manleyzoo
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 732
- Like
- 1,292
I have been a working journalist for 35 years and have been a member of this board since its inception--all the old people here know me even though I read but rarely post.
On sources...for those who do not know the distinction between a source and someone who says something, or who talks to someone who seems to know something, or someone high up in an organization that may have heard something at the water cooler, a source is someone who has direct access personally to the information in question. Direct access isn't the province of someone who is peripherally related to the information but rather someone who has examined the documents, records or other potential evidence personally. And it's not someone who has spoken to a person who has seen the information--that introduces a level of filtering to taint the process.
Sources are a rare find for a reporter let alone a civilian. If you think about the Fine investigation, and, for that matter, nearly any examination of that sort, very few people, no matter what the organization, have direct access to the matter at hand. That's the framework of a sound investigation which, if not properly followed, leaves the investigator open to justifiable questions by the subject, hence the flap over ESPN's shoddy, gossipy reporting.
This is why it takes journalists years to develop valuable sources and why some are willing to go to jail to protect their sources. More importantly, a source who commands that level of information is also someone who has a great deal to risk by exposure, not just someone who plays his or her job by the book--most people work that way, but few are willing to talk to someone and risk their neck for the better good. Developing sources takes years of hard work. They aren't your friends or your acquaintances or your neighbors--in point of fact, that disqualifies them immediately as sources in most, if not all, news organizations. It's the first question an editor asks of the reporter about the source.
The likelihood that anyone on this board, save CTO, Jake, Bees and perhaps a couple of others who escape my mention, having a true source on the Fine story, is very, very slim. What I've noticed is none of them have posted anything related to sources said, perhaps with good reason.
On sources...for those who do not know the distinction between a source and someone who says something, or who talks to someone who seems to know something, or someone high up in an organization that may have heard something at the water cooler, a source is someone who has direct access personally to the information in question. Direct access isn't the province of someone who is peripherally related to the information but rather someone who has examined the documents, records or other potential evidence personally. And it's not someone who has spoken to a person who has seen the information--that introduces a level of filtering to taint the process.
Sources are a rare find for a reporter let alone a civilian. If you think about the Fine investigation, and, for that matter, nearly any examination of that sort, very few people, no matter what the organization, have direct access to the matter at hand. That's the framework of a sound investigation which, if not properly followed, leaves the investigator open to justifiable questions by the subject, hence the flap over ESPN's shoddy, gossipy reporting.
This is why it takes journalists years to develop valuable sources and why some are willing to go to jail to protect their sources. More importantly, a source who commands that level of information is also someone who has a great deal to risk by exposure, not just someone who plays his or her job by the book--most people work that way, but few are willing to talk to someone and risk their neck for the better good. Developing sources takes years of hard work. They aren't your friends or your acquaintances or your neighbors--in point of fact, that disqualifies them immediately as sources in most, if not all, news organizations. It's the first question an editor asks of the reporter about the source.
The likelihood that anyone on this board, save CTO, Jake, Bees and perhaps a couple of others who escape my mention, having a true source on the Fine story, is very, very slim. What I've noticed is none of them have posted anything related to sources said, perhaps with good reason.
