posted at 11/3/2013 8:06 AM EST
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to Muzwell's comment:
RKarp: Why can't a sportswriter report what he heard, as long as he qualifies it as unverified, as you did? We're not talking national security here. No lives would be lost if Joe Reporter comes out and reports that the word is Tommy Kelly is done for the year, but that the team hasn't verified it.
If that's what he heard, then it's a true statement. What's the problem?
Legitimate news outlets just don't operate like that. You can get those kinds of rumours reported on blogs, but any outlet that wants to maintain its reputation as a credible source of information isn't going to report things that are unconfirmed. If your brand is based in part on your credibility, you aren't going to risk that brand by reporting heresay and rumour.
Also, your sources may clam up if you start reporting whatever they say . . .
I'm not talking about hearsay and rumor, I'm talking about credible sources but just not verified by the team.
I get that sources may clam up, but I see reports ALL THE TIME that say things like "Word is..." or "I'm hearing that...." or "I'm told that..." Not on blogs either, I'm talking about ESPN, etc. As long as it's qualified and you're not saying it's fact, I don't see the problem.
It seems that media covering the Pats are intimidated by BB. They'll run that sort of unverified story about other teams all the time, but not about the Pats. I guess it's a question of courage. But if you're not getting anything from BB anyway (and you're not), what do you risk by running the sort of story that gets run about other teams routinely? Is he going to give you a longer scowl?