unnamed sources are considered legitimate in cases where anonymity is required for safety purposes. in sports journalism, its probably just something either being taken out of context, a second hand quote impossible to verify, or its simply not true. i mean think of even the context, a player singling out a reporter, confiding in him, throwing teammates under the bus, for what? its not like they are exposing a human trafficking outfit headed up by rex ryan and its possible his goons might kill him if the story gets out just sayin, its not likely that these players are looking for reporters to gossip to
anonymous source = fake source. there used to be something called journalism ethics which meant that anonymous sources that could not be independently confirmed were not acceptable for publication. Why? B/c reporters can just make shit up to write an article - which now happens all the time - especially in sports.
I think they should be allowed, Lord knows they're going to be discussed one way or the other. Maybe they should be copied and pasted here but not hot linked so no one goes to the outlet's website to read it. We might want to do this for any article anywhere. I don't expect to put a paper out of business but we can always hope.
I don't like reading anything that isn't sourced or factual. It's a waste of my time. My only two exceptions are reading junc and Champ, which I read and reply to for entertainment.
I see both sides of the argument. The anonymous quotes at least allows for SOME level of honesty and it gives us an idea of how a portion (if not all) of how the locker rooms feels about a certain issue.
This is not necessarily true. When a "reporter" seeks out a quote from an anonymous source, it just may be one guy with a hard on for another player. He gets a free pass to throw him under the bus without being held accountable for his statements. This may or may not be any indication whatsoever about how the locker room feels about the person/situation. It's just one unaccountable individual with a hard on. But then we read it as fact. Not good information at all and really unfair and intellectually dishonest.
I voted yes because there are many many times where you get accurate news in advance fromanonymous and unconfirmed sources. What's the point in posting Jets related news in this forum if it's not something anonymous or unconfirmed that we can post hours or days before it goes on ESPN? I remember when a similar topic came up when M.Goodsons brother tweeted he was a Jet and there were riots in the street on here that it wasn't confirmed. Yet we got the news several hours before it was reported and turned out to indeed be true. To me this is the whole point of having a forum, it's up to the reader to seperate the BS.
I understand your point. But usually they'll interview a few guys and they'll say the same thing about a certain player/situation etc. While i'm in the "put your name on it camp" I also on some level feels like it gives us an idea (even if it's a small group or large group) on how the players really feel especially in this pc age.
I'm not against the idea at all - but how many articles are written today without* anonymous sources? Not many, unfortunately.
^Win Agreed. I for one promoted Mehta when he was coming up because he did a couple of really good articles on Cromartie and someone else and he put some time and effort into it. Then last year he went to shit. MORE: I voted to not see the articles but the problem is that you really only have 2 guys doing this. To me I just put it in my head that when it's an NYDN or ESPN article I just kinda take it with a grain of salt. Cimini is a just another ESPN bitch who came from the NYDN beat writing of NYJets. Mehta took his place, went from realistic to sensationalist asshole, and is also moving on. Mehta's replacement will probably end up doing the same. Here's proof that this is what's to be expected in the future from the NYDN Jets beat writer so the filter on articles might be left in your hands.
Here's the thing with anonymous sources, using them removes the possibility of discovery of faulty information. A source could be misquoted but if he is sourced anonymously the odds are that will never come out. He could have been quoted out of context but again without attribution the odds on that fact coming out are low. He could have been making a nuanced distinction that actually doesn't equal the point that the quote boils down to in the end but again that will not come out with an anonymous source. Nobody is going to come forward and say "I didn't actually say that but if I somehow did that's not what I really meant" when their name is not attached to the quote. There are other issues with anonymous sourcing but the basic fact that the information itself may be misrepresented even by a reporter who thinks it is correct makes anonymous sourcing inherently unreliable and not valuable as news.
I agree. And while it's true that some people will only talk if their name won't be linked to it, that stuff is meaningless and we have no proof that any real source even said these things. I guess Cimini and the others think we should "trust" them, that they wouldn't make it up. Well, I don't trust them. Cimini=incarceratedbob with these quotes
Anonymous sources aren't worth jack. For all we know they are made up on the spot. I don't trust any story involving anonymous sources. If you can't verify the facts of a story, it's not a story to me. It's speculation. If I just wanted speculation I'd talk to fans and friends about football. When it comes to the news, I want actual information. Like today on ESPN radio, Steven A Smith was off his rocker as usual. Dude is just ranting and raving. He heard Keyshawn Johnson talk about how he thinks the Jets are tired of Mark Sanchez, and acted like that made it proven fact! It was the silliest mini rant I've heard from him of late. Keyshawn isn't hanging out at Jets camp. He isn't talking to the players. It's just one guy giving his opinion, but SAS acts like it's straight from the horses mouth. Just like all the Melo to LA nonsense. I'm just glad I only hear his show for like 20 minutes tops while driving between jobs. I couldn't imagine listening to it for the whole 2-3 hours.
Really. You think that. Go back, and read the shitstorm that blew up, when Freeman the Fraud, said Sanchez lost 80% of the locker room, according to an unnamed source. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...d-jets-player-mark-sanchez-losing-locker-room Late may, even before we had the Geno situation.
