-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I'm not a journalist either. I agree that it's best practice to offer the subject a chance to respond. My real point is that I don't think a lack of response from the subject automatically invalidates the information. In this specific situation, I think the information was sensationalized. The initial report shared some nuanced opinions from unnamed sources, which I think is pretty common. The way the story took off from there is probably due to aggregation, for which I don't hold the initial reporter responsible. And what it seems like here is we're pushing back against a "negative" report regarding a player the Colts drafted, rather than taking the information on its merits. -
By NewColtsFan · Posted
There was nothing stopping Mitchell (or his agent) from contacting McGinn to say can I give you an interview so you can put out my side of the story. Look…. Sports stories move quickly, if you had to get a response from every source in every story, stories would never get done. Especially in a world where so much info is now getting tweeted out. And if Mitchell or his agent didn’t trust McGinn, odds are it wouldn’t be hard to find a reporter who would be happy to interview Mitchell. The kid has a compelling story. So in many cases if a reporter can’t get to a player after a game, or needs more info, you can grab him before the next game and do a follow up where the player is now the full story. I’m talking here about baseball, basketball and hockey where there are multiple games in a week. A little different in football, but you’d go to the team facility and get a follow up 1-on-1 for a good next day story. Once the McGinn story was out there was time for Mitchell to do as much damage control as he thought necessary. I don’t want to go on and on. Hope I came close to answering. If not, or you have more questions, hit me up, because I’m always here. -
I don't necessarily agree that if teams chose other WRs it means they didn't view him as a first round player. It just means they liked a different player more. As for the rest, I think it's obvious that teams had concerns about AD Mitchell. I also think it's obvious the Colts weren't dying to draft him, otherwise they wouldn't have traded back. So the whole 'he was a surefire first rounder until unnamed sources went after him' thing doesn't quite connect for me.
-
By NewColtsFan · Posted
Yes, there are ethical considerations. But I’d say those are in a case by case basis. But the vast majority of comments are going to be used. Now if a reporter thinks a source is trying to bad mouth a player, perhaps for professional gain, they can decline to use the info and also stop using the source if the source loses credibility. Source relationships are obviously important and can get tricky. -
OOOps! "Edition" not "Addition", lol! Mods please correct my faux pas.
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts