Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jake, post: 90477, member: 86"] Just wanted to give my somewhat educated opinions on these two aspects of the story. First of all, for everyone out there calling for ESPN's head for lack of the use of the word "allegedly"...you need to chill. Reporters #1 priority when reporting this case is that they get the "attribution" correct. In other words, they have to make sure that they make sure that they report that these are the words of the accuser...not their own. From a journalistic and legal approach, the best way to do this is to say "Bobby Davis says Bernie Fine abused him". Inserting the word allegedly in this sentence in redundant and does not offer the reporter any further legal protection. Simply stating that these are the words of Bobby Davis is protection enough. In fact, most prefer not to use the word allegedly because there are situations where that word alone does not offer you legal protection and the news agency can be held legally responsible. I haven't watched all of Schwartz reports, but if in every case he says "Bobby Davis says", than he is reporting correctly. The bigger issue in this case is what I would consider the lack of a second source. Reporters prefer two, and in some cases three sources before allowing a story to go air. The problem we have with this case is that I don't think you can consider Davis and his step-brother as two INDEPENDENT sources. There is no way that Schwartz can prove that Davis and Lang acted independent of each other and not in collussion. No matter how Lang came to Schwartz, Lang and Davis know each other and it cannot be disproven that they were acting together. Had another person, who did not know Davis, come forward, then I think you have two independent sources. This is why I think ESPN failed their Journalistic responsibilities in reporting the story when they did. No matter if they are right or wrong. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?