OT: Yahoo issues apology to Broncos after accusing them of cheating

[BadMoFo]

I know several people here have alleged that the Broncos videotaped before. Well, looks like it's not true.

Yahoo! Sports apologizes for story alleging Broncos cheating
By Jeff Legwold, Rocky Mountain News
Originally published 08:44 p.m., March 5, 2008

In the end Broncos coach Mike Shanahan got exactly what he wanted from Internet giant Yahoo.

Yahoo posted a public apology to Shanahan on its website Wednesday for naming Shanahan in a story about cheating in the NFL. A Sept. 13 story had said Shanahan had hired someone to videotape San Diego Chargers practices and that the NFL knew the videotaping had occurred and took no action.

The apology read:

"We apologize for any embarrassment that the Sept. 13, 2007 Yahoo! Sports story 'Ancient Antics' has caused for Mike Shanahan. Yahoo! has retracted the segment of the story that asserted that Mike Shanahan was involved in cheating as the Denver Broncos coach. Yahoo! has stringent editorial standards in place to prevent this type of error, and we regret the lapse in our protocol that allowed this to happen.

Editors at Yahoo said the paragraph of the original story that had included Shanahan had been removed from the website and the archives on Tuesday.

Shanahan's attorney, Harvey Steinberg, said Wednesday night Yahoo had now done enough and Shanahan would take no further action.

"He appreciates the acknowledgement, the retraction and the apology by Yahoo and considers this matter over,'' Steinberg said.

Shanahan, Steinberg, had sent a letter dated Feb. 26 to Yahoo corporate headquarters in Sunnyvale, Calif., demanding an "immediate'' retraction and apology from Yahoo for the original story.

The letter called the paragraph regarding Shanahan "completely untrue and without foundation.'' The letter also said "Coach Shanahan has never engaged in any such practice, let alone even discussed the possibility of any such activities. As a result, this article is defamatory and libelous.''

The letter also said Shanahan was not contacted to comment on the story before it was published.

Yahoo! Sports removes line in story about alleged Broncos spying
Mar 5, 12:30 am EST

DENVER (AP)—Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday removed a paragraph in a nearly 6-month-old story that alleged secret videotaping by the Denver Broncos after coach Mike Shanahan’s attorney sent a letter to the Internet giant demanding a retraction.

Yahoo! Sports editors also added a note saying the paragraph in the Sept. 13 article did not meet the site’s editorial standards, spokeswoman Nicol Addison said.

The story, written when the videotape cheating scandal involving the New England Patriots dominated the news, had been cited by various media outlets around Denver in recent weeks.

“We took immediate action to eliminate the content from our site as soon as we became aware of this matter,” the editor’s note said.

Without citing sources, the paragraph alleged the San Diego Chargers added security on a hill next to the team’s practice complex because Shanahan hired spies to videotape the Chargers’ practice. The paragraph also said the NFL knew about the alleged taping.

In a letter sent Feb. 26, Shanahan’s attorney Harvey Steinberg called the paragraph “completely untrue and without foundation” and the article “defamatory and libelous.”

After the paragraph was removed, Steinberg said: “I appreciate Yahoo’s acknowledgment of their mistake and I’m glad they took the first step in righting the wrong.”

Greg Aiello, the NFL’s spokesman, also called the article inaccurate.

“We are not aware of any such video and no one in our office has seen the video,” Aiello said in an e-mail.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

How the **** does this happen? Literally everyone in the NFL knows he did this. He knows he did this.

<shaking head and staggering off mumbling profanities>

 

[Rob0729]

How the **** does this happen? Literally everyone in the NFL knows he did this. He knows he did this.

<shaking head and staggering off mumbling profanities>

One thing to know someone did it and another to have evidence or get enough people to confirm it. Yahoo! Sports did something the Herald should do. Both wrote stories that do not reach the proper level of good journalism, but Yahoo! Sports retracted their story. Granted I will not give them any credit since the only reason they did was under threat of a lawsuit. A lawsuit they probably knew they couldn't win.

 

[upstater1]

BadMoFo's conclusion that it didn't happen is premature. Just because Yahoo doesn't stick by their journalists doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Aiello was careful to note that no one in the office knows anything about it. Of course, this was alleged to have occurred in the 90s. So how does he know?

Quoting unnamed sources is good journalism, if your source is solid and the information has been verified by a second source. We don't know where Cole is getting his info from. The only thing Tomase did wrong is trust Walsh and then use info to spit in the eye of Pats fans the day before the Super Bowl. Journalistically the practice is not wrong.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Quoting unnamed sources is good journalism, if your source is solid and the information has been verified by a second source. We don't know where Cole is getting his info from. The only thing Tomase did wrong is trust Walsh and then use info to spit in the eye of Pats fans the day before the Super Bowl. Journalistically the practice is not wrong.

That depends on what you mean by "the practice." I will easily grant you that publishing negative information is not, in and of itself, wrong. That said, publishing poorly-sourced information without verification is wrong.

 

[Rob0729]

BadMoFo's conclusion that it didn't happen is premature. Just because Yahoo doesn't stick by their journalists doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Aiello was careful to note that no one in the office knows anything about it. Of course, this was alleged to have occurred in the 90s. So how does he know?

Quoting unnamed sources is good journalism, if your source is solid and the information has been verified by a second source. We don't know where Cole is getting his info from. The only thing Tomase did wrong is trust Walsh and then use info to spit in the eye of Pats fans the day before the Super Bowl. Journalistically the practice is not wrong.

Well if Tomase trusted Walsh without independently verifying what he was saying is true or at least verfied from another source (assuming Walsh is the source), then Tomase committed bad journalism. What you say kinda contridicts yourself. You say using an unnamed source is valid as long as you verify it with a second source and then say it was ok for Tomase to trust Walsh without verifying his information. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[chrisfx811]

He didn't know about the videotaping? Or the videotaping never occurred?

Either way, he won a SB by circumventing the salary cap.

 

[chech1965]

He didn't know about the videotaping? Or the videotaping never occurred?

Either way, he won a SB by circumventing the salary cap.

Didn't they win two that way? And were fined twice what the Pats were, yet kept the rings.

Funny we don't hear people screaming for an asterisk on the Broncos*.

 

[oldskool138]

He didn't know about the videotaping? Or the videotaping never occurred?

Either way, he won a SB by circumventing the salary cap.

Yeah, I was about to say that. What the Broncos did is a lot worse than what the Pats did.

 

[upstater1]

Well if Tomase trusted Walsh without independently verifying what he was saying is true or at least verfied from another source (assuming Walsh is the source), then Tomase committed bad journalism. What you say kinda contridicts yourself. You say using an unnamed source is valid as long as you verify it with a second source and then say it was ok for Tomase to trust Walsh without verifying his information. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

Verification doesn't mean you have to prove it. A second source has to allege it. If verification demanded proof, nothing would ever get published.

I teach journalism at a research 1 university by the way, and attended Boston U's Comm. school.

A year ago, we had the Scooter Libby case which proceeded in a similar fashion. Two journalists ran with a story from Libby, and they refused to name their source. They went to jail for not naming him.

Yahoo isn't sticking up for Cole, I bet the Herald will stick up for Tomase since they have at least the pretense to being a real news org.

By the way, I'm talking categorically here about journalist ethics.

In specific, I don't think Tomase did a good job because, one, there are huge holes in Walsh's story. As a fan I don't see why it was necessary to publish Walsh's claims the day before the Super Bowl. If a newspaper from Montana had scooped that article, no one would have cared. Essentially Tomase was flipping off Patriot fans. Journalists sit on stories from anonymous sources everyday. You don't HAVE TO publish anything.

That being said, Tomase can't be called to account for libel, or even unethical behavior. Neither can Jason Cole, despite what Shanahan's lawyer thinks or even Peter King.

 

[upstater1]

Well if Tomase trusted Walsh without independently verifying what he was saying is true or at least verfied from another source (assuming Walsh is the source), then Tomase committed bad journalism. What you say kinda contridicts yourself. You say using an unnamed source is valid as long as you verify it with a second source and then say it was ok for Tomase to trust Walsh without verifying his information. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

By the way, I wrote that Tomase was wrong to trust Walsh, not that it was OK to trust him. I said the 100% reverse of what you said I said. If your source has holes in his story, you have a few options which Tomase did not take. Present the story together with the contradictions, try to verify elsewhere, don't write the story.

In addition, verification doesn't require a second source. Verification could simply consist of checking out the facts and verifying whether Matt Walsh was at the scene. A press pass for that day, for instance, coupled with an interview of a NFL official in charge of running events that day might establish the protocol, which could give Walsh's story enough plausibility to publish.

 

[Rob0729]

By the way, I wrote that Tomase was wrong to trust Walsh, not that it was OK to trust him. I said the 100% reverse of what you said I said. If your source has holes in his story, you have a few options which Tomase did not take. Present the story together with the contradictions, try to verify elsewhere, don't write the story.

In addition, verification doesn't require a second source. Verification could simply consist of checking out the facts and verifying whether Matt Walsh was at the scene. A press pass for that day, for instance, coupled with an interview of a NFL official in charge of running events that day might establish the protocol, which could give Walsh's story enough plausibility to publish.

Ok, so we can agree that what Tomase did was bad journalism. I just wasn't sure because I guess how you worded it, it seemed contradictory to me. Not trying to accuse, just getting clarification.

I do understand the rules of independent verification, but I think your burden of independent verification in this particular case is not enough. No one is disputing that Walsh was in the building the day. So credentials allowing him to be in the building wouldn't really provide much evidence.

For the burden of independent verification in this particular case, I think Tomase would need to at least find a witness who remembers seeing Walsh at the Rams' walthrough or on the press bus after the walkthrough or someone else in the Pats' organization who can at least verify that they have heard through a trusted source that this did in fact take place. Maybe if there was a sign in and sign out sheet where Walsh signed out after the Rams' walkthrough.

Establishing that Walsh was in the building on the day of the walkthroughs isn't enough in my opinion to independently verify Tomase's story. That does not independently verify that a taping of the walkthrough actually existed. It estiblishes that Walsh was in the building, but not neccessarily during the Rams' walkthrough. Tomase needs at least independent verification that Walsh was in the Super Dome during the Rams' walkthrough or he can't run with the story without violating the most basic rule of journalism. Anything less, is just really bad journalism.

 

[BadMoFo]

BadMoFo's conclusion that it didn't happen is premature. Just because Yahoo doesn't stick by their journalists doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Aiello was careful to note that no one in the office knows anything about it. Of course, this was alleged to have occurred in the 90s. So how does he know?

Quoting unnamed sources is good journalism, if your source is solid and the information has been verified by a second source. We don't know where Cole is getting his info from. The only thing Tomase did wrong is trust Walsh and then use info to spit in the eye of Pats fans the day before the Super Bowl. Journalistically the practice is not wrong.

What I'm trying to show you is that several people here talk about the Broncos alleged videotaping as if it is a fact. And the one time it is ever really mentioned in a story, it gets retracted.

 

[upstater1]

Ok, so we can agree that what Tomase did was bad journalism. I just wasn't sure because I guess how you worded it, it seemed contradictory to me. Not trying to accuse, just getting clarification.

I do understand the rules of independent verification, but I think your burden of independent verification in this particular case is not enough. No one is disputing that Walsh was in the building the day. So credentials allowing him to be in the building wouldn't really provide much evidence.

For the burden of independent verification in this particular case, I think Tomase would need to at least find a witness who remembers seeing Walsh at the Rams' walthrough or on the press bus after the walkthrough or someone else in the Pats' organization who can at least verify that they have heard through a trusted source that this did in fact take place. Maybe if there was a sign in and sign out sheet where Walsh signed out after the Rams' walkthrough.

Establishing that Walsh was in the building on the day of the walkthroughs isn't enough in my opinion to independently verify Tomase's story. That does not independently verify that a taping of the walkthrough actually existed. It estiblishes that Walsh was in the building, but not neccessarily during the Rams' walkthrough. Tomase needs at least independent verification that Walsh was in the Super Dome during the Rams' walkthrough or he can't run with the story without violating the most basic rule of journalism. Anything less, is just really bad journalism.

I was just trying to point out that, categorically, running with a story based on an anonymous source (as Jason Cole did) is not the wrong thing to do. Categorically, what Tomase did isn't wrong either. Only when you get to the specifics (which are assumed here, we're assuming that Walsh is the source of Tomase's story) does Tomase run into trouble. Other media outlets have reported contradictions in Walsh's story. If Tomase were a good reporter, he should have investigated those contradictions, and then made a decision as to whether to file the story.

I disagree with you on what's required for verification. All that needs to be done is to check out whether Walsh could have plausibly been in the building doing what he claims to have done. Once that's established, you can run with it. After all, in the context of whistleblowing, many times it's just one person that has the goods. If you require that a second source be there to witness, whistleblowing rarely happens.

Again, in terms of journalistic practice, I'd put more blame on Yahoo for squelching than on the Herald for running it. In terms of his skills as a reporter, Tomase's seem pretty poor, looking at this from the outside. As a fan, I can say, "I don't care to read a hometown paper that seems to have gone out of its way to rain on the Patriot's parade for no good reason."

 

[upstater1]

What I'm trying to show you is that several people here talk about the Broncos alleged videotaping as if it is a fact. And the one time it is ever really mentioned in a story, it gets retracted.

Right, but that's an editorial decision. They don't want to get sued.

Jason Cole presented it as a fact in his news article. News readers then can assume it's a fact based on an anonymous source in the NFL office. That's not proof. That's a claim. But nonetheless, it's presented as a fact in the news story.

Cole went so far as to claim the NFL caught the Broncos multiple times, and had the videotapes.

 

[BPF]

Right, but that's an editorial decision. They don't want to get sued.

Jason Cole presented it as a fact in his news article. News readers then can assume it's a fact based on an anonymous source in the NFL office. That's not proof. That's a claim. But nonetheless, it's presented as a fact in the news story.

Cole went so far as to claim the NFL caught the Broncos multiple times, and had the videotapes.

Shannahan knows the NFL will not make the same mistake it did with the Pats twice and create the same firestorm. He also knows this is old news as far as this commissioner's office is concerned, it never happened under their watch.

 

[BPF]

Here is the latest update on this, it's officially over.

http://beta.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/06/yahoo-shanahan-flap-officially-over/

YAHOO!, SHANAHAN FLAP OFFICIALLY OVER
Posted by Mike Florio on March 6, 2008, 12:03 p.m.


With the Tuesday night retraction of a paragraph from a September 13, 2007 story that accused Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan of spying on Chargers practices and a Wednesday apology from Yahoo! Sports, the brouhaha is over.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

The problem came to light not long after we posted a February 23, 2008 item regarding the five-month-old article from Jason Cole. On February 26, Shanahan’s lawyer demanded a retraction and an apology. He got both.

The apology read as follows: “We apologize for any embarrassment that the Sept. 13, 2007 Yahoo! Sports story ‘Ancient Antics’ has caused for Mike Shanahan. Yahoo! has retracted the segment of the story that asserted that Mike Shanahan was involved in cheating as the Denver Broncos coach. Yahoo! has stringent editorial standards in place to prevent this type of error, and we regret the lapse in our protocol that allowed this to happen.”

Attorney Harvey Steinberg said on Wednesday that the matter is resolved.

“He appreciates the acknowledgement, the retraction and the apology by Yahoo and considers this matter over,” Steinberg said, according to the Rocky Mountain News.

It’s unknown whether Yahoo! Sports has taken or will take any action against Cole. His most recent article was posted on March 4, 2008, regarding the retirement of Brett Favre.

 

[BadMoFo]

Right, but that's an editorial decision. They don't want to get sued.

Jason Cole presented it as a fact in his news article. News readers then can assume it's a fact based on an anonymous source in the NFL office. That's not proof. That's a claim. But nonetheless, it's presented as a fact in the news story.

Cole went so far as to claim the NFL caught the Broncos multiple times, and had the videotapes.

OK, news agencies get sued or are threatened to be sued all the time. They won't print a retraction, especially not one as public as this one, and remove a whole section of their story, unless they really feel they screwed up in the story. If the writer was so sure of their source, there would be no need for this retraction.

Face it, these were allegations by a sports columnist and pretty much baseless, especially now with this retraction. As much as people here claim Gregg Easterbrook is wrong in the things he writes, Cole was wrong in what he wrote about the Broncos.

 

[upstater1]

OK, news agencies get sued or are threatened to be sued all the time. They won't print a retraction, especially not one as public as this one, and remove a whole section of their story, unless they really feel they screwed up in the story. If the writer was so sure of their source, there would be no need for this retraction.

Face it, these were allegations by a sports columnist and pretty much baseless, especially now with this retraction. As much as people here claim Gregg Easterbrook is wrong in the things he writes, Cole was wrong in what he wrote about the Broncos.

I disagree. Yahoo is not a credible news source. They've cratered on this on e because of the threat of a suit.

How do you know they are baseless, by the way?

Did Jason Cole retract them?

And if you think a corporation won't print a retraction unless the story is wrong, that's a bit naive. They didn't want to get sued. CBS printed a retraction to the Dan Rather-Bush AWOL story, and now they are being sued by the reporters who put together that story. This means the story was retracted without the writer's consent.

Go back and look at the whole Scooter Libby controversy. Why did some news sources retract his claims about Valerie Plame while others didn't? Why did some news sources go to the mat and support their reporters? Why did others toss their reporters over the side?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

In addition, verification doesn't require a second source. Verification could simply consist of checking out the facts and verifying whether Matt Walsh was at the scene. A press pass for that day, for instance, coupled with an interview of a NFL official in charge of running events that day might establish the protocol, which could give Walsh's story enough plausibility to publish.

Except that said unnamed source, coward that he apparently is (we're all assuming it's Walsh, but we can't even be certain of that), didn't even say that he taped the walkthrough, merely that it was taped.

What it would take to validate a claim this nebulous, yet potentially damaging?

I'd also add that it is theoretically possible to sue Tomase and/or the Herald for libel--after all, they just recently lost a libel suit.