HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Flyers Beat Writers' "Sources" Claims: Made-Up or Real? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=947233)

BillDineen 07-09-2011 03:56 AM

Flyers Beat Writers' "Sources" Claims: Made-Up or Real?
 
We have heard "sources" say the Flyers are/were interested in Stamkos, Handzus, trading Bob, etc.

Most seem to come from Tim P., Frank S. or Sam C. (Eklund doesn't count).

Do you believe them or are they made up to get devoted fans to read their articles/blogs?

IMO, Bill Meltzer is the only writer with credibility that calls it as he sees it and does not make things up.

ChumpyG 07-09-2011 04:00 AM

I sometimes think they get a certain amount of money per post on HFboards that talks about one of their articles citing "sources".

ugiswrong 07-09-2011 04:47 AM

Meltzer's good but he doesn't connect that well emotionally with his audience; it's more of a credibility and objectivity show with him.

I wish the writers could work more collaboratively together, it'd be fun to read an article written by all of them together.

Hockeypete49 07-09-2011 06:59 AM

No Comment! Next Question Please! No Comment!

MsWoof 07-09-2011 07:24 AM

ASF isn't as bad but all 3 of them and their damned unnamed sources drive me mad. Baicker and Seravalli also repeatedly write about their sources way too much. My opinion is name them or don't use them. It also annoys me that the Flyers allow this to continue but at the same time, ASF posted in a response to a blog that they've done it for years. They'll give a scoop based on anonimity and the next day, the same person will deny the quote.

SeanL44 07-09-2011 09:02 AM

A lot of times their "sources" are just other beat writers.

MiamiScreamingEagles 07-09-2011 09:29 AM

It's the nature of that business. It's competition but in the age of electronic media the stories and updates are instantaneous and therefore are more pronounced. When newspapers were a primary source of info, more so that the current element, the need to update wasn't as quick. We get that now, especially after games, when there is an injury to report: according to sources player X was having his ankle taped. It is up to the reader to decipher what he/she wants to consider accurate. With he internet, all it takes is one person to promote someone else's tweet or blog and then magically that info is deemed gospel or ridiculed, but it gets attention. No media member with a shred of credibility would fabricate a source; however, the competitive essence of the modern industry contributes to what could ultimately be disproved.

Boxscore 07-09-2011 09:29 AM

Tim P. blogs for Eklund and Sarah Baicker interns with Tim P. Anyone see the connection? The other guys need to keep up with the Joneses. Meltzer is the best Philly writer that covers the Flyers. Most credible at least.

wahoowa 07-09-2011 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillDineen (Post 34842063)
We have heard "sources" say the Flyers are/were interested in Stamkos, Handzus, trading Bob, etc.

Most seem to come from Tim P., Frank S. or Sam C. (Eklund doesn't count).

Do you believe them or are they made up to get devoted fans to read their articles/blogs?

IMO, Bill Meltzer is the only writer with credibility that calls it as he sees it and does not make things up.

I'm going to give Eklund some credit, he's actually broken a couple trades in the past few years that everyone originally scoffed at. He's certainly not a definitive source by any means but I think he's overcome his own stigma by quite a bit.

MsWoof 07-09-2011 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wahoowa (Post 34844409)
I'm going to give Eklund some credit, he's actually broken a couple trades in the past few years that everyone originally scoffed at. He's certainly not a definitive source by any means but I think he's overcome his own stigma by quite a bit.

He's connected to Philly so breaking the Richards deal was a feather in his cap. What else did he break?

ToTheNet 07-09-2011 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustafsson (Post 34844225)
Tim P. blogs for Eklund and Sarah Baicker interns with Tim P. Anyone see the connection? The other guys need to keep up with the Joneses. Meltzer is the best Philly writer that covers the Flyers. Most credible at least.

Sarah Baicker does not intern for Tim P.

Jester 07-09-2011 10:02 AM

If you are writing for a legit paper there are rules governing sources. They are not just making stuff up.

Jester 07-09-2011 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsWoof (Post 34844645)
He's connected to Philly so breaking the Richards deal was a feather in his cap. What else did he break?

He did very well last summer.

StandingCow 07-09-2011 10:20 AM

I really wouldn't be surprised if they watched hockey forums with fans to get some of the rumors.

Protest 07-09-2011 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsWoof (Post 34842943)
ASF isn't as bad but all 3 of them and their damned unnamed sources drive me mad. Baicker and Seravalli also repeatedly write about their sources way too much. My opinion is name them or don't use them. It also annoys me that the Flyers allow this to continue but at the same time, ASF posted in a response to a blog that they've done it for years. They'll give a scoop based on anonimity and the next day, the same person will deny the quote.

Guessing you're not a writer or reporter.

You don't ever name your sources...ever. Its one of the major rules of journalism. I said this when that guy was talking about how his sources were saying Richards and Carter were being moved. I didn't necessarily believe the guy, but I said his "sources" would be proved if what he was saying actually happened, and not by him giving out their name.

Jester 07-09-2011 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Protest (Post 34845411)
Guessing you're not a writer or reporter.

You don't ever name your sources...ever. Its one of the major rules of journalism. I said this when that guy was talking about how his sources were saying Richards and Carter were being moved. I didn't necessarily believe the guy, but I said his "sources" would be proved if what he was saying actually happened, and not by him giving out their name.

This isn't true at all. The recent rise of anonymous sources to such prevalence (and it is a recent development) has been terrible for "journalism". Turns them into little more than organs of biased information. Less of a problem in sports, but a massive problem in politics.

EasyMac 07-09-2011 10:57 AM

I think everyone also has to remember, that not all trade negotiations end up in a deal. I am sure there are many times in which journalists have sources say "Team A is in talks with Team B about Player X" and then no trade is ever made. It doesn't mean the source was lying, it could just be that a deal both GM's were comfortable with was never found.

Jester 07-09-2011 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EasyMac (Post 34845983)
I think everyone also has to remember, that not all trade negotiations end up in a deal. I am sure there are many times in which journalists have sources say "Team A is in talks with Team B about Player X" and then no trade is ever made. It doesn't mean the source was lying, it could just be that a deal both GM's were comfortable with was never found.

Yep, primary problem with the criticism Eklund gets. I think he's an idiot in most of his editorials, but he makes no bones about the fact that he has zero filter between sources and readers... Thus he's going to have a very low success rate.

Coppy 07-09-2011 11:31 AM

I put it more on people overreacting to everything that is written. Teams talk to eachother all the time. Most of the time, nothing comes of these talks. Someone covering the team writes that these teams are talking, and everyone expects something to happen.

Day 1: A Writer reports the Flyers are trying to trade for Stamkos

Days 1-5: After a lot of negotiating, Homer decides the price tag is just to high and breaks off negotiations.

Day 7: Flyers don't trade for Stamkos and people just assume the writter lied and made up that sources were saying that.

Jester 07-09-2011 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppy (Post 34846771)
I put it more on people overreacting to everything that is written. Teams talk to eachother all the time. Most of the time, nothing comes of these talks. Someone covering the team writes that these teams are talking, and everyone expects something to happen.

Day 1: A Writer reports the Flyers are trying to trade for Stamkos

Days 1-5: After a lot of negotiating, Homer decides the price tag is just to high and breaks off negotiations.

Day 7: Flyers don't trade for Stamkos and people just assume the writter lied and made up that sources were saying that.

Yep, there's a cognitive disconnect (for whatever reason) between "rumor" and "fact" which reporters get unfairly criticized for.

Giroux tha Damaja 07-09-2011 12:19 PM

I chose real. Along with Jester's and Coppy's points, sometimes a real source just isn't a very good source. That doesn't mean the reporter made it up.

Jester 07-09-2011 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja (Post 34847993)
I chose real. Along with Jester's and Coppy's points, sometimes a real source just isn't a very good source. That doesn't mean the reporter made it up.

Yep, and this is the big difference between "reporters" -- real journalists -- and what Eklund is doing. A journalist is supposed to display some discretion in what s/he reports, and actually analyze fact from fiction. This is the real problem with anonymous sources, because they are anonymous the reader has no idea where the information is coming from, and no way to determine what biases may be in play. Similarly, the "journalist" cannot really engage in their job because of the given anonymity.

As said, in sports, who the F cares? In the grander scheme, it's diluting the quality of writing that the public is getting from "journalists". In many cases, political journalists have turned into little more than mouthpieces for various factions and individuals who they allow to get a message out without putting their name to that message.

MiamiScreamingEagles 07-09-2011 12:28 PM

Since Mark Howe is in the news...

After the 1984 season, there was a rumor circulating that the Flyers would send Mark Howe and Ilkka Sinisalo to Detroit for Reed Larson and Ron Duguay.

Another had Michel Goulet and Dale Hunter from Quebec to Philly for Mark Howe, Brian Propp and Tim Kerr (who asked to be traded over a contract battle).

Sources and rumors are historic but get punctuated with today's immediacy and availability of resources.

Haute Couturier 07-09-2011 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppy (Post 34846771)
I put it more on people overreacting to everything that is written. Teams talk to eachother all the time. Most of the time, nothing comes of these talks. Someone covering the team writes that these teams are talking, and everyone expects something to happen.

Day 1: A Writer reports the Flyers are trying to trade for Stamkos

Days 1-5: After a lot of negotiating, Homer decides the price tag is just to high and breaks off negotiations.

Day 7: Flyers don't trade for Stamkos and people just assume the writter lied and made up that sources were saying that.

Although I agree this tends to happen, I am not sure this specific instance is an example of fans overreacting. The Stamkos situation was fishy to me because we were given conflicting information. Seravalli and San Filippo were told by their sources that the Flyers were going to offer sheet him and we even given the dollar amount while Carchidi and Panaccio were told it wasn't going to happen and that they expected Stamkos to remain in Tampa. So clearly someone had to be wrong on this considering there were conflicting sources.

To me this Stamkos stuff never smelled right. I don't believe a team would be so public with their intentions to the point where they give the dollar amount of the contract that they were contemplating. Personally I don't believe they were ever going after Stamkos just like I don't believe Tampa was ever considering letting him go via offer sheet or through a trade.

Then we have Seravalli saying the Flyers signed Handzus on July 1, only for Bob McKenzie to shoot it down and said the Flyers didn't even talk to Handzus. It was also reported on July 1 that the Flyers signed Braydon Coburn to an extension which also turned out to be false. I believe it was Anthony Sam Filippo who reported on the Coburn signing that didn't happen.

There is clearly some bad information being reported and it's not just people overreacting. I don't believe these writers are making up stuff, but I do believe they either have a sketchy source or they have a credible source that is flat out lying to them for whatever reason.

MsWoof 07-09-2011 03:54 PM

Wouldn't surprise me if the sources like to throw in the odd crazy thing to see who will write about it and look like a fool.

I prefer to see a writer like Elliotte Friedman who writes 30 Thoughts weekly during the season. Here's an excerpt:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/ellio...-thoughts.html

Quote:

9) When Philadelphia fell behind Boston 3-0 in the second round, one individual said to me, "Here's a 30 Thought for you: how about the Flyers without Carter and Richards next year?" I said, "I'm not writing that. I'm going to look like an idiot." I was as astonished as anyone else, but it's clear Philly was quietly considering the possibility for awhile. This was not a snap decision.
Even though the person who told him was correct, he didn't want to write about it because he'd look like a fool. If he had written about it and the trades didn't happen, he would have been ridiculed. I just don't see any reason for writers to act like the Philly ones because they're all about sensationalism.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.