Yeah, why would anyone think ESPN would just report bullshit. "11 of 12 footballs 2 pounds under." Reporting many years after it was proven false that the Pats recorded walk-thrus, and then issuing a retraction last month...at 2:00am. ESPN, totally reputable, right?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ESPN: "Spygate to Deflategate: Inside what split the NFL and Patriots apart"
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, why would anyone think ESPN would just report bullshit. "11 of 12 footballs 2 pounds under." Reporting many years after it was proven false that the Pats recorded walk-thrus, and then issuing a retraction last month...at 2:00am. ESPN, totally reputable, right?
Exactly. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. I would be right in line tearing them apart if stuff was proven and they did not take responsibility for it. I was extremely pissed after the taking incident, especially wit how trivial the advantage it was for them. Not to mention that all the other teams did it but STOPPED when they were told to. WTF.
But from 90 sources, no names and knowing how bad other teams/players hate the Patriots because they win makes it all fall into place of being jaded.
Simple, put up or shut up.
ESPN also fired anyone who spoke against the NFL. How about Mike Reiss having his article changed without him knowing about it? He probably will be moving from them real soon. ESPN wants Monday night games and now the NFL network games.
SliceSabre
Banned
Since when in sports do ANY sources ever put up?
That's just like how sports insiders never tell you how they knew Lebron's contract before it went public or how they never tell you how they knew somebody was getting released hours before it was made public. If you tell your sources people stop fucking talking to you because you cannot be trusted. Even Better: How about when the Wall Street Journal or New York Times drop some bombshell but just say 'White House sources tell us...."
You sound like someone who has no fucking idea what they are talking about and is so eager to defend your Patriot and poke fun at other teams that you refuse to even argue using simple god damn logic.
They aren't the NYTimes and I don't think anyone is going to debate that. However they also have plenty of stories they have done a completely respectable job investigating. Especially Outside The Lines.
Im not taking this as 100% gospel however I am not going to be like the delusional Pats fans on here and just presume the credibility of this is 0%. Especially given the poor logic you all are throwing out here to justify this dismissal.
Can you not see the difference between leaking news about a pending event and this? Either what was said will happen actually happens, and the story is vindicated, or it doesn't and isn't.
SliceSabre
Banned
I'm not gonna pretend like I don't' suspect the NFL may have 'leaked' some of this information out it is certainly possibly, but for people in this thread to parade around with their fingers in their ears and saying dumbass shit like "THEN TELL US YOUR SOURCES THEN LOLOLOL JETS SUX AND ARE JUST MAD AT THE PATS!" is ignorant as all hell. I also don't think ESPN fabricated this story in a few days as a result of the NFL's reaction to the judge's ruling either like some here are implying.
Basing your argument on the fact the sources won't come public is stupid.
Youve never heard someone ignore spygate, therefore im lying about/misunderstanding people i know who do? Alrighty then. I never said this was a majority belief amoungst patriot nation. Nor would i qualify these people as die hards. Theyre clearly very uninformed.
Simply Sarah
Member
The biggest problem I have with the ESPN piece is that, even putting aside the issues ESPN has had recently in regards to reporting Pats related news, it isn't really an investigative news piece. It's really more of a long blog post with some amount of research and a huge amount of opinion behind it. It's full of innuendo and some honestly super bizarre stuff. This all becomes an issue because it makes it hard to tell what inside is well sourced and what isn't. I wouldn't be shocked if some (much?) of what's in it is true, but I don't get a feeling that solid truth was the real focus of the writers so I can't help but remain very wary of it all. I wish it had been written in a more professional manner with less nonsense.
In regards to the SI article, it really isn't about the Pats as much as it is about their opponents. It talks about all the things other teams are worried about happening and the steps they take to try and prevent those things, but it also explicitly states that, at least for most of these things, no one has been caught attempting it and there is no actual evidence of it having occurred. It's just a fairly well done piece about how paranoid, rightly or wrongly, teams are of the Pats. It's basically neither here nor there in regards to actual things the Pats may have done.
In regards to the SI article, it really isn't about the Pats as much as it is about their opponents. It talks about all the things other teams are worried about happening and the steps they take to try and prevent those things, but it also explicitly states that, at least for most of these things, no one has been caught attempting it and there is no actual evidence of it having occurred. It's just a fairly well done piece about how paranoid, rightly or wrongly, teams are of the Pats. It's basically neither here nor there in regards to actual things the Pats may have done.
PeregrinSe7en
Member
GB has 13 championships plus we beat new england in sb '97 quite handily
If nothing is ever confirmed or can never be confirmed the proper response is to recognize that and treat the accusations accordingly. Unsubstantiated rumor is just that, and you really can't get too upset if people aren't willing to just swallow it.
Ignore or deny? You said deny originally.
I am trying to stick to just straight up taunting Pats fans about the fact that all of their accomplishments will forever be tainted but you do know that unnamed sources are a big part of journalism right?
To say that an unnamed source is just an unsubstantiated rumor is pretty crazy, even for this thread.
No it isn't? The whole point of journalism is finding support for those claims that can actually be verified.
Some of you are just lost here.
Deny. We try not to talk about it anymore, especially when alcohol is involved. That being said, youve never heard someone ignore or downplay spygate? I find that hard to believe.
I am sure the guy who has won several awards for his investigative journalism needs advice from us on how to properly use sources that don't want to come forward and verify their statements.
Ignore or downplay? You just said deny! I am now convinced you're playing fast and loose with what people are actually saying to you.
A claim based only on an unnamed source is an unsubstantiated rumor. Appeals to authority won't change that.
DoktorEvil
Banned
You've not listened to or read enough sports journalism to say that.
EX: Contract talks are almost always from "unnamed sources" and guess what? They're strangely accurate when said contract is signed and officially announced.
Also, the award winning journalist would risk his investigative career to publish unsubstantiated rumors akin to tabloid journalism?
KHarvey is the true investigative journalist. It only counts if he wrote it and saw it.
If an unnamed source claims something and then it happens, it's been substantiated!
Is this the goddamn twilight zone? Hello?
Yes, and Dan Rather won a boatload of awards too for his journalism. How'd that serve him when he fucked up what turned out to be the last big story of his career? You claim you're just here trolling, but you make it too easy to troll you.
What? I just clarified that i have friends who deny... then asked you if youve met anyone who ignores spygate because initially dragon said no one ignores spygate. Ive answered your question, now answer mine or ill have to assume youre playing fast and loose.
JUST A FYI biggest difference between lewis & hernandez is - hernandez was guilty (and probably lewis but the court said no) and the NFL culture 10ish years ago was different.
however, IF what lewis was accused of occurred in the past year, the Ravens WOULD have cut him the DAY he got arrested.
however, IF what lewis was accused of occurred in the past year, the Ravens WOULD have cut him the DAY he got arrested.
Why must you think in absolutes? Dan rather fucked up a story, therefore every investigative piece is a lie?
The use of unnamed sources is very common in investigative journalism. Stories are not generally dismissed because of the use of unnamed sources. I am assuming that the reporters actually did their fucking jobs and verified each of the accounts of the sources, whether named or unnamed. For some reason Pat fans (I can't imagine why) are very quick to dismiss the story and pretend that he did not do his job.
Where is the proof that the reporters who put out this story did not properly verify the statement of their sources?
You're mixing deny with downplay. I'm sure that the people you're claiming deny spygate really just tried to explain it to you.
The ignore was in the context of claims that people deny it. No one denies it and I'm sure that's what he was referring to. People only "downplay" it in the sense they correct misconceptions of far worse offenses having occurred.
Investigative journalists offer more substantiation than simply listing the claims of unnamed sources. The research they do to offer support to what's being said goes in the article. How can you not know that?
No im not. Ill try this one last time. I have friends who deny it happened. As in think it was a conspiracy. They are extremely uninformed and i even question if they understand football... But theyre from the area and therefore think of themselves as patriots/football fans.
Now for my question. Do you know anyone who ignores/downplays spygate? (Note im not saying deny, so maybe give an answer instead of repeadidly trying to explain the meaning of conversations youve been no part of).
I answered your question in the post you just quoted.
Good. So we are agreeing that dragon's post (no one is ignoring spygate) isnt correct.
I don't think I have read a piece in a newspaper or online where they detail how they confirmed their sources. I assume that is something that happens behind the curtain and is between the reporter and the editor and can be examined by skeptical weirdos like you if it warrants it.
You quoted his post and said he was crazy if he didn't think those people existed. After he responded, you elaborated and said he didn't know what he was talking about if he didn't think there were people who denied spygate.
Don't attempt to weasel around that.
Any "investigative journalism" piece that is nothing more than a transcription of claims from an unnamed source is simply unsubstantiated rumor. There needs to be actual verifiable proof that at least some of what they're saying is true. That's what journalism is.
Wasnt tryin to weasel around anything. If i misinterpretted his initial post, that is my bad. Still im not lying about those ive said who deny, nor do i agree with anyone's claim that ignorer/downplayers exist.
Nor have i.
Fourth Stooge
Banned
This is quite hopelessly false. Journalists typically rely on multiple sources for such things. There's almost never a "smoking gun" or other substantiation unless you're watching a movie. They typically don't just print whatever one person says, unless they think that person to be of exceptional or intrinsic integrity. If they hear the same story from multiple, independent, reliable sources, they print it. For perfectly understandable reasons, those sources may demand anonymity. This is EXTREMELY common. If you don't know that, then that's on you.
Outside the Lines and Sports Illustrated used multiple independent sources--that's often the only research that can be done. Both Outside the Lines and Sports Illustrated have excellent reputations and have no reason to participate in any conspiracies. The Patriots just aren't all that important in the overall world of sports.
They relied on the reputations of their sources, their own judgment and the judgment of their editors. This is how journalism works--lots of judgment calls. Again if you don't understand that, then that's on you.
I understand you're emotionally invested in sticking up for your team so no one talks bad about them, but to think that ESPN, Sports Illustrated and the NFL are conspiring to bring down the Patriots is quite honestly fucking insane. The NFL, the other owners and Roger Goodell have nothing to gain from promoting or creating any scandals.
Holy shit sports really brings the crazy out of people.
and yet we had deflategate...
lol Perfect
Tragicomedy
Member
You know, this is completely nonsensical. Journalism and a court of law have different standards, and this looks like it was written by a butthurt Pats fan, not a rational human being.
Unnamed sources are extremely common in journalism when discussing sensitive or controversial issues, and the desire for someone to remain anonymous doesn't discredit them in the slightest. Many of the most award winning and credible pieces of investigative reporting have relied extensively or even exclusively on anonymous sources. A preponderance of sources saying the exact same thing means something.
You know absolutely nothing about journalism, and no amount of making erroneous definitive statements will change that. As always, hopelessly misguided.
I'll echo what everyone else has said. That's not how any of this works in the real world.
RoslindaleOne
Member
I'm from Boston and I don't know what that person is talking about. We don't deny spygate.
Nonsense. Many, many outlets don't even allow stories relying exclusively on anonymous sources, and some even ban their use outright. Any reputable, reliable outlet will require sources in addition to an anonymous figure. Whatever story you're imagining had evidence or facts or identified sources in addition to the anonymous one.
It's not an anonymous source to the one writing the story ...
That's not how it works. Chris Mortensen's anonymous source for the "11 balls under by 2 pounds" wasn't anonymous to him either. That suddenly make that info credible now?
Bill Belichick and the Patriots have already won and they have not even stepped on the field yet.
I love it!
Watch out Steelers, when you show up the Pats will have people watching at the Airport, a low level employee hiding under your bed and warm Gatoraid waiting for you at 8:45PM tomorrow night.
Don't forget to look in your closet for the boogie monster!
I love it!
Watch out Steelers, when you show up the Pats will have people watching at the Airport, a low level employee hiding under your bed and warm Gatoraid waiting for you at 8:45PM tomorrow night.
Don't forget to look in your closet for the boogie monster!
If the source is in a position to know the information they've provided it makes it more credible, surely. I don't expect the Patriots' groundskeeper to know about the pressure levels of game balls at halftime but a high-ranking NFL official, one that may have provided you with information which later turned out to be true in the past, may very well do.
Whether that information is actually true is a whole different matter.
Do people here not read news or something? I mean, other than sports news. Jesus.
The issue isn't specifically that he wrote about it, but that his sources were FROM the NFL, meaning the NFL was trying to sway public opinion to their side from the get-go. At every single turn, the NFL tried to cover it up, even asking the Judge to keep documents sealed to cover their own ass (which he denied, of course), and in the end they lost not only the battle, but the war for public opinion over the matter because the truth got out.
ESPN was simply trying to be a good media wing to the NFL is all, so they, at the end of the day, can have the Super Bowl on their main station and make big bucks.
The Patriots have forever tarnished their legacy.
They have won the same way Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds did.
But in the mind of Pats fan this is a total win. Oh yeah and standard journalism is really just elaborate propaganda techniques when the story says something you don't want to hear.
Victory!
P.S. The Steelers are going to get worked tomorrow night but that has nothing to do with the Pats cheating. Their defense is not ready and 2 of their best offensive players are out on ganja violations while our started center shattered into a million pieces in a meaningless preseason game.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked