Semi-OT: Is it this easy to be a reporter's 'SOURCE'

[Edrock]

http://deadspin.com/5916245/how-a-teena ... l-and-cnbc
Healdine reads:

How A Teenager With A Fake Escort Service Duped Darren Rovell And CNBC

The article details how a twitter request presented an opportunity to troll a 'reporter' and how the fabricated information was added to a real article, and propagated by other media outlets.

Just another cautionary tale to take ANY news report using 'SOURCES' with a pound of salt.

Amazingly Rovell's 'apology' actually puts the blame on the troll, and not on his fact-checking prowess...

The escort story made the cut because I thought it was different. As you can see in the published exchange I went back and forth with "Tim" in an attempt to ascertain whether his story was genuine. Feeling satisfied that the answers seemed real, we included it in the story.

He duped me. Shame on me. I apologize to my readers.

As a result I will do fewer stories on the real life impact of big events which I do think the public enjoys.

There will always be people out there who want their 15 minutes of fame and not really care how they get there.

[Zmill]

Let's not act like if the "sources" consistenyly said "Dwight Howard is guaranteed to resign with the Magic" that 3/4ths of this forum would get weak in the knees.

[Bensational]

exactly. these days, with the increased anonymity of the internet, your source could be a 12 year old boy, posing as a 40 year old man, who poses as a 12 year old girl to flirt with other 12 year old boys on the internet.

[BadMofoPimp]

I truly think these "Sources" are just internet Forums, chat logs and/or comments on articles. I bet every ESPN analyst has used REALGM for their sources at least once before.

If their job and pay performance is based on drawing viewers, then that TMZ tactic of creating discord is the best way to draw attention to themselves.

Thus, I don't believe ESPN on most of what they say unless they actually have a statement from a Player, an organization or an Agent.

Nothing with the words my "Sources" is considered relevant to me anymore after this past year. Because, about 90% of them were all false.

Since this is the entertainment business, are you not all entertained?

[Skin]

Don't blame the hidden sources. Blame the public writers producing these reports with no sense of conscious or responsibility for a report gone bad. They'll do anything to make news. It doesn't even have to be legit news. Welcome to the modern internet era. Soon social media outlets will put these guys out of a job anyways. It's already happened to paper newspaper decline.

[aleZ]

Don't blame the hidden sources. Blame the public writers producing these reports with no sense of conscious or responsibility for a report gone bad.

Exactly, I've worked in professional magazines and sites, but it all comes down to whoever is calling the shots. Some places, you can basically fabricate anything, others don't use nameless sources at all. But it's a shame the reading public wants gossip and speculation, so a journalist often has to create the news instead of reporting them. It all generates hits, links, ads etc.

[j_n]

Don't blame the hidden sources. Blame the public writers producing these reports with no sense of conscious or responsibility for a report gone bad. They'll do anything to make news. It doesn't even have to be legit news. Welcome to the modern internet era. Soon social media outlets will put these guys out of a job anyways. It's already happened to paper newspaper decline.

I dont think anyone was ever blaming the "source".
By now, I hope most of this board realize that non of these reporters has an ounce of credibility and thyre all dancing around the fact that they dont have any inside information by using the word "source".

[craig01]

It's a shame how journalistic standards have fallen by the wayside with major news outlets.

But that won't change until there is an eventual uproar over piss poor journalism.

[darthmerrick]

Eh screw the media sources. We have our own Deep throat on the TBN board giving us a play by play of Dwight's daily indecision.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

It seems you can write a report yourself and if you include the phrase "sources close to (name person here)" then more people will believe your report then the official report from (name person here) refuting what you have said.

[DJRajX]

It seems you can write a report yourself and if you include the phrase "sources close to (name person here)" then more people will believe your report then the official report from (name person here) refuting what you have said.

^Example of that is Bleacher Report... I hate when articles from that site pops up on my browser's RSS/feed as legit sports news/reports.

[damo[23]]

For sure reporting has declined, certainly in sports. Opinion presented as fact, "sources" that are just actually other peoples opinions to help back up a point for example (and again, presenting them as fact).

My pet peeve right now is the likes of NBA.com, the face of the NBA (and as such should be impartial to the entire league) actually willingly stating they want Miami in the finals "as it will be a better match".

It's quite hard to find good impartial reporting these days.

The NBA is tricky, as its next to impossible, even for a professional NBA reporter, to watch everything, so it often becomes apparent that they have a stable of teams they watch regularly, and then certain teams are only seen when they watch their stable. It was only about 3 years ago that Orlando suffered from the "we only see them when they play against X, Y or Z" and it was massively apparent in their writing / reporting. Even on ESPN you would have someone like Charles Barkely (who is really not a reporter by any stretch of the imagination) having to correct other journalists on factual errors they've made (E.G "actually they only played like that for about 2 games, in the other 60 they play this way ....).

Standards are low, and seemingly no one cares to keep them in check. As long as they get buys/clicks they are happy. Having worked in online journalism myself, I know that some editors (read: a lot of them) actually don't mind/actively prefer to have controversy by any means as people will prefer to come and read a bad report (written well) that they can debate/slag off/reply to, than a well thought out accurate piece which pretty much tells the story and is done.

[aleZ]

Standards are low, and seemingly no one cares to keep them in check. As long as they get buys/clicks they are happy. Having worked in online journalism myself, I know that some editors (read: a lot of them) actually don't mind/actively prefer to have controversy by any means as people will prefer to come and read a bad report (written well) that they can debate/slag off/reply to, than a well thought out accurate piece which pretty much tells the story and is done.

True, and the worst part is sometimes a good journalist gets sacked because he doesn't draw enough clicks/ads/controversy no matter if he's a good writer. People these days want to (virtually) fight over any topic, even those who are fabricated.

It's not exageration saying that, sometimes, you can find better opinions and posts in message boards.