-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I think I was wrong in my guess here. On later inspection, it seems like the more likely situation is that the part about his diabetes is still in this article, but it's just hidden behind a paywall.. -
That could have happened. Could have been a HIPAA issue too. But I think the fact that these other quotes existed (even if they were put in later) adds necessary context to this situation. It wasn't just AD being the victim of some smear campaign that somehow heavily influenced NFL teams...as seems to be the narrative. Instead, there were also concerns among different scouts (assuming it wasn't one scout) about other aspects, including his Combine workout. So we know what some thought...and we know what happened. 10 teams drafted WRs before AD. Yes, 3 of those WRs were going earlier than him no matter what, but 7 other WR-needy teams opted for other WRs. And even Ballard actually traded down with him on the board. It seems fairly safe to assume that NFL teams didn't have him as a R1 WR, or top 5 at the position, for reasons beyond a couple comments from anonymous scouts. -
Cardinals need to sweep the Marlins in their 3 game series. At minimum win 2/3. It's a chance they cannot mess up. -
Honestly, isn't that kind of a base level journalistic integrity and ethics? I don't think he's setting up some arbitrary litmus test. I'm no journalist and have no idea what the professional standard is, but this to me seems like a pretty reasonable standard - if you are writing about someone and a source is sharing pretty disparaging information that might affect the subject to the tune of millions of dollars, the least you should probably do is to ask for comment from said subject, before you print that information.
-
Kind of seems like you're setting up a litmus test for whether a reporter is "good" or not based on whether they do this thing you don't like. So maybe you could share some well-respected media in your opinion -- sports would be most relevant -- and then we could share some examples. I agree that the best practice would be to reach out to the subject for a response. But if the subject declines or doesn't acknowledge the request, now what? Add a line saying 'subject declined to respond,' and now the unnamed sources are viewed with more legitimacy?
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now