Jump to content

NFL Week 6 - You Shall Not Take the Name of the LORD Roger Goodell in Vain


Keyser_Soze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thursday, October 14

 

Matchup Time (PT)  TV
spacer.png Tampa Bay at  spacer.png Philadelphia  5:20 PM Fox/NFL

 

Sunday, October 17

 

Matchup Time (PT)  TV
spacer.png Miami vs      spacer.png Jacksonville 6:30 AM CBS
spacer.png Green Bay at  spacer.png Chicago 10:00 AM FOX
spacer.png Cincinnati at  spacer.png Detroit 10:00 AM FOX
spacer.png Houston at  spacer.png Indianapolis 10:00 AM CBS
spacer.png LA Rams at  spacer.png NY Giants 10:00 AM FOX
spacer.png Kansas City at  spacer.png Washington  10:00 AM CBS
spacer.png Minnesota at  spacer.png Carolina 10:00 AM FOX
spacer.png LA Chargers at  spacer.png Baltimore 10:00 AM CBS
spacer.png Arizona at  spacer.png Cleveland 1:05 PM FOX
spacer.png Las Vegas at  spacer.png Denver 1:25 PM CBS
spacer.png Dallas at  spacer.png New England 1:25 PM CBS
spacer.png Seattle at  spacer.png Pittsburgh 5:20 PM NBC

 

Monday, October 18

 

Matchup   Time (PT)    TV
spacer.png Buffalo at spacer.png Tennessee    5:15 PM     ESPN

 

Well last week ended with some spicy off the field drama. I'm sure that's going to continue this week.

Other than that there seem to be a few stand out games this week. Will the Arizona / Cleveland game and Chargers / Baltimore game be oodles of scoring? Maybe. Bills get another prime time game. And I guess Dallas and New England should be interesting.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

 

Yeah, but isn't that really kind of a nothing burger?

 

It is not unusual to run stories by people who were being reported on to verify parts of it, or to recommend changes from their perspective.

 

its up to the judgment of the reporter, but it also helps prevent something from being a hit piece if it is inaccurate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BuckFly said:

 

 

Yeah, but isn't that really kind of a nothing burger?

 

It is not unusual to run stories by people who were being reported on to verify parts of it, or to recommend changes from their perspective.

 

its up to the judgment of the reporter, but it also helps prevent something from being a hit piece if it is inaccurate.

 

 

 

No self-respecting journalist should ever run their stories by the people being reported on or allow them to "edit" it in any way, shape, or form.  Doing so smacks of "access journalism" which is all but the equivalent of being a stenographer/propagandist.

 

Schefter refers to Allen as "Mr. Editor", for heaven's sake!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

No self-respecting journalist should ever run their stories by the people being reported on or allow them to "edit" it in any way, shape, or form.  Doing so smacks of "access journalism" which is all but the equivalent of being a stenographer/propagandist.

 

Schefter refers to Allen as "Mr. Editor", for heaven's sake!


 

Yeah, because so much self respect in reporters nowadays, but that 100% aside*…

 

…what was the story?

 

Honestly asking, because I don’t know.  
 

I know it is crazy that context matters, but context matters.

 

 

* because I’ve seen on numerous occasions and on numerous stories from self respecting reporters in print and television state, “when asked to comment about this story”, or “when asked before going to print”.  It helps as well to create a safe harbor from libel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BuckFly said:

* because I’ve seen on numerous occasions and on numerous stories from self respecting reporters in print and television state, “when asked to comment about this story”, or “when asked before going to print”.  It helps as well to create a safe harbor from libel.

 

That's a very different situation than forwarding the story to them for "editing".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GettyImages-180315952.jpg
DEFECTOR.COM

I do not know how many times Adam Schefter is going to climb to the rooftops and shout, I am a little worm! What I do is not journalism! before ESPN decides to care. Today is apparently...

If anyone is actually curious about why this is a big no-no, this article lays out why:

 

It is probably worth explaining here not only that it is bad to send a story to a source for pre-publication review, but why it is bad. While I assure you this is not normal practice, and is indeed right up there as one of the basic tenets of journalism along with “spell people’s names correctly” and “don’t make shit up,” and that all reporters know not to do it (both innately and from having it drilled into their heads by competent and ethical instructors, colleagues, and bosses), there is no reason a normal person would ever spend a minute thinking about it. But it’s not some arcane, ivory-tower, j-school ethical holdover; it’s common sense. Every source for every story is by definition an interested party, and their interest is in the story being reported in a certain way. That’s not necessarily intentional or nefarious, but it’s without exception—why else would they talk to a reporter? They want something out there, and they want it to be their version. That’s a conflict of interest that’s unavoidably inherent in the very idea of sourcing. This doesn’t mean that sources shouldn’t be trusted, but it does mean that they should not be the final arbiter of the story’s content—especially when, as was the case here, the story was one about a conflict between two sides, and only one side was handed the rubber stamp.

The story in question was not the typical Schefter pap. It would be one thing if Schefter was asking someone to sign off on the sort of disposable, 300-word filler item he usually traffics in. Tom Brady, please let me know if you see anything that should be added, changed, tweaked in this story reporting that you still have “the will to win.” That wouldn’t be fine, exactly, but also who cares. But this story was actual news. It was a story about CBA negotiations between the players and owners during the 2011 lockout. It was a labor battle, with both sides keen to get their spin on events in front of the public. It was a story with real implications for the livelihoods of the people involved. And Adam Schefter chose to let someone from the management side of the bargaining table have final say on how it was presented.

This isn’t about management = bad, either. It wouldn’t have been OK if Schefter had sent his draft to an NFLPA source instead or in addition. Don’t let anyone see the story! Talk to them for the story, then write the story by triangulating the facts as best you can given the various motivations of your sources. That’s how reporting works, especially on a topic like labor negotiations where there’s not always going to be one objectively true version of events. If you want a story to be both comprehensive and accurate, the very last thing to do is let one side have veto power over the other’s words.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BuckFly said:

 

 

Yeah, but isn't that really kind of a nothing burger?

 

It is not unusual to run stories by people who were being reported on to verify parts of it, or to recommend changes from their perspective.

 

its up to the judgment of the reporter, but it also helps prevent something from being a hit piece if it is inaccurate.

 


No, it is not normal journalistic practice to send unfinished articles to subjects and/or related parties to ask for their editorial insight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support all of the comments above by you and thank you all for the information and as always the education and further knowledge.  I will go back to my earlier comment, though, about what the context was or really what the story was, which I did not know at the time, and stated as much.  

 

If it were a fluff piece, especially from an insider whose job essentially is to be a water carrier for the NFL (right or wrong) is different.   The Defector can say all it wants about it being a no-no (which they even hedged on with fluff a bit).  Doesn't mean it is not done, but also, and agreeably, it should be chastised and deterred.  

 

However, and as I have posted on other boards this is all red herring bull**** that we...US here are chasing after.  For crying out loud on my Bills board it became pages about whether OJ should come off the Bills Wall of Fame...there I stated, "really?"  Gruden (?), OJ (?), all the while Snyder, AND the NFL and the WFT go strolling and whistling out the backdoor.  

 

I guess I was not eloquent or even pointed in what was really my main issue in my earlier posts here, which was...

 

Gruden...Shefter...really?!

 

With the monstrous things that the WFT and Snyder have done or are at least being accused of doing here at the D1P it is the benign garbage we are debating...including me.  We are kidding ourselves if this is or should be the focus.  

 

Gruden is gone, as he should be...but he's gone.

 

Shefter is going to take his heat, but who's clinking their glasses together if he goes down, proclaiming "decency and ethics in journalism has been restored! Ha-zah!"?

 

Meanwhile, I believe PFT referenced the fact that someone is out there speaking up, petitioning or at least trying to get advertisers to put heat on the the NFL's advertisers to hold  the NFL accountable for some disclosures, and really some consequences, about the purpose of all this, which is the egregious activities of the organization, owner and the now apparent cover up by the League itself.

 

Firing the guy who deflates footballs, destroying THE evidence of "spy-gate", or fining a team doesn't seem like it is going to be enough of an answer this time around...or hopefully it shouldn't be enough.

 

If it is, if this is ALL this ends up being about or happening, then maybe we all deserve to be eating nothing burgers and being satisfied.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Snyder is a rotten human being and should not be allowed to own a team. And I'm sure there is more. There's a reason the NFL settled so quickly with Kapernick, just like there is a reason that they leaked the Gruden emails in hope that he is the fall guy. If it ends with only Gruden, that will be a very disappointing outcome.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Snyder is a rotten human being and should not be allowed to own a team. And I'm sure there is more. There's a reason the NFL settled so quickly with Kapernick, just like there is a reason that they leaked the Gruden emails in hope that he is the fall guy. If it ends with only Gruden, that will be a very disappointing outcome.

 

 

T-Dubs, it's so sleazy.  

 

Even if it is just conjecture on our part it is not too far off to think that someone amidst all this garbage...those young girls...someone just waived their hand and said, "meh, throw the masses this bone and let's move on." 

 

Disgusting.  

 

No...not this time.  No.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BuckFly said:

With the monstrous things that the WFT and Snyder have done or are at least being accused of doing here at the D1P it is the benign garbage we are debating...including me.  We are kidding ourselves if this is or should be the focus.  


The Adam Shefter issue is exactly why we are limited to these tertiary issues. The sports press is allllll access journalism, so nobody is ever asking the hard questions, nobody is digging deep for the emails that implicate the people all the way up at the top. 
 

These things aren’t disconnected at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GettyImages-1235391520-1-e1634171574479.
PROFOOTBALLTALK.NBCSPORTS.COM

Last year, pressure from sponsors prompted Washington Football Team owner Daniel Snyder to abandon his all-caps NEVER refusal to change the team name. Now, sponsors of the league are being asked to pressure the NFL to release the emails obtained through the recent...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...