View Single Post
07-10-2011, 09:31 AM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
How is that not true? You don't give up your sources unless they want you to period. Otherwise you'll never have another source again. Do you think a GM wants it known that he's signed a free agent, making a trade, or drafting a specific player before the move is actually finalized? Especially when its something similar to this year when you have a player signed, but you need to move someone to make room. You want to move the player before the signing is official that way you get a better return. People that leak this info can get into hot water which is why they should never be named unless they say its ok.

Anonymous sources isn't a new thing, its just more prevalent due to the age that we live in. Anyone can go online and Tweet, or blog about something as if its true and cite their "anonymous source." The problem is that people that lack credibility can spread a rumor with ease. That's why you ignore those people or take what they say with a grain of salt until you hear it come from a respected member of the media. The problem isn't that people have sources that they're protecting, its that anyone can go online and make **** up. You are the one that has to decide whether you're going to believe them or not.
The use of "anonymous sources" has little to do with the age and more to do with the erosion of responsible journalism. This is tied to the fact that sources have learned how to take advantage of the press.

The reporters job is not supposed to be that of a blind relayer of information. Again, this doesn't really matter with sports, but it is of grave importance in other aJreas and part of an industry-wide problem. It is how you end up with the NYT going to illogical extremes to avoid using the word "torture" while quoting anonymous sources talking about torture.

In sports it leads to BS after BS getting published. For the 10% of good info you get from allowing anonymity, you get 90% misinformation. Look no further than Eklund to see the problem of anonymity.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote