ESPN Article may not always be correct - Burfict

[ColtsBlueFL]

On Wednesday, an article on ESPN.com mentions Vontaze Burfict would not be fined for going low on a hit to Roethlisberger:

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14382407/cincinnati-bengals-lb-vontaze-burfict-fined-nfl-ben-roethlisberger-hit

 

Then on Thursday, ESPN reports not only will Burfict get fined for that low hit, he'll also be fined for two other events in that game totaling $77,000dollars.  His previous four fines he has collected have totaled $70,000

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14391530/vontaze-burfict-cincinnati-bengals-fined-all-hit-ben-roethlisberger

 

I guess even in a relatively respected web site, erroneous info can still be passed along.

 

[amfootball]

IMO ESPN is hot garbage. They used to be respected but are now just a media entity that carries the NFLs water. They are a propaganda machine for the NFL. Quality journalistic reporting went out the window long ago. Lots of hack writers too IMO who know very little about the game.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, amfootball said:

IMO ESPN is hot garbage. They used to be respected but are now just a media entity that carries the NFLs water. They are a propaganda machine for the NFL. Quality journalistic reporting went out the window long ago. Lots of hack writers too IMO who know very little about the game.

 

I think it shows that when an article is published, anywhere, the source of the information and the credibility of those reporting that information is a key factor on the reliability of the information. Which runs the gamut:

 

From "unnamed source by unknown blogger"

To "Well known respected sports journalist quoting a named source"

[amfootball]

40 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I think it shows that when an article is published, anywhere, the source of the information and the credibility of those reporting that information is a key factor on the reliability of the information. Which runs the gamut:

 

From "unnamed source by unknown blogger"

To "Well known respected sports journalist quoting a named source"

It used to be that before any news story was published there were three sources. But once the advent of the Internet and the rush to be first with a story, that standard went away. Now a story gains traction by how many sites it appears now not whether it is true or not. The worst part is media outlets like ESPN are not held accountable for poor journalism and low integrity. The state of our media IMO is one of the saddest in our nation ...

[21isSuperman]

6 hours ago, amfootball said:

IMO ESPN is hot garbage. They used to be respected but are now just a media entity that carries the NFLs water. They are a propaganda machine for the NFL. Quality journalistic reporting went out the window long ago. Lots of hack writers too IMO who know very little about the game.

Truth

[Superman]

9 hours ago, amfootball said:

IMO ESPN is hot garbage. They used to be respected but are now just a media entity that carries the NFLs water. They are a propaganda machine for the NFL. Quality journalistic reporting went out the window long ago. Lots of hack writers too IMO who know very little about the game.

 

LOL, that is rich. 

[oldunclemark]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2015 at 10:50 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

On Wednesday, an article on ESPN.com mentions Vontaze Burfict would not be fined for going low on a hit to Roethlisberger:

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14382407/cincinnati-bengals-lb-vontaze-burfict-fined-nfl-ben-roethlisberger-hit

 

Then on Thursday, ESPN reports not only will Burfict get fined for that low hit, he'll also be fined for two other events in that game totaling $77,000dollars.  His previous four fines he has collected have totaled $70,000

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14391530/vontaze-burfict-cincinnati-bengals-fined-all-hit-ben-roethlisberger

 

I guess even in a relatively respected web site, erroneous info can still be passed along.

 

Tough week for them....

They also said that Charlie Whitehurst was starting for the Colts against Houston

[Synthetic]

On 12/18/2015 at 8:58 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I think it shows that when an article is published, anywhere, the source of the information and the credibility of those reporting that information is a key factor on the reliability of the information. Which runs the gamut:

 

From "unnamed source by unknown blogger"

To "Well known respected sports journalist quoting a named source"

 

 

This sounds like a product of the internet. ESPN isn't the only one to suffer from this. Everywhere you look on the internet for news, you often see total junk in headlines. 10 years ago, it was just off to the side, mostly focused on the fringe, but now, you look everywhere and you see it.