PDA

View Full Version : Should sports reporters be fired for reporting pure speculation as fact?


John_Wayne
01-03-2006, 11:54 PM
Right now it is being reported that the Chiefs are offering draft picks for Herm Edwards. Also it is being reported that Al Saunders interviewed with Carl and WILL be the next head coach. Yesterday it was reported that Bob Stoops was in Carl's box seats at Sunday's game. That is false. There are many, many other things being reported. Many of them contradict each other. It is doubtful that both stories about the Chiefs offering draft picks for Herm and Saunders WILL be the next head coach are true.

Here's my question:

There is a bunch of false reporting going on. Reporters are reporting things that they haven't verified. I think, in some cases, they are reporting things that they know isn't true. So, why aren't more sports reporters punished or fired? This happens every year and it is just ignored. It's bad in the political media, but it's way worse in sports media.

jAZ
01-03-2006, 11:57 PM
That is false.
Wouldn't this qualify as "pure specutlation" as well?

chappy
01-03-2006, 11:58 PM
No i believe it adds to the excitement if you aren't willing to do your own research then you don't deserve the truth

chappy
01-03-2006, 11:59 PM
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

chappy
01-04-2006, 12:00 AM
the truth is Mark Mangino and Carl were spoted dining at Houstons in the Plaza tonight look for the press conference tommorow about 8

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 12:00 AM
Wouldn't this qualify as "pure specutlation" as well? You know, you might be right. Carl said this was not true. But who knows what to believe.

|Zach|
01-04-2006, 12:01 AM
So GF, you think someone should be punished or fired for giving a lot of people misleading information.

Interesting...

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 12:02 AM
No i believe it adds to the excitement if you aren't willing to do your own research then you don't deserve the truth Research? How? That's the problem. If you do your own research, you'll get several different answers and you won't know what it true and what isn't.

Halfcan
01-04-2006, 12:03 AM
Yep they just said Joe Paterno was in King Carls jucuzzi signing a contract-but yet he is on TV. I am confused.

Count Alex's Losses
01-04-2006, 12:03 AM
Who are you talking about?

Athan is the boss.

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 12:03 AM
So GF, you think someone should be punished or fired for giving a lot of people misleading information.

Interesting... It's their profession. Supposedly, they are taught in media school to verify before they report.

siberian khatru
01-04-2006, 12:04 AM
So GF, you think someone should be punished or fired for giving a lot of people misleading information.

Interesting...


http://www.glarkware.com/media/product_main_g_irony.jpg

|Zach|
01-04-2006, 12:04 AM
It's their profession. Supposedly, they are taught in media school to verify before they report.
I just found the idea of it interesting more so than its application to the media.

jspchief
01-04-2006, 12:04 AM
I think reporters should be held more accountable when they get this shit wrong. I don't care for rumors and speculation under the guise of news.

Phobia
01-04-2006, 12:05 AM
Research? How? That's the problem. If you do your own research, you'll get several different answers and you won't know what it true and what isn't.

But you suggested firing people who are faced with that same battle. Do you think we should fire insurance company adjusters who moniter ChiefsPlanet on the job? I do. I want my claim resolved now and you're checking the internet to read about rumors from people you want fired because they can't get 100% confirmation to a story that you want to read because you can't get enough information on your favorite team.

It's a vicious cycle, I tell ya.

|Zach|
01-04-2006, 12:07 AM
http://www.glarkware.com/media/product_main_g_irony.jpg
I dont want this to go to DC. I will stop. :)

chappy
01-04-2006, 12:11 AM
Research? How? That's the problem. If you do your own research, you'll get several different answers and you won't know what it true and what isn't.

Well you can't go about it like gunther and just give it an all out read and believe fest.
you got to use your head, mind, and spirit to tell you what is true and what is false.
Carl Peterson Watch Rules
if it sounds to good to be true then it mostly is going to be false. 40% chance
if it sounds like a Anal Pounder with no Lube then you got your fact. 99.9% chance

tk13
01-04-2006, 12:15 AM
Nick Athan is reporting that Carl is meeting with the weapons of mass destruction as we speak.

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 08:02 AM
I think reporters should be held more accountable when they get this shit wrong. I don't care for rumors and speculation under the guise of news. Thank you. Exactly. I'd rather wait and wait for accurate news, rather than have tons of rumor and speculation for days and days.

bkkcoh
01-04-2006, 08:06 AM
I think reporters should be held more accountable when they get this shit wrong. I don't care for rumors and speculation under the guise of news.


The print version of the Columbus dispatch today had the story of the coal miners being alive. they said the NY Times halted the presses after they started with a similar headline.

What should happen to the editors of the papers that have the 'Alive' headline???

StcChief
01-04-2006, 08:08 AM
It's the nature of the 24x7 news business. If you don't have a story make one up.

StcChief
01-04-2006, 08:15 AM
One edict warning for all news media.
All stories must be verified or your fired on one mistake.

Once and done.

jspchief
01-04-2006, 08:17 AM
The print version of the Columbus dispatch today had the story of the coal miners being alive. they said the NY Times halted the presses after they started with a similar headline.

What should happen to the editors of the papers that have the 'Alive' headline???I had seen the title of that thread, and never knew that the guys turned out to be dead.

In that situation, with front page type news breaking so close to the time when most newspapers probably go to print, I can almost excuse the error. There are logistical issues with print journalism that makes it hard to avoid an occasional f*ck up. I still think it was shoddy jounalism to run that story with out confirmation from a legit source.

But as others have said, if there's no news, people just invent it.

My comments were more in regards to the coaching rumors being reported. IMO a rumor should be presented as such, and speculation should be presented as such. When someone like John Clayton claims a source told him something, and it turns out to be bullshit, I think he should have to answer to it publically.

It's too easy for these guys to just pass it of as a bad source. They make a living off their false scoop journalism, and there's no repurcussions to being flat out wrong.

Saulbadguy
01-04-2006, 08:20 AM
If you want all news reporters out of a job, sure.

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 08:21 AM
One edict warning for all news media.
All stories must be verified or your fired on one mistake.

Once and done. Many media giants like CNN have been caught time and time again reporting false and/or misleading information. We're not talking about ONE mistake.

But, I'm not talking about CNN and MSNBC and the big news agencies. I'm talking about sports reporting. These guys are reporting crap info that they have to know is false or unreliable.

Dr. Van Halen
01-04-2006, 08:23 AM
The editors of that paper will be disciplined for their inaccuracy in some way, I assure you.

Inaccuracy in the sports media world is a bit different than in the hard news media world. Sports is entertainment.

Look at Jack Harry. By making the claim that Priest Holmes had played his last game as a Chief on 41 News he got his station quite a bit of attention. If I were his boss, I would be pleased -- despite the fact that at the time it was complete and utter bs (reported as fact). Now, should it turn out to be true, Harry can boast about how he tells it like it is or some nonsense like that. If it's false, who will ever mention on air again? No one.

Look at preseason predictions. How many of them picked the Cheifs for last place in the division and the Raiders for first? Picking the Raiders sells more magazines nationally. Again, you would have to be incompetent not to realize that the Raiders were so horrible on defense that no amount of offensive "improvements" would matter. Still, as publisher, I would be pleased.

The sports media market is desperate for fans to lure advertisers. Many of them are hacks who should be fired, but, instead, will likely be praised.

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 08:23 AM
I had seen the title of that thread, and never knew that the guys turned out to be dead.

In that situation, with front page type news breaking so close to the time when most newspapers probably go to print, I can almost excuse the error. There are logistical issues with print journalism that makes it hard to avoid an occasional f*ck up. I still think it was shoddy jounalism to run that story with out confirmation from a legit source.

But as others have said, if there's no news, people just invent it.

My comments were more in regards to the coaching rumors being reported. IMO a rumor should be presented as such, and speculation should be presented as such. When someone like John Clayton claims a source told him something, and it turns out to be bullshit, I think he should have to answer to it publically.

It's too easy for these guys to just pass it of as a bad source. They make a living off their false scoop journalism, and there's no repurcussions to being flat out wrong. Wow. Once again, I totally agree. You said it better than I did.

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 08:30 AM
The editors of that paper will be disciplined for their inaccuracy in some way, I assure you.

Inaccuracy in the sports media world is a bit different than in the hard news media world. Sports is entertainment.

Look at Jack Harry. By making the claim that Priest Holmes had played his last game as a Chief on 41 News he got his station quite a bit of attention. If I were his boss, I would be pleased -- despite the fact that at the time it was complete and utter bs (reported as fact). Now, should it turn out to be true, Harry can boast about how he tells it like it is or some nonsense like that. If it's false, who will ever mention on air again? No one.

Look at preseason predictions. How many of them picked the Chiefs for last place in the division and the Raiders for first? Picking the Raiders sells more magazines nationally. Again, you would have to be incompetent not to realize that the Raiders were so horrible on defense that no amount of offensive "improvements" would matter. Still, as publisher, I would be pleased.

The sports media market is desperate for fans to lure advertisers. Many of them are hacks who should be fired, but, instead, will likely be praised.

I do agree that it was stupid to pick the Raiders as preseason favorites, but when it's opinion, there's no problem. But you are right, some media figures pick big east and west coast teams just to sell their product. But that's another subject.

As far as Jack Harry, he's a bitter, angry, stupid old man. He should have been fired years ago. He hates the Chiefs. He constantly reports false info and is never held accountable. I can't stand that SOB.

John_Wayne
01-04-2006, 08:30 AM
If you want all news reporters out of a job, sure. Clean house and start over.