Post by prossman on Dec 22, 2008 23:53:16 GMT -7
FWST: Ray Buck: Cowboys defense, media are scolded, sources say
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowboys defense, media are scolded, sources say
By RAY BUCK
rbuck@star-telegram.com
FIRST SHOT: Does Big D stand for Defense or Dysfunctional? After those two TD runs by the Ravens in the fourth quarter, let’s just combine terms, shall we? Dysfunctional Defense.
— Chris Phillips, Shreveport
BUCKSHOT: Yep. It gives a whole new meaning to Doomsday.
SECOND SHOT: I wholeheartedly believe sources should not be allowed to remain anonymous.
For all we (general public) know, the reporter could be making up the story and using the "anonymous source" as an alibi.
And if you’re going to tattle on someone, at least have the guts to let everyone know who you are. The only reason to allow someone to remain anonymous is if the act of providing information puts that person’s life in danger.
If you’re an "anonymous source," you’re basically snitching and getting away with it. Beyond cowardly, at least in my book.
— B.J. Stewart, Magnolia
BUCKSHOT: Sounds like a children’s book coming soon to a bookstore near you: Little T Hates Snitches.
THIRD SHOT: In a court of law, defendants are allowed to confront and contradict their accusers.
In the workplace, rumors are detested by people willing to standing their ground, speak their mind and bear the consequences.
In the media, if a person is unwilling to be quoted, there must be a reason; therefore, information from "unnamed sources" should be treated the same as the court system treats "hearsay."
— Chuck Cypert, Plano
BUCKSHOT: Inadmissible, I presume, Mr. Matlock.
FOURTH SHOT: Anytime you can hold someone accountable, based on truth, that’s great. Unfortunately, some media companies have made it a rule not to use unidentified sources, and [in some cases] that doesn’t do much for breaking stories or investigative journalism.
— Mike Kays, Muskogee, Okla.
BUCKSHOT: Good point. The person hiding behind the quote isn’t the reporter.
FIFTH SHOT: An anonymous source at Joe’s Airline was quoted as saying mechanics at Joe’s Airline have been pencil-whipping aircraft inspections, that is, signing for work not actually performed.
Obviously, the anonymous source should be protected because there would be reprisals by the company against that person.
If a concern is legitimate, then, yes, the media should be allowed to use an anonymous source and protect that anonymity. But first, it’s the responsibility of the reporter to determine a source’s credibility prior to writing his or her story.
— Randy Mosier, Keller
BUCKSHOT: This is what reporters have editors for.
LAST SHOT: Taylor Potts — not Bradford, McCoy or the rest — will be the best pro quarterback from the Big 12, if the coach [Mike Leach] stays at Texas Tech. You heard it here first.
— Mike Murphy, Abilene
BUCKSHOT: Uh ... is that on the record?
Ray Buck, 817-390-7760
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowboys defense, media are scolded, sources say
By RAY BUCK
rbuck@star-telegram.com
FIRST SHOT: Does Big D stand for Defense or Dysfunctional? After those two TD runs by the Ravens in the fourth quarter, let’s just combine terms, shall we? Dysfunctional Defense.
— Chris Phillips, Shreveport
BUCKSHOT: Yep. It gives a whole new meaning to Doomsday.
SECOND SHOT: I wholeheartedly believe sources should not be allowed to remain anonymous.
For all we (general public) know, the reporter could be making up the story and using the "anonymous source" as an alibi.
And if you’re going to tattle on someone, at least have the guts to let everyone know who you are. The only reason to allow someone to remain anonymous is if the act of providing information puts that person’s life in danger.
If you’re an "anonymous source," you’re basically snitching and getting away with it. Beyond cowardly, at least in my book.
— B.J. Stewart, Magnolia
BUCKSHOT: Sounds like a children’s book coming soon to a bookstore near you: Little T Hates Snitches.
THIRD SHOT: In a court of law, defendants are allowed to confront and contradict their accusers.
In the workplace, rumors are detested by people willing to standing their ground, speak their mind and bear the consequences.
In the media, if a person is unwilling to be quoted, there must be a reason; therefore, information from "unnamed sources" should be treated the same as the court system treats "hearsay."
— Chuck Cypert, Plano
BUCKSHOT: Inadmissible, I presume, Mr. Matlock.
FOURTH SHOT: Anytime you can hold someone accountable, based on truth, that’s great. Unfortunately, some media companies have made it a rule not to use unidentified sources, and [in some cases] that doesn’t do much for breaking stories or investigative journalism.
— Mike Kays, Muskogee, Okla.
BUCKSHOT: Good point. The person hiding behind the quote isn’t the reporter.
FIFTH SHOT: An anonymous source at Joe’s Airline was quoted as saying mechanics at Joe’s Airline have been pencil-whipping aircraft inspections, that is, signing for work not actually performed.
Obviously, the anonymous source should be protected because there would be reprisals by the company against that person.
If a concern is legitimate, then, yes, the media should be allowed to use an anonymous source and protect that anonymity. But first, it’s the responsibility of the reporter to determine a source’s credibility prior to writing his or her story.
— Randy Mosier, Keller
BUCKSHOT: This is what reporters have editors for.
LAST SHOT: Taylor Potts — not Bradford, McCoy or the rest — will be the best pro quarterback from the Big 12, if the coach [Mike Leach] stays at Texas Tech. You heard it here first.
— Mike Murphy, Abilene
BUCKSHOT: Uh ... is that on the record?
Ray Buck, 817-390-7760