about: “Hey, don’t blame me. I’m not the source, I’m just reporting what I heard.” And in a sense this is true, but they cannot be completely absolved of responsibility as they continue to report a story so eyebrow-raising that it should have prompted a little further research.

In summary I’m saying:
1) anonymous resources are vital to journalism, but only when used responsibly
2) when sources are found to be dishonest, the public has the right to know and bloggers should call bullshit and issue retractions
3) particularly when stories seem too fantastic to be true, a little extra research is a good idea in order to maintain credibility. Otherwise we get a rash of stories about how the Clintons had a guy killed, or how Obama is a Muslim. I hope we can all agree that that kind of reporting is trash.

by ctnyc on May 8, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Ok.

Fine. Fantastic. Grand. I think that’s wonderful. Your point is:

Anonymous sources are vital to journalism but should be used responsibly.

If sources are dishonest they should be condemned.

This is especially true when stories are outrageous.

So why are you disagreeing with me again?

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 8, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Perhaps

we’re splitting hairs.

by ctnyc on May 8, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Just to follow up

Agree 100% with Skin Patrol here. The trashing of MDS is utterly ridiculous.

It’s absolutely one thing to vilify a reporter after he or she reports irresponsibly. Which would be the case here if the ESPN reporter who broke the story with the unnamed sources did so falsely.

It’s complete bullsh*t to trash a blogger/writer/whomever (e.g. Michael David Smith) for citing the story. If Big Blue Shoe believes the ESPN.com story is wrong, he should say so. And blast away the reporter all he wants. But unless and until we know that ESPN’s report is unequivocally false, to trash someone who links to and reports on ESPN’s coverage is terribly unfair, and only relatively better than the ESPN reporter he’s out to hang.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on May 7, 2008 11:54 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Actually

Third issue, you conclude (quite prematurely I think) that the ESPN sources couldn’t possibly be police. Maybe they are the police. It’s logically consistent that the bullets came from a gun Harrison owned AND that he isn’t a suspect.

Um, actually, it’s not, not in Pennsylvania. He would automatically be charged if the weapon he turned over fired the rounds found at the scene. That’s state law. So he would be charged with a crime and therefore it is not logically consistent.

As far as the rest of your rant goes, he isn’t claiming to have sources unlike Sal Paolantonio or MDS. He also isn’t a credentialed journalist working for a world-respected media organization. He’s a guy – who blogs. As shake n bake says, several other “unnamed sources” quoted by guys like Florio and MDS have turned out to be nonsense as well. When you have that sort of precedent, I think it is reasonable to cast a heavy amount of skepticism on what they say, especially when it goes against pretty much everything you know about someone you have been following for 12 years.

And yes, the reliance on unnamed sources alone, with no other evidence out there, is bad journalism. Just like saying “Unnamed sources tell me that the government created AIDS to destroy the black and gay population of America.” And actually, if the claims are not ever supported by other facts, and a reasonable assumption could be made that the journalist knew that the claim was spurious, a claim of defamation of character could be leveled against them. Most specifically the Daily News and the Philly radio station that “broke” the story.

I also blog at Speed Blue Nation

by Bullard47 on May 7, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

You guys don't know crap about journalism

Skin Patrol is right. And Bullard, you should click through the link in Skin Patrol’s comment, in which Big Blue Shoe does in fact cite unnamed sources to take on Randy Moss.

Let’s just call a spade a spade: the righteous indignity is just love for a Colts player. Understandable, but the preaching rings hollow.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on May 7, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Crap

I don’t know what you know about journalism because you didn’t bother to tell us, so I have to assume your title line is simply your opinion— it “rings hollow.” I’d agree that any time the bad news hits close to home, people are likely to respond more vehemently, but to characterize all of this as “just love for a Colts player” is naive and narrow-minded.

The reality is that a bunch of very incriminating information that has been published as fact is turning out to be completely false. Anybody who values basic tenets of the legal system in this country (e.g. innocent until proven guilty) has every right to be disgusted by the character assassination that regularly occurs in the court of public opinion in this country. This time it happens to be a Colt, so it hits closer to home for the readers of this blog. But that in no way invalidates the outcry about shoddy, sensationalistic work of the writers—whether they be bloggers or “real journalists.”

by ctnyc on May 7, 2008 8:26 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

That's the thing

I don’t blame Big Blue Shoe one bit for defending Marvin Harrison. I’d do the same.

It’s entirely different to preach about anonymous sourcing being universally unethical. Because it’s not. It’s critical to journalism. It’s only unethical if the person reporting the information is doing so knowing it’s false or knowing the source is not in the position to have a reasonable basis for knowing it.

Now, it very well might be that these reporters are off base; I don’t read much NFL news and can’t comment on that. But to leap from where we are in this situation to saying citing unnamed sources is “irresponsible” is just too big a leap.

And an unnecessary one, I might add. It’s entirely possible to say, “I don’t believe these guys have it right, and if they have it wrong, we should revisit their trustworthiness as reporters.” But you can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Using anonymous sources is not irresponsible, per se. Period.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on May 7, 2008 8:47 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Slippery Slope

I agree with most of what you say, and your argument is compelling. Where I differ with you is in the context. Of course anonymous sources are critical to reporting. And I strongly disagree with the recent attempts to force journalists to reveal their sources. A strong democracy requires a free press.

My argument is that sports journalism often does not even try to adhere to the basic standards of “regular journalism.” An anonymous source at the Pentagon or the State Department has a little more inherent cache than some guy with a computer. They may both be completely full of shit, but at least the State Departmnet guy has been more thoroughly vetted.

by ctnyc on May 7, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

How on earth

do you know that the anonymous source was “some guy with a computer”?

I don’t ask flippantly, I’m just curious how you guys know so much about the anonymous source, especially considering your main complaint with the anonymous source is that you don’t know anything about them.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 11:07 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I don't know

But how on Earth do you know that the anonymous source is credible? What are your criteria?

by ctnyc on May 7, 2008 11:42 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

None, I never alleged he was credible.

My criteria is that if a major publication is willing to put itself on the line, I’m not doing myself or my credibility damage in citing to them, even when they use anonymous sources. BBS’s point seems to be that bloggers (maybe even so far as to say READERS) have no right to rely on news sources that themselves rely on anonymous sources. As a blogger, I find this position patently ridiculous and, more importantly, consequentially terrifying. If ESPN is off limits, I really don’t have anything left to cite. Stampede Blue isn’t going to do my reporting for me.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 11:52 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Disagree

Your credibility is on the line. The more it happens, the less people will trust what you write. You may not think it’s fair but that’s how it is—one instance is probably not too damning, but if what you write turns out not to be true time and again (as is happening with Florio), then people will stop taking you seriously. Fool me once… and all that.

But you can undo any damage pretty easily by apologizing to your readers for forwarding them bad information, and taking those responsible to task. I really don’t think this is too much to ask. Again, how can bloggers ever be taken seriously if the perception is “hey this may be true and it may not - but isn’t it interesting?” I believe responsible bloggers should always strive for accuracy, and should own up when their stories turn out to be false - whatever the original source.

by ctnyc on May 8, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Whatever.

Agree to disagree all you want, I don’t need to have a meta discussion on the major issues facing bloggers, though let me simply assure you (and it should be evident if you spend any time reading this site) that one could hardly accuse bloggers of not generally attacking, in many instances with vitriol, the “media” too little, of all fucking things.

The main concern facing bloggers in re: them being taken seriously is the quality of their content. And it’s unfortuante that you have posts where one blogger (BBS) is needlessly shitting on another (MDS) without actually putting any substance to those attacks. My criticism with BBS has never been that he challenges false reports; rather it’s that he’s chasing after windmills here. MDS didn’t do anything wrong. He wrote a blog post about on the THEN AVAILABLE evidence. If you reread BBS’s post above, you’ll see that the only real mention of MDS is that he A) continues to make the rest of us look like amateurs (not surpisingly this accusation is unsupported by any evidence independent what was stated above; that MDS made a blog post based on an ESPN article, hardly amateurish blogging) and B) that he works for the NY Times? Why? Because he posted on a blog there?

You are welcome to your grand meta discussion on the direction of blogging or the virtues of bloggers. I’m discussing the specific SUBSTANCE of BBS’s post, which is sorely lacking in legitimate criticisms of at least one blogger who I consider quite talented. Unfortunately, the lack of substantive criticisms hasn’t discouraged BBS from including fairly damning accusations at MDS.

Bottom line, and we’re pretty much through with this discussion: Hurrah cynyc, I agree that bloggers should question media sources, that they should take to task news reports that turn out to be fault. I don’t think bloggers should spend their time condemning colleagues merely for repeating ESPN stories.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 8, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

Should read:

one could hardly accuse boggers of attacking the media too little. That’s pretty much our standard operating procedure.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 8, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I agree

that BBS has gone too far in using a sweeping generalization. My point, in a nutshell, is that I thought you were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Florio has been criticized many times on this site for his inability to get facts straight. At some point, he should have some accountability rather than getting a free ride for continuing to disseminate false information (especially after the information is proven false).

This may be some pie in the sky “grand meta discussion” to you, but I think it is very timely and important to examine the responsibilities of bloggers, particularly given the mainstream media’s recent criticisms of blogging.

by ctnyc on May 8, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I don't think Florio

or anyone deserves a free pass. He is wrong sometimes and gets called for it by bloggers everywhere.

What Florio does it write rumors, though, and I think there’s a place for that on the internet. BBS was suggesting sanctions by the TSN on him for something he wrote on what amounts to a blog at worst, an opinion column at best, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to tell bloggers (or opinion columnists) that they should be institutionally punished for their merely incorrect reliance on someone else’s story.

Florio reports on rumors. He never says “Here comes a fact at you… XYZ.” I don’t know what you are asking of internet writers; if you qualify your post, if your entire MO is to trade in rumors you hear from around the league, why should you be held responsible for anything? I say “This is a rumor” why are you upset if it turns out to be false?

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 8, 2008 7:25 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I think this

is the best point you’ve made. But the site is clearly not strictly rumors, like the gossip page of a newspaper or something, so the line is somewhat fuzzy. I still think that a retraction or some acknowledgement is in order when something turns out to be false. Florio has done this on other occasions. I don’t know why he hasn’t this time, particularly given the severity of the issue (after all, this is not “player X is close to signing with team Z” kind of story). Perhaps it’s due to his bias against the Colts. But that’s a whole other can of worms….

by ctnyc on May 8, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

I'm not really familiar with Penn law

but that seems strange, that a gun owner is automatically liable for anything that happens with a gun he owns (you’re suggesting, for instance, that if I steal your gun and kill someone with it, you’ve broken the law). In any event, even if that is the law, police can choose not to press charges; for instance, the person might be cooperating. I don’t know if that’s the case, who does, but it’s hardly clear-cut that the bullets came from a gun Harrison owned and he isn’t a suspect. The more likely case is that the bullets didn’t come from a gun owned by Marvin Harrison. And the police found this out by getting the gun Harrison handed over to them, which was reported by Philly Daily News from “police sources”. shake n bake provided the link.

I never said BBS is claiming to have sources. He doesn’t have sources. Neither do I. We blog.

MDS and Mike Florio aren’t that much extended from BBS and I, except for the fact that they are enormously more popular authors than either of us. Their connections to big media, to being “credentialised journalist working for a world-respected media organization” is participation on a NY Times BLOG (which also makes our Cowboys blogger a credentialed journalist, apparently) and Florio’s participation at The Sporting News… as a BLOGGER. BBS provided the link above, which you can go read: Florio’s SportingBlog.

Is there something wrong with being skeptical? No. There’s something wrong with holding BLOGGERS to the same standard as JOURNALISTS and I also think there’s something wrong with categorically stating that unnamed sources aren’t citable by bloggers. BBS cites them. I cite them. MDS and Florio, as bloggers, cite them. Journalists cite them. Major, credible newspapers cite them. Sure, those stories should be viewed more skeptically due to the nature of the sources, but so what? Does that mean there isn’t a story?

Maybe Marvin Harrison should consider a defamation claim against the Daily News, heh. That’s a great idea.

Go register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on May 7, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply reply 0 recs

MDS isn't all bad

He’s smart enough to know that Paolantonio and Skip Bayless are morons.

my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com

by shake n bake on May 7, 2008 2:12 PM EDT reply reply 0 recs

Journalism

A journalist is is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people. It galls me as an intelligent person to be told that since I don’t have a degree in journalism, what I say doesn’t matter (or at least should not be trusted).

There are professions that require a skill set that is not commonly learned by the majority of society. Medicine, Nursing, electrical engineering, carpentry, rocket propulsion, and piloting are all examples of professions in which you must learn a specific set of skills and develop a knowledge base (including professional jargon) that by and large is not known by people not in your profession.

There are other professions that pretty much anybody could do with little or no training above what the average person receives in our society. Cashiering, telemarketing, sanitation engineering, nurse aide work.

It seems to me that there are three requirements to be seen as a journalist:
1. Be an intelligent person who is well read
2. Have a basic grasp of language and grammar
3. Be trustworthy with the dissemination of facts.

The Deadspin meltdown on Costas’ show just shows how “professional journalists” view those of us who didn’t graduate from journalism school: we are idiots who need to be told stuff by a professional journalist. Well, excuse me, but I don’t think “Professional Journalists” have a market on facts or opinion. I am allowed to possess and disseminate both. So there.

by Picky on May 8, 2008 3:55 AM EDT reply reply 0 recs