Poll: do you trust "sourced" info/articles?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

With this offseason chock full of leaks, insider info and sourced articles, just curious as to where we individually fall on the spectrum at the moment.

 

Do you buy into "insider source"-based tweets and articles, do you dismiss them out of hand, has your view on such things changed at all over the years?...

[goskins10]

I used to be more trusting but over the years the amount of complete falsehoods and exaggerations I have become much more weary. Look at all the misinformation just about Cousins (not trying to start that conversation here just making a point). He supposedly demanded a trade. Then the Redskins were trying to trade him to dallast for virtually garbage. Then the Browns were trying to trade for him on draft day only to find out from both Bruce and Jay that it was bull****. Also, and this is an even bigger pet peeve - there are the exaggerations or purposeful slant of the truth for sensationalism.

 

I used to blame the media for it all. But to be honest we fans and the public in general are at least as much if not more to blame. So many people are ready to run with anything they hear that fits into their own narrative and the demand for 24/7/365 information, the media is almost forced into reporting things without what used to be considered minimal due dilligence.

 

There are some reporters I tend to believe more than others which is what I chose. But I am getting closer every day to ignore most if not all of it and just wait till something actually happens.

[Burgold]

Sports Journalism is a bit different than other forms of journalism for me. Sports leans more towards the sensational and has fewer checks and balances. Still, that said, if the info is "sourced" I don't to at least give it weight. Mind you, having been a reporter in some pretty big news rooms I am also aware that sources can be both wrong and some try to intentionally mislead you. So,it depends on the source, the diligence of the reporter, the quality of the publication, and a few other factors.

[Taylorcooley1]

I do not trust in, believe,or approve of anything until it's extreme skins approved

[Momma There Goes That Man]

You need to add an option for "Yes, if the news reflects positively on the Skins but No, if it reflects poorly or I just don't like it"

 

That seems to be a lot of people here. 

 

Also, how about an option for "No, because at one point the writer wrote something negative about the Redskins and, therefore, is a hack"

 

 

[goskins10]

17 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

You need to add an option for "Yes, if the news reflects positively on the Skins but No, if it reflects poorly or I just don't like it"

 

That seems to be a lot of people here. 

 

Also, how about an option for "No, because at one point the writer wrote something negative about the Redskins and, therefore, is a hack"

 

 

 

Then you also need to add one for "Yes, I believe anything negative about the team because I am angry and hate them all! It must be true if it's bad." 

 

The options he has are good.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

29 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

You need to add an option for "Yes, if the news reflects positively on the Skins but No, if it reflects poorly or I just don't like it"

 

That seems to be a lot of people here. 

 

Also, how about an option for "No, because at one point the writer wrote something negative about the Redskins and, therefore, is a hack"

 

 

 

Yeah, but then I'd have to add in an option of "Yes, if the news reflects negatively on the Redskins, because Snyder"...

 

That also seems to be a lot of people here.

 

And wouldn't your other option fall under choice #3? lol...

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Then you also need to add one for "Yes, I believe anything negative about the team because I am angry and hate them all! It must be true if it's bad."

 

 

You beat me to it lol...

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

And wouldn't your other option fall under choice #3? lol...

 

 

I like my phrasing better  

[Whiskeypeet]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

Yeah, but then I'd have to add in an option of "Yes, if the news reflects negatively on the Redskins, because Snyder"...

 

If history is any indication, this option would, and perhaps should, prevail.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

4 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Then you also need to add one for "Yes, I believe anything negative about the team because I am angry and hate them all! It must be true if it's bad." 

 

The options he has are good.

 

 

We can just call this one, "Yes, if it's bad, it's probably true knowing this team. If it's good, well, it's a nice surprise that will surely be fleeting" 

 

Fair? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I like my phrasing better  

 

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

We can just call this one, "Yes, if it's bad, it's probably true knowing this team. If it's good, well, it's a nice surprise that will surely be fleeting" 

 

Fair? 

 

I like my phrasing better... 

[RedBeast]

News is about sales...like selling insurance, depending on how you look at it? Especially in today's market. It's been the same the past hundred years or so, we just have new venues to vet hype. We have very few true journalists or sport writers left. 

 

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

[Old Bay]

I don't believe anything until it's done.

[Audible_Red40]

Andyman

[Renegade7]

I believe in smoke, but I usually wait for fire.  We've been less obvious in our actions the last couple years, some talking heads just being flat out wrong rushing to be first instead of right.  There's little doubt in my mind the Redskins organization has been putting stuff out intentionally, either true or false, to fit their needs, especially recently.

[Peregrine]

"Unnamed source" is also commonly used to replace the term "made up".  Sure, sometimes its true and reliable, but most of the time its used because its false and they likely know it.

[nemocystem]

i dismiss it out of hand until there is concrete evidence.  circumstantial evidence is unscientific, & i refuse to let guesswork, & speculation ruin my enjoyment of something.  for my 2c...it absolutely holds no significance until there is a triangulation of confirmation, complete with full transparency.

[Guardshock]

I always like John Keim. His answers are straight and he doesn't seem to over exaggerate over any news.

[zoony]

If they are from the WP or ESPN, yes.  However you have to remember that there are a lot of different sources

[Cliffmark1]

It bothers me that almost all of the news is from unnamed sources.  Especially after the bob the third weekly leaks, it just seems so easy to perpetuate negative narratives via media. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I find Keim and Mike Jones while not perfect are fairly reliable.  Chris Russell has gotten some massive things wrong like the Cowher thing from years back but he's been hot lately.

 

As for some of the discussion here.  Yeah I think its natural for people to be inclined to believe reports that fit their predispositions.  I don't see that as a condemnation though but it makes sense to see something that in your mind jives with what you think reality is.  

 

We are all fans so we are all rooting for the team to do well.  I don't think for example anyone here wanted to dislike Snyder from day 1.  I've defended Danny.  I've slammed him.  If I see a report about him from a reporter whom I deem is reliable and the narrative fits the 100 plus other stories I've read about Danny, I'd be inclined to believe it.   If it doesn't, I'd be inclined to pause.

 

People here who like or not like Bruce, Danny, Jay or you name the guy are basing their opinion in all likelihood on a lot of data as opposed to just looking at an article fresh as if they have no context in their mind to the story.  We all have plenty of context.   So in our own ways we are all giving a fairly educated opinion on the validity of a story.

 

That's part of the job IMO of a reporter.   When Mike Jones talks about Jay's take on Rob Kelley, he finds an analogy to what Jay said a year ago about Ryan Grant.  And he uses that story to make sense of the new one.  He's not listening to Jay's press conferences while removing all that he knows and he thinks previously.  It's all part of the soup.

 

I'd say the most heated debates recently about the media centers on Bruce/Danny and what's going on with the FO.  And I think everyone comes into that debate with a bias/predisposition.  How could you not?  We've been exposed to years and years of stories about both of them.  Even the people whose position seems to be I am not going to believe it or I'll be different and give Bruce the benefit of the doubt -- that position is driven IMO by just as much of a bias as those who slam Bruce-Danny.  It's just a bias coming from a different direction, that's all.    

 

That's my long winded way of saying, its tough to find reporters who don't throw their predispositions into stories.   Some do it less than others.  I find Keim in particular relatively objective when presenting a story.  You often get his real opinion on twitter if you engage him on it.  As for people here, I think most of us get who are the more reliable reporters.   And I give everyone an out who are more inclined to cling on to things they believe -- since its hard for me think of anyone who doesn't act that way.  It's just IMO a natural information processing thing with us humans. 

 

 

[The Consigliere]

Depends on whether the source is a reliable one or some yokel nobodies ever heard of at a blog. I get kind of tired of the whole "biased against us" argument that's been around since Snyder took over. Journalists don't care about us unless there is a good story to write, or they can milk Snyder is a napolean type stuff. So if they're reporting on us, and it's a reasonably respected source, I believe the information until proven otherwise, especially considering the smearing the redskins F.O. has engaged in w/outgoing coaches, F.O. staff and players. I am always more inclined to believe outside sources. Sometimes it ends up wrong, but I trust it more than sources that have an incentive to lie or to misrepresent for the brand. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

@Skinsinparadise is Russell back on the beat?  I don't listen to 106.7. I know he's over there, but I haven't heard him in ages.  He sortof lost all credibility when he threatened to resign if the 'Skins signed DJax, and then kinda did, but didn't really. His love affair with Haslett was also ... whatever. 

 

Here's the thing with "Sources."  Unless it is preceded with "Redskin Team" it could be anybody. It could be an agent.  It could be a former player.  It could be literally anybody.

 

Even if it is a "Redskin Team Source," that could be anybody from the equipment manager to the HC. 

 

I don't believe most of the reporters who cover the team lie and make things up.  So SOMEBODY is telling them something.  Minus maybe that fool who Larry Michael used to call the Sorcerer. Jason LaConfora.  I'm not sure that he actually had sources.  Because he was just trying to stir the pot.  Larry was still a dumb-ass for being pulled into that nonsense, though.  

 

Remember that time Adam Shefter started a fire-storm because he said that people told him that there were folks inside Redskins Park believed that Management overrode Gruden to force Griffin to start that Viking game?  When pressed, he conceded that he was just reporting that there were people in the building who had the opinion that Snyder/Allen were forcing Gruden to start Griffin.  But none of his sources actually KNEW that they did or not.  For the record, that puts them in the same boat as me.  I thought the same thing, and had no proof.  Is that really news?  Probably not.  But it got Shefty a lot of clicks... AND it WAS sourced.  With bad sources. 

[Skinsinparadise]

58 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

@Skinsinparadise is Russell back on the beat?  I don't listen to 106.7. I know he's over there, but I haven't heard him in ages.  He sortof lost all credibility when he threatened to resign if the 'Skins signed DJax, and then kinda did, but didn't really. His love affair with Haslett was also ... whatever. 

 

Here's the thing with "Sources."  Unless it is preceded with "Redskin Team" it could be anybody. It could be an agent.  It could be a former player.  It could be literally anybody.

 

 

He's not back on the beat but he clearly has some sources who are still there, ditto Grant Paulsen.  Russell was ahead of other reporters on some of the defensive coordinator search stuff, calling out guys they are about to talk to before anyone else did and he also was the lead dance on the Scot story.  He basically broke it.   He was hinting about it for weeks on his radio show before he did.    He admitted that sometimes he just has one source and can't always confirm with the 2nd one.  He's gotten somethings wrong in the past but he's been on a bit of a roll of late.  His latest one is they will announce their new hire/hires for the personnel department next week and he doesn't expect Doug to get a promotion.  Will see. 

 

IMO the better reporters tend to have multiple sources before they run with a story.  I think reporters are unlikely to just make something up.  But if they get something juicy from one source, I suspect some reporters are hesitant to run with it until they get others who confirm it but other reporters let it fly.