(07-17-2023 08:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Me:
....
Another noob mistake is to confuse beat with 'bias.' A beat is just a professional assignment.

(07-16-2023 11:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I have nothing against Canzano or Wilner, but they both tend to slant their articles in a pro-Pac direction. McMurphy, Thamel, Ourand, people like that, report news nationally, and I'm not aware of them showing a bias for or against any specific Conference.

Well, this is awkward. You're illustrating my point.

The PAC is their beat. If you're a sports writer in Texas, your 'bias' is Texas schools because Texas area schools are your assignment.

Lol, no.

(07-16-2023 08:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 08:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 05:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It’s theoretically possible that Apple could keep a lid on media rights negotiations, but not ESPN. And if there was good news, we would be hearing something from McMurphy, or Thamel, or some other reputable source. Those guys don’t know what’s going on, or at least they’re not so sure that they’ll go on the record. perhaps they don’t feel like they can trust Pac sources after getting burned umpteen times.

Mr Canzano and Mr Wilner are real journalists. They operate with an appropriate level of what constitutes news and what constitutes verification.

Reporters have beats, and the PAC is theirs. One can glean useful information from their reports if one is curious.

But, as with most journalism, you do have to be curious (not just looking for confirmation of a single desired outcome). And you do have to read as much as you can of the original reports, not just the (often careless) summaries people bandy about.

A simple example: These two, like most journalists, are careful to say as much as they can about a source and to attribute statements to that source. On message boards, though, we often see people simply hold writers directly responsible for whatever their sources say, as if every quote of a source represented the writer's own personal thoughts. It's just a very noob way to read any kind of report.

Real journalists and standards? Talk about noob, or rube? One of those guys has lifted some of his material before. True that they rely upon their source's veracity, I do not challenge that, but park the higher standards nonsense. I haven't seen that in years. They are now hustlers, and they need copy and views. Desperation and standards are not bedfellows. I don't hold them responsible for their sources, I hold them responsible for their ethics. Sensationalism, and partisanship are what you reserve respectively for tabloids and your largest advertisers. And I've seen plenty of both.

EXACTLY

(07-16-2023 08:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 08:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 05:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It’s theoretically possible that Apple could keep a lid on media rights negotiations, but not ESPN. And if there was good news, we would be hearing something from McMurphy, or Thamel, or some other reputable source. Those guys don’t know what’s going on, or at least they’re not so sure that they’ll go on the record. perhaps they don’t feel like they can trust Pac sources after getting burned umpteen times.

Mr Canzano and Mr Wilner are real journalists. As such, they're not 'money perch' hobbyists and they're under no contract to tell readers their favourite bedtime story. They operate with a certain training in what constitutes news and what constitutes verification.

Reporters have beats, and the PAC is theirs. One can glean useful information from their reports if one is curious.

But, as with most journalism, you do have to be curious (not just looking for confirmation of a single desired outcome). And you do have to read as much as you can of the original reports, not just the (often careless) summaries people bandy about.

A simple example: These two, like most journalists, are careful to say as much as they can about a source and to attribute statements to that source. On message boards, though, we often see people simply hold writers directly responsible for whatever their sources say, as if every quote of a source represented the writer's own personal thoughts. It's just a very noob way to read any kind of report.

Another noob mistake is to confuse beat with 'bias.' A beat is a professional assignment.

To some extent correct. Wilner--yes. Canzano----not so much anymore. If you will notice---Wilner used to be exactly where Canzano is and now Wilner is no longer singing from that same song book. Wilner's backed away from all that Pac12 bravado--largely because whatever source they were using has been wrong so often that Wilner no longer relies on that information in the manner that Canzano obviously still does.

People need to consider personal bias. Wilner doesn't have a job without the PAC 12 to report about. Don't you think that lends itself to a bit of cheerleading? And note, I don't fault him for that. It's his livelihood, but it means his objectivity has been compromised.

You're touching on two well-known issues in journalism anywhere.

The first concerns access. Journalists have to be savvy about motives their sources might have and how they may try to play the press--and how their sources can use access as leverage. This is why professional journalists aim to cultivate trustworthy sources who play as few games with them as possible. It's why a key principle of professional journalism is to cultivate multiple sources. A good, experienced reporter has a long contact list.

This concern is an ongoing fact of life in journalism. If anyone wants to know more about it, you don't need to rant at journalists. Just ask. They will tell you--more about the subject than you ever wanted to know, probably.

Another concerns genre. Sports reporting isn't like 'hard news.' It resembles celebrity and fashion reporting in having more lax rules for writers. Publishers don't expect the same level of separation of fact and opinion in soft news. Why? Because the topic, in the main, is not considered super-crucial to understanding the state of society. News about Prince Harry, news about Jenna Ortega, news about Lamar Jackson--it's there, like the crossword puzzle, because some people are interested. Why not.

The facts still have to be reliably present. It's still journalism and the principles apply. But in 'soft news' engagement and entertainment are part of the package. If a writer in Arizona reports straight what he heard about the PAC deal, that's fine. But if the writer wants to irk a few fans in flyover country with a well-placed quip about '12anons' while reporting the same facts, publishers will usually be cool with that, too. They'd kill it in an article about Ukraine but validating local readers' interests is part of the game in soft news. Drive engagement. Spark a long comment section.

For this reason, complaining about 'bias' in local/regional sports reporting is a bit like complaining about dirty socks in the locker room. It might not be the kind of thing you want to encourage a lot of, exactly, but some of that goes with the environment.

We can recognise all these things and still gather worthwhile information from published reports. 'I won't listen because I don't like that reporter's beat' is a noob approach to filtering information-especially when the information desired is part of the reporter's beat.

(07-17-2023 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 08:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 08:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 05:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It’s theoretically possible that Apple could keep a lid on media rights negotiations, but not ESPN. And if there was good news, we would be hearing something from McMurphy, or Thamel, or some other reputable source. Those guys don’t know what’s going on, or at least they’re not so sure that they’ll go on the record. perhaps they don’t feel like they can trust Pac sources after getting burned umpteen times.

Mr Canzano and Mr Wilner are real journalists. As such, they're not 'money perch' hobbyists and they're under no contract to tell readers their favourite bedtime story. They operate with a certain training in what constitutes news and what constitutes verification.

Reporters have beats, and the PAC is theirs. One can glean useful information from their reports if one is curious.

But, as with most journalism, you do have to be curious (not just looking for confirmation of a single desired outcome). And you do have to read as much as you can of the original reports, not just the (often careless) summaries people bandy about.

A simple example: These two, like most journalists, are careful to say as much as they can about a source and to attribute statements to that source. On message boards, though, we often see people simply hold writers directly responsible for whatever their sources say, as if every quote of a source represented the writer's own personal thoughts. It's just a very noob way to read any kind of report.

Another noob mistake is to confuse beat with 'bias.' A beat is a professional assignment.

To some extent correct. Wilner--yes. Canzano----not so much anymore. If you will notice---Wilner used to be exactly where Canzano is and now Wilner is no longer singing from that same song book. Wilner's backed away from all that Pac12 bravado--largely because whatever source they were using has been wrong so often that Wilner no longer relies on that information in the manner that Canzano obviously still does.

People need to consider personal bias. Wilner doesn't have a job without the PAC 12 to report about. Don't you think that lends itself to a bit of cheerleading? And note, I don't fault him for that. It's his livelihood, but it means his objectivity has been compromised.

You're touching on two well-known issues in journalism anywhere.

The first concerns access. Journalists have to be savvy about motives their sources may have and how those sources may try to play the press--and how they might use access as leverage to get the kind of publicity they want. This is why journalists aim to cultivate trustworthy sources who play as few games with them as possible. This is an ongoing feature of life in journalism. If anyone wants to know more about it, you don't need to lecture reporters. Just ask them. They'll tell you--probably more about it than you ever wanted to know.

Another concerns genre. Sports reporting isn't like 'hard news.' It resembles celebrity and fashion reporting in having more lax rules for writers. Publishers don't expect the same level of separation of fact and opinion in these. Why? Because the topic, in the main, is not considered to be crucial to understanding the state of society. News about Prince Harry, news about Lamar Jackson--it's there, like the crossword puzzle, because some people are interested. Why not.

The facts still have to be there. It's still journalism and principles apply. But in 'soft news' engagement and entertainment are part of the package. If a writer in Arizona reports straight what he heard about the PAC deal, that's fine. But if the writer wants to irk a few fans in flyover country with a well-placed quip about '12anons' while reporting the same facts, publishers will usually be cool with that, too. They'd kill it in an article about Ukraine but it's part of the game in soft news. Drive engagement. Spark a long comment section.

For this reason, complaining about 'bias' in local/regional sports reporting is a bit like complaining about the smell of dirty laundry in the locker room. It might not be the kind of thing you want to encourage a lot of, but some goes with the environment.

We can recognise all these things and still gather information. 'I won't listen because I don't like that reporter's beat' is a noob approach to filtering information-especially about topics that are part of a reporter's beat.

Amazing! in one post you both drink the Kool-Aid and practice apologetics. And you keep using the word "noob." The only noob here is you if you truly believe what you are writing, so let's add projection to the apologetics. What journalism was 50 years ago and what it is today don't even resemble each other. And the journalists, even sports writers, of the 40's and 50's had it all over those of today, and even of the 70's in terms of style and use of the language. And don't get me started on editors. Even with spell check they can't catch all the issues with grammar which would have flunked 101 English back in the day. It's a dying industry pandering to the worst demons of our society. If it bleeds it leads, if it's gore they want more, and the propagation of pity and fear panders to humanity's basest instincts and not its loftiest ideals.

But hey, you have great company, television anchors and news cast members can't speak clearly, use the proper descriptors, get subject verb agreement correct, or finish with a summation of the topic they presented. And the same if it bleeds philosophy applies to them. It's all tabloid! Entertainment tonight is nothing more than the National Enquirer for TV and I raise it because in many places it immediately follows the news and is virtually indistinguishable from it. And "the anything but" reality shows are wholly banal, and even then, contradict what they advertise because most of the drama is staged.

I guess this is what you get when typing with two thumbs instead of 10 fingers is called progress!

That should push AZ and CO to B12

(07-16-2023 08:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-16-2023 05:42 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It’s theoretically possible that Apple could keep a lid on media rights negotiations, but not ESPN. And if there was good news, we would be hearing something from McMurphy, or Thamel, or some other reputable source. Those guys don’t know what’s going on, or at least they’re not so sure that they’ll go on the record. perhaps they don’t feel like they can trust Pac sources after getting burned umpteen times.

Mr Canzano and Mr Wilner are real journalists. As such, they're not 'money perch' hobbyists and they're under no contract to tell readers their favourite bedtime story. They operate with a certain training in what constitutes news and what constitutes verification.

Reporters have beats, and the PAC is theirs. One can glean useful information from their reports if one is curious.

But, as with most journalism, you do have to be curious about facts (not simply looking for confirmation of a single desired outcome). And you do have to read as much as you can of the original reports. You can't rely on the often careless cartoon summaries people bandy about.

A simple example: These two, like most journalists, take care to say as much as they can about a source and to attribute statements to that source. On message boards, though, we often see people glibly hold writers directly responsible for whatever their sources say, as if every quote represented the writer's own personal thoughts. That's a very noob way to read any kind of report.

Another noob mistake is to confuse beat with 'bias.' A beat is just a professional assignment.

Wilner and Canzano are two of the best sportswriters in the country. Any sportswriter in the country would love to have the résumé of either one of these guys. Wilner has won the National Beat Writer of the Year and Canzano National Sports Columnist of the Year. Wilner works for the Bay Area News Group, which is a subsidiary of the Denver based Media News Group, which owns about 40 newspapers in the west. Wilner's articles appear in newspapers throughout the west. Canzano left the Oregonian last year to do his own thing in addition to his daily radio program. Wilner is an AP Top 25 voter in both college football and basketball. Canzano is a member of the National baseball writers' association of America and is a baseball Hall of Fame voter. Both are Heisman voters.

Canzano and Wilner do a podcast together and that has been very helpful in this Pac-12 media deal madness. There is only so much these guys can do with the Pac-12. These two guys have the best sources in the Pac-12, and they are frustrated with the process and the lack of information. Both of these guys have made reasonable predictions based on the information available to them at the time that have not worked out. Nothing about this process has been normal and reasonable.

Most beat writers just cover the team and get some quotes after practices and games that help with their stories. Very few of them have inside sources.