I said "serious" work.
The Dominion Post
If unnamed sources are part of the gig and are all you use, do you think that makes it credible?
Try doing that for any serious work (reports, reviews, academic papers).
I don't have any issues with using unnamed source, because journalists are required to protect their sources. But without any quotes at all, how are we meant to judge the validity of the claims? Especially given there is no response from the other side to counter the accusations.
Worthington should ring up Tommy and do they counter piece.
Or you can make shit up because you are protecting sources. If the story has back up (may be quotes), that helps with credibility.
I merely brought it up to see if there would be consistency in the opinions, and Dale's stuck to his guns so I respect that.
Where I'm coming from is as what you mentioned - unnamed sources. When somebody writes "Fairfax understands that...", what follows is basically a quote from an unnamed source, except paraphrased, which I guess helps anonymity, and just makes it easier to read, I guess it's just a practice.
So in that respect I don't think you need quotes if there isn't going to be a name attached - and since this is an exclusive (therefore time is of the essence in breaking the story) - often there is no time to go and ask Tommy Smith's opinion, and besides, he'd be un-contactable right now.
Sometimes journalists have to run with a story based on strong information from people they trust, and that's what you see with basically all exclusive news stories. Sometimes the thirst to be first outweighs everything else, and that can sometimes be detrimental in news breaking. We shall see how he treats a follow-up story.
These stories are written all over the sporting world guys. You read them too - or dont and live under a rock. Whichever
Perhaps he couldnt get ppl to be allowed to be quoted or named. It happens!
So forgive me for respecting journos even less with that sort of standard practice.
Something like "Fairfax understands that" sounds even worse though because it implies that they haven't even been told that directly. That they heard it from a somewhere else.
On the exclusive side, it's hardly time dependent given how long ago it happened. Surely waiting another day to ring Tommy up and get his side is not that hard, and is important for the credibility. Even if it is a 'no comment'.
Well he used a twitter post which pretty much spelt out he was trying to play for ipswich and arrive later. That lends weight
And the bit that he treatned to quit?
Everyone was trying to arrive later. Maybe not all of them had hissy fits when they couldn't.
Seemingly.
He couldve been told that directly but not been able to get them to go on record.
Do you stop and not proceed with it? No.
TV , look up the word "innuendo" and then tell what the difference with your approach is.
I understand that my position is different from most here, as from my position - breaking major news stories is understood to be one of the more important aspects of the job, and I would hazard a guess that what Burgess has been told isn't exclusive to him, so he wants to get the story first before anybody else can lay claim to it.
I realise that journalists aren't particularly well regarded (this isn't just a football thing or a Kiwi thing either), which is why there is scepticism over most articles like this where there are serious claims being made. But what I would say is that I haven't known a journalist to go ahead with an article if they aren't 99% certain of the truth of what they are writing. Writers do care about their reputation (that's why they stay off the forums, probably!), and they also (or at least I would) desperately hate to be wrong on this sort of thing. And also, these "sources" (and I believe I know who one of them is), would likely be reprimanded or have a huge loss of respect if they were uncovered, so that's why names cannot often be divulged.I guess that is why I treat such stories with a much larger dose of acceptance of what is said, rather than being sceptical.
Anyway, there is no doubt Tommy Smith will deny the allegations, as they would not be a good mark on his name if they were true, so I'm guessing we will have a word against word scenario sometime tomorrow.
Journalist shouldn't be reporting off the record comments.
N bomb is far more articulate and thought out than i.
N-Bomb. This is why us non-journo-degree readers appreciate balanced reporting.
I respect many of my peers but if/when they publish unsubstantiated shit I call them out on it.
Journalist shouldn't be reporting off the record comments.
I would love to agree, but sometimes nobody wants to go on the record - and then what do you do? Do you leave the article completely? Or do you go and talk to the person in question (let's say Smith) - and have an article on him denying the allegations, which have seemingly come out of nowhere because you aren't allowed to write about them in the first place?
It's not perfect, but sometimes when nobody wants to come on the record and there's a legitimate story which you feel needs to be reported on, it doesn't leave many options.
I actually feel that this could be quite a good debate on the podcast if you were to get Michael Burgess, or Piney, or a football print reporter at a major paper to talk about it - they would be probably be able to defend some of these journalistic practices better than I.
I realise that journalists aren't particularly well regarded (this isn't just a football thing or a Kiwi thing either), which is why there is scepticism over most articles like this where there are serious claims being made. But what I would say is that I haven't known a journalist to go ahead with an article if they aren't 99% certain of the truth of what they are writing. Writers do care about their reputation (that's why they stay off the forums, probably!), and they also (or at least I would) desperately hate to be wrong on this sort of thing. And also, these "sources" (and I believe I know who one of them is), would likely be reprimanded or have a huge loss of respect if they were uncovered, so that's why names cannot often be divulged.
Yes some do care about their reputation (ie the good ones), but I still believe there are still plenty are still either lazy and who care more about click bait.
For me, it's really hard to tell whether the accusation is true. No doubt the source came from inside the camp, and I think I can probably guess who it was. There may be some truth to it, but what if someone is bending the truth? Plenty of people would have an agenda to make people look bad as the fall out continues and people want to protect their own jobs or reputation.
It's pretty much well established that Tommy and the other UK guys wanted to try play their club game first. Which is fine. Burgress gives off the impression Tommy didn't want to play because he might lose his spot? But he's started in 18 of 19 league games this season. He is one established as a starting CB. Threatening to retire from international football seems extreme. And (from memory) he has always made himself available for All Whites games. Even those friendlies back here.
If unnamed sources are part of the gig and are all you use, do you think that makes it credible?
Try doing that for any serious work (reports, reviews, academic papers).
Anonymous sources are common in legitimate journalism, but will always be clearly referenced.
Here's an example from the Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/ap-sources-beltran-yanks-agree-at-45m-3-years/2013/12/06/1950290e-5ef3-11e3-8d24-31c016b976b2_story.html
It's clear there's a credible source.
Compare that with this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/9428638/Ricki-Herbert-lost-respect-of-All-Whites-players
In the Herald case, they have made it clear that they have sources.
I'd like to have seen them say "sources in the All Whites camp" or "sources close to Tommy Smith" or something that gave more of an indication that the source was credible. But I still think the Herald have done a better job than the Dom Post.
All the Dom Post had to say if they actually had sources was "sources close to the All Whites who requested anonymity but travelled with the team" or something like that. I don't think they actually had any sources at all, and just put the story together based on scuttlebutt that they couldn't attribute to anyone. The Herald follow up piece supports that view.
Be interesting, as Dale says, to see if the Dom Post have any luck speaking to Tommy Smith and writing up a counter-story. I bet they don't though.
History has something to do with it too.
Sam W and the Dom Post have a bit of a track record for being negative about the Phoenix and the AWs, and also using unattributed quotes/sources. Michael Burgess not so much, so he has a little bit more goodwill in the bank when he does resort to those tactics.
At the end of the day it's only sports reporting, it's not actually that important (sorry N-Bomb!). As the punters who it is aimed squarely at (and who are keeping these guys in jobs) I think we get to love/hate as much as we want. It's all in the game, innit. Sam and his employers will only really care if nobody's reading at all.
Good perspective Termy.
Perhaps if I was Tommy Smith I might consider it somewhat important. But you're right. It's not really going to change my view on things football, DP or Herald.
Also good hook N-Bomb. I wouldn't have read it if you hadn't posted the link.
Good views there Smithy.
I'm neither really here on there on the Burgess piece, I do think there's something substantial behind it otherwise it wouldn't have been written, but then again I've always cast Tommy as one of the more committed European players to the All Whites cause.
I just thought I should try explain why these posts do pop up every now again, and try and defend the practice at least a little bit - I'm very inexperienced compared to those people who we are debating about so I'm probably doing a woeful job but I do believe it's a good, worthy debate to be having.
Just read this but pretty much agree with what 2ndBest, Smithy and Term have written without rehashing.
Burgess does have good will because the kind of article written is not his usual MO. It is for Sam Worthington however.
I still think its a hack piece and like 2B said, it seems far fetched when you consider he has played 18/19, always been available and really, threatening to quit over the biggest game in 4 years? The only person would have looked like a cock is him if he had done this. If you play it out, lets say he had retired on the eve of the game. At 23 on the eve of our biggest game, he would have to explain why he retired so young at a really inconvenient time 'Oh well NZF would not let me play for my club'. The backlash he would get, well Smith would know this.... It seems very far fetched.
It does not seem realistic. If I were to hazard a guess, when you consider the comments from Smith after the game about a certain person from the campaign, that person may have an axe to grind and chose to mentioning an 'off the cuff' comment about Smith in retaliation whether that comment is true or not.
link? can't remember what was said. Do remember the call for a more attacking game plan in the second game.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11160916 this?
With these stories you also never know whether what the player is telling their club and their national team are actually the same thing. Obviously the player wants to be seen to do their best by both parties so I think they quite often make a lot of noise at their club about how they really want to play and the national team are being bastards, but that doesn't quite reconcile with the truth (or the discussions they've actually had with their national team).
At the end of the day if Tommy really felt that less time for preparation was required then he's got a beef with FIFA, not just NZF, and that is also a view that was absolutely not shared by the majority of posters on this forum (and I still think NZF were weak and took a huge risk by letting the Phoenix players play in Christchurch).
(and I still think NZF were weak and took a huge risk by letting the Phoenix players play in Christchurch).
NZF? Weak? Never *sarcasm emoticon*
(and I still think NZF were weak and took a huge risk by letting the Phoenix players play in Christchurch).
NZF? Weak? Never *sarcasm emoticon*
Perhaps Smith didn't want to waste another day with Herbert if he could avoid it... makes sense to me.
More specific naming of sources etc isn't going to change whether or not the story is the truth. All it will do is perhaps persuade some of you that it might be true. Not every newspaper is the New York Times and we can't expect every writer to adhere to the old journalistic school code of conduct. At the end of the day, you decide whether or not you believe the story. I've had enough experience on the other side of the media to know how the different ones work and can sometime look through some of the stuff written and find the true meaning. I've also been misquoted or had something taken out of context and accept that's part of the deal, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I certainly don't think going overboard achieves much. But back to the YF story, I can fully understand why some here have taken offence because it relates to them personally through their passion for YF.
[I] ... can sometime look through some of the stuff written and find the true meaning.
Oops, post rescinded.... too much info.
Just accept that Burgess is holding the nuts on this one.
Oops, post rescinded.... too much info.
Just accept that Burgess is holding the nuts on this one.
So, Burgess had some hot sauce. Still would have been nice to get a comment from NZF on their strong stance on getting players to LA by a certain date and not giving in to club pressures, for context.
And a couple things brought up in this discussion; News agencies trying to be the first to press/online with a story when it ends up being inaccurate, has too much bias or doesn't attempt to get a comment - rather get it done properly and accurately. And on bias, it is not always about presenting both sides of the argument as equal or giving as much air time to both sides of the argument (not such an issue in sport) such as on reporting of Climate Change - Just about every single major scientific organisation in the World supports the evidence for anthropogenic climate change and it annoys me when the opposing view from a very, very tiny minority (normally a lobby group like the 'Climate Science' Coalition) are given an equal voice when to the laymen receiving the information they won't necessarily know how much weight is behind one argument over the other.
Yes, needs a follow on how Smith (and NZF) view his stance post World Cup.
But the evidence for the original story was strong enough not to have to speak in code, or add weasel words
[I] ... can sometime look through some of the stuff written and find the true meaning.
More like.....
So I have just lodged a complaint to the Press Council because of this article. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/9428646/Herbert-lost-the-respect-of-the-players
In particular, because it may have breached two principles outlined by the New Zealand Press Council. Namely:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view.
Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report
Comment and Fact
A clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. An article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Cartoons are understood to be opinion.
As part of that of that process, I'm required to contact the editor of the publication outlining my complaint. Which I have done. Here is the extract of her email.
"As you have pointed out the piece carried no source nor comment from Ricki Herbert. This is because it was an opinion piece written by our soccer writer.
I note that you cite two principles breached under Press Council guidelines - comment and fact and accuracy, fairness and balance.
I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that the information gathered was from reliable sources close to Mr Herbert. As already stated this was an opinion piece so no comment from Mr Herbert was required."
Ok so here is the Dom Post response after I made a formal complaint.
and some attachments they used as examples.
