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

[FrFan]

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 6/2/2017 at 8:12 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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.

I think Russell has endeared himself to any DC for the Skins.  They know he'll defend them until the ends of the earth. 

[nemocystem]

I think it's all well & good to debate the accuracy of sources, but it means **** all at the end of tomorrow, today, or yesterday.  None of it matters.  Unless it matters to you, i guess.  There certainly is a reason the Inquirer/TMZ et al have had a platform for so long.  

 

I just couldn't be bothered.  On the list of things i need to be concerned about...anything that begins with "anonymous source," or frankly anything not concretely stated, or proven, AND x/o relevant just gets filed under the 30 or 40 other things that actually warrant stress in my life.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

The only time I trust journalists is when they write about something I witnessed myself.

[HapHaszard]

Sports Reporters as well as other news reporters rely on readers either  buying their paper or clicking on their article.  The more sensational the more clicks.

 

When you job depends on the amount of clicks you get, I'm sure that a lot of sources are not legit, but something they suspect.  Unnamed sources, are just that unnamed.  You have no idea who it is, or what the agenda is of the "unnamed source".  There are only 2 or 3 Redskins reporters that I would trust to be factual and only report on something if they researched it and had more than one source, because I know them personally and respect their integrity.  I do know of one I wouldn't believe if they wrote about something that I actually saw happen.

 

In today's news cycle with tweet and instagram, and online news, things happen much faster and at a very short time-frame to get it right.  The pressure to get an article up quickly and garner clicks is probably tremendous.  Remember when your Redskins news was the WP, WDN, and WT?  You got it next day not an hour after.  More time to check facts, find other sources etc. 

 

The cousins contract issue is one that is really a good example of unnamed sources.  You have one article come out saying the contract talks are stalled.  Several hours later an unnamed source whispers in a reporter's ear that Dan Snyder and Bruce are working on getting it resolved.  Who do you believe?  One is probably the agent putting pressure on the team and the other is more than likely the team answering back to the agent.  Or perhaps it is all BS. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 hours ago, HapHaszard said:

When you job depends on the amount of clicks you get, I'm sure that a lot of sources are not legit, but something they suspect.  Unnamed sources, are just that unnamed.  You have no idea who it is, or what the agenda is of the "unnamed source".

 

That's something that gets overlooked constantly...the idea that inside sources are not, by default, objective, emotionless witnesses simply conveying pertinent information to reporters. They're human beings, not videotape.

[Thinking Skins]

I think there's something to the "who's writing the article" agenda, but there's also a question of is there a larger purpose behind the story being published? For example, I used to straight up LOVE Washington Post, but now I have to see a second source (from outside WP) say a similar negative story before I believe it. On the other hand, if WP posts a positive story, I'm more likely to believe it because they don't do positive Redskins news there. 

 

Keim is just about the only guy I'll listen to no questions asked, but he's also almost the most mellow / non breaking guy. 

Jones is another guy I really trust, and I really had some respect for him when he would go on Reid's morning show on 980 and basically defend the team and the optimism of fans to Reid. 

Russell is wishy washy. I like interacting with him on twitter and sometimes catching his shows but its not just his batting average, its the tenacity with which he goes at some of his stories. Like, I could see if he always said "I may be swinging for the fences with this one but sources tell me this so I gotta run with it ..." but he almost guarantees that he's right every time - to the point where he gets defensive on his shows about how correct he is, then when he's wrong he has to do the virtual walk of shame. I guess its entertaining, but meh. 

 

Others are give and take, but I voted option 2 because of the same reason that I said what I said about the WP. With people like Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen and how much people despise them, it becomes almost impossible to get a positive story about them or the team. So for instance, I was jaw on the floor surprised when Doc and B Mitch had a reporter from Oakland talking about the move to Vegas, spoke about Davis (the son)'s image across the league, how Bruce trained him and how Davis really got a good deal from Vegas on the stadium. I know Doc and Brian have been pro Doug Williams, but this was a guy saying positive things about Bruce Allen. Its like we're not allowed to have that. I listen to other shows and it seems like nobody's even allowed to say positive things about the front office or they're ridiculed and hung up on. 

 

What it boils down to is a question of why do I watch sports? Back when I was 13 I had dreams of being like Charlie Casserly and working my way up from a ball boy to the Redskins GM and so I was very interested in a lot of front office things, scouting things, ownership things. I was very critical of the team and a lot of that stuff. But with those dreams just about evaporated I can simply appreciate the give and take a little more. And its more fun when I don't let my heart explode with every story that comes out about the Skins. I think Zorn said it best with his "stay medium" bit. But there's a lot going on in these things that I don't know about. I've never met Bruce, Dan, Scot, Doug, Jay, etc. I probably never will. I'll probably never have the type of relationship where I can determine what type of things are "of their character". Do the reporters know this? The radio hosts? Former employees? Former players? Current players? Other people inside the building? 

 

At the end of the day we never know what the truth really is. We still don't know who wanted McNabb, who initiated the trade (for McNabb or Griffin), who the leaks were under Shanny, and a bunch of other stuff. We have stories with sources (some named many unnamed) telling various angles, but even with those, there's so much we don't know. Did Snyder and Shanny have one conversation over McNabb, or meet for a month about it? Was anybody ever against trading for Griffin? There's always going to be unanswered questions and reporters know this, which is partially why we love stuff like 30 for 30 and the behind the scenes reports. But they also know that its a bottomless pit that we fans are addicted to. 

 

So yeah, I look for the positive stories and hope they're true. But even more I look for actual quotes from people like Jay, current players and other coaches that impact the on the field stuff. Besides that, I look for scouting reports for guys on our team, on other teams or guys we may have on our team in the future. Those are the closest things we can get to concrete information in this business and it keeps my blood pressure in check.