Trade Thread (EPISODE VI: Can't we just put EVERYTHING in the TE?)

[Scoots1994]

There's a rumor where the Warriors would acquire Westbrook in a 3-way trade with the Rockets and the Pistons: Wiggins and Looney to Detroit, Blake to Houston, Russ to GSW.
Pretty absurd in my opinion, but I'm just letting you know.

God it must be awesome being a sports journalist. Just say the most absurd things and get paid for it.

And the more annoying the presentation the more money you get.

[Scoots1994]

Yeah, back in the hey day of journalism, you needed at least two sources before they’d run a story.

Integrity was a really big deal. Now it’s just say the most outlandish thing and get the clicks for advertisers.

Since we don’t need sources, maybe some of us can get paid for opinions. I know I have a better draft history than many teams around the league.

<rant>

I worked for the Mercury News a long time ago and people who have stayed in the industry have told me the first domino to fall was that craigslist making classified ads free and universal is the first step in what killed journalism. Once papers couldn't rely on that classified revenue they couldn't afford the low end beat writers as full time staff so then they started getting paid by clicks, and clicks are about time so there was less and less source checking, but it's just online so there aren't as strict rules about libel. Then those writers who had more opinions (which used to be limited to editorials) got more clicks. Without the beat reporters being a source for the investigative journalists that kind of journalism got weaker and they needed to get closer to people in government as sources which puts them in bed with the people they are investigating so they don't report some stories that will cost them access. Add that to massive concentration through mergers and we have fewer and fewer voices. Over time the editorial writers and best columnists left for more money and more audience from big online media or go solo. Now we have hot takes in sports and the "news" is so invested in people in government that they are no longer reliably doing their jobs.

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

</rant>

[Mylie10]

Yeah, back in the hey day of journalism, you needed at least two sources before they’d run a story.

Integrity was a really big deal. Now it’s just say the most outlandish thing and get the clicks for advertisers.

Since we don’t need sources, maybe some of us can get paid for opinions. I know I have a better draft history than many teams around the league.

<rant>

I worked for the Mercury News a long time ago and people who have stayed in the industry have told me the first domino to fall was that craigslist making classified ads free and universal is the first step in what killed journalism. Once papers couldn't rely on that classified revenue they couldn't afford the low end beat writers as full time staff so then they started getting paid by clicks, and clicks are about time so there was less and less source checking, but it's just online so there aren't as strict rules about libel. Then those writers who had more opinions (which used to be limited to editorials) got more clicks. Without the beat reporters being a source for the investigative journalists that kind of journalism got weaker and they needed to get closer to people in government as sources which puts them in bed with the people they are investigating so they don't report some stories that will cost them access. Add that to massive concentration through mergers and we have fewer and fewer voices. Over time the editorial writers and best columnists left for more money and more audience from big online media or go solo. Now we have hot takes in sports and the "news" is so invested in people in government that they are no longer reliably doing their jobs.

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

</rant>

That wasn’t a rant. That was informative, thanks.

I think there are some, who maintain a level of integrity, and still play the game. I think there are plenty of intriguing stories in sports you can cover, without going off the edge of credibility. Mark Spears does a fantastic job of staying within the lines. And when I read or listen to him, I tend to believe what he tells me.

Shams and Woj have done it, and they are superstars in their field.

It can be done.

[The-Power]

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

People who complain about the demise of journalistic standards, which indeed is an issue in a lot of areas, should develop a mindset of paying for content. If you want a good product, you need to invest some of your money. That's life. Unfortunately, a lot of people are used to free content and won't contribute to positively changing what they want to change.

[Scoots1994]

Yeah, back in the hey day of journalism, you needed at least two sources before they’d run a story.

Integrity was a really big deal. Now it’s just say the most outlandish thing and get the clicks for advertisers.

Since we don’t need sources, maybe some of us can get paid for opinions. I know I have a better draft history than many teams around the league.

<rant>

I worked for the Mercury News a long time ago and people who have stayed in the industry have told me the first domino to fall was that craigslist making classified ads free and universal is the first step in what killed journalism. Once papers couldn't rely on that classified revenue they couldn't afford the low end beat writers as full time staff so then they started getting paid by clicks, and clicks are about time so there was less and less source checking, but it's just online so there aren't as strict rules about libel. Then those writers who had more opinions (which used to be limited to editorials) got more clicks. Without the beat reporters being a source for the investigative journalists that kind of journalism got weaker and they needed to get closer to people in government as sources which puts them in bed with the people they are investigating so they don't report some stories that will cost them access. Add that to massive concentration through mergers and we have fewer and fewer voices. Over time the editorial writers and best columnists left for more money and more audience from big online media or go solo. Now we have hot takes in sports and the "news" is so invested in people in government that they are no longer reliably doing their jobs.

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

</rant>

That wasn’t a rant. That was informative, thanks.

I think there are some, who maintain a level of integrity, and still play the game. I think there are plenty of intriguing stories in sports you can cover, without going off the edge of credibility. Mark Spears does a fantastic job of staying within the lines. And when I read or listen to him, I tend to believe what he tells me.

Shams and Woj have done it, and they are superstars in their field.

It can be done.

I agree that Spears, Woj, and Shams (and many others) do a reasonably good job, but they also are going to have to kill stories to maintain access. There isn't anything new to that, but with fewer and fewer people watching what's happening in the building it's easier to leverage silence. Back when the 49ers training camp was in Rocklin there would be 50 people in the stands and 10 beat reporters there for every practice. Now there are 3 or 4 reporters there but they have had to agree to limiting their reporting to what the team finds acceptable and there are no fans anymore so it's MUCH easier to keep stories quiet.

[Scoots1994]

I got to be in the press room and ask Nellie questions in the early 90s. and for a plain old regular season game there were 30 people in the room asking questions, now there are 6-10 and 4 of them are probably bloggers or social media based "reporters".

Concentration of media and the diverse access to the people through the internet has had massive silent changes all over the place. The internet is great for access to data, but it really kneecapped "good journalism" which is about having a LOT of people looking for a scoop to make a name for themselves, now it's a few names trying to "win" by seconds or trying to "win" be more and more outrageous takes.

[Scoots1994]

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

People who complain about the demise of journalistic standards, which indeed is an issue in a lot of areas, should develop a mindset of paying for content. If you want a good product, you need to invest some of your money. That's life. Unfortunately, a lot of people are used to free content and won't contribute to positively changing what they want to change.

Yes ... for sports reporting mostly. So called "hard news" there is SO MUCH coverage most paid sources become bubbles and TV is even worse. Some of the best news reporting on TV back in the day was free. The issue there is that TV networks were forced to carry the news in order to have access to the people. Over time the networks realized the news was CHEAP to produce and could make them money. Once making money was involved then more extreme stories got more eyes and more eyes meant more advertising dollars which meant worse coverage of reality. JFK when he was a journalist wrote a piece that some day a President would be elected by TV and then he decided to be that President. The movie Network nailed it.

[Mylie10]

I think what keeps some of the better journalists and reporters maintain a solid status and integrity in their reporting is the access. You will not get good access without some truth in your reporting.

Woj, Shams, and Spears have fantastic access because both players and teams know they can trust that he’ll be on the up and up.

[Mylie10]

Hey Scoot, would I recognize your name if you put it out there?

[Scoots1994]

I think what keeps some of the better journalists and reporters maintain a solid status and integrity in their reporting is the access. You will not get good access without some truth in your reporting.

Woj, Shams, and Spears have fantastic access because both players and teams know they can trust that he’ll be on the up and up.

They also keep access by not reporting things their informants don't want reported.

[Scoots1994]

Hey Scoot, would I recognize your name if you put it out there?

Nah, I was just support staff. My peak moment was I asked Pop a question that he didn't expect. He stopped, looked at me for a second, smiled, and said "next question", and the sad thing is I don't even remember what I asked him.

[Money_]

Yeah, back in the hey day of journalism, you needed at least two sources before they’d run a story.

Integrity was a really big deal. Now it’s just say the most outlandish thing and get the clicks for advertisers.

Since we don’t need sources, maybe some of us can get paid for opinions. I know I have a better draft history than many teams around the league.

<rant>

I worked for the Mercury News a long time ago and people who have stayed in the industry have told me the first domino to fall was that craigslist making classified ads free and universal is the first step in what killed journalism. Once papers couldn't rely on that classified revenue they couldn't afford the low end beat writers as full time staff so then they started getting paid by clicks, and clicks are about time so there was less and less source checking, but it's just online so there aren't as strict rules about libel. Then those writers who had more opinions (which used to be limited to editorials) got more clicks. Without the beat reporters being a source for the investigative journalists that kind of journalism got weaker and they needed to get closer to people in government as sources which puts them in bed with the people they are investigating so they don't report some stories that will cost them access. Add that to massive concentration through mergers and we have fewer and fewer voices. Over time the editorial writers and best columnists left for more money and more audience from big online media or go solo. Now we have hot takes in sports and the "news" is so invested in people in government that they are no longer reliably doing their jobs.

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

</rant>

In the 90s, when Clinton signed the bill that relaxed regulations of media ownership, that was the beginning of the end.
One company used to be able to only own one newspaper, one radio station, and one tv station in any given market.
About 4-5 companies own everything now, which limits the amount of information available. AND squelches opposing opinions.
Also, if you are a journalist and disagree with management about a story or slant on a story, it's way less easy to just quit and go find another job.

[Scoots1994]

Yeah, back in the hey day of journalism, you needed at least two sources before they’d run a story.

Integrity was a really big deal. Now it’s just say the most outlandish thing and get the clicks for advertisers.

Since we don’t need sources, maybe some of us can get paid for opinions. I know I have a better draft history than many teams around the league.

<rant>

I worked for the Mercury News a long time ago and people who have stayed in the industry have told me the first domino to fall was that craigslist making classified ads free and universal is the first step in what killed journalism. Once papers couldn't rely on that classified revenue they couldn't afford the low end beat writers as full time staff so then they started getting paid by clicks, and clicks are about time so there was less and less source checking, but it's just online so there aren't as strict rules about libel. Then those writers who had more opinions (which used to be limited to editorials) got more clicks. Without the beat reporters being a source for the investigative journalists that kind of journalism got weaker and they needed to get closer to people in government as sources which puts them in bed with the people they are investigating so they don't report some stories that will cost them access. Add that to massive concentration through mergers and we have fewer and fewer voices. Over time the editorial writers and best columnists left for more money and more audience from big online media or go solo. Now we have hot takes in sports and the "news" is so invested in people in government that they are no longer reliably doing their jobs.

The "good" journalists don't even see a way back from where we are.

</rant>

In the 90s, when Clinton signed the bill that relaxed regulations of media ownership, that was the beginning of the end.
One company used to be able to only own one newspaper, one radio station, and one tv station in any given market.
About 4-5 companies own everything now, which limits the amount of information available. AND squelches opposing opinions.
Also, if you are a journalist and disagree with management about a story or slant on a story, it's way less easy to just quit and go find another job.

Yes, that was another nail in the coffin. And we are still allowing huge companies to merge into even bigger companies.

[wco81]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/260661/Warriors-Reached-Out-To-Rockets-On-James-Harden-Trade

[fox2jk]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/260661/Warriors-Reached-Out-To-Rockets-On-James-Harden-Trade

Yes and nobody hear is talking about it.

You'd lock up a title if you landed him.

What would it take to bring him here?

[wco81]

Nobody here wants him.

Especially what they'd have to give up. Curry would be standing around while Harden dribbled for 20 seconds.

[xdrta+]

Including everything, Harden would make the team worse. Not to mention the future.

[HiRez]

Who knows, maybe the Warriors were inquiring about a 3-way trade? I don't see Klay be traded, Draymond isn't a big enough star, Steph's not going anywhere, and I don't see them immediately shipping out Wiseman, so I don't even know what deal would make sense (assuming you even wanted Harden, which I don't).

[whatisacenter]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/260661/Warriors-Reached-Out-To-Rockets-On-James-Harden-Trade

Yes and nobody hear is talking about it.

You'd lock up a title if you landed him.

What would it take to bring him here?

Maybe your Hornets can land him...I don't ever want to see him in a Warriors jersey. Luckily this was nothing more than a phone call that went nowhere.

[Scoots1994]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/260661/Warriors-Reached-Out-To-Rockets-On-James-Harden-Trade

Yes and nobody hear is talking about it.

You'd lock up a title if you landed him.

What would it take to bring him here?

Maybe your Hornets can land him...I don't ever want to see him in a Warriors jersey. Luckily this was nothing more than a phone call that went nowhere.

To some extent not making the phone call would be irresponsible, but there is a long LONG way from the call leading to actual player movement.