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

[Rob0729]

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."

So if one of Belichick's assistants told Tomase that Belichick purposely tanked the Super Bowl, that is enough to run the story. It is plausible for one of Belichick's assistants to know whether Belichick tanked the Super Bowl.

Sorry, but I was a journalism major in college (it was a while ago though) and I know it at least used to be that you needed three independent credible sources whether it be person or physical evidence to verifies the incident actually happened. Verifying Walsh was in the building only and had opportunity verifes he had opportunity, but it is not independent verification that him videotaping the walkthrough. So how does what your barrier of independent verification go from anything more than a "he said, he said" situation?

Anyone can make up anything about anything even credible sources. That is why the journalistic code has a strict rules for independent verification (many largely ignored today).

As far as the Whistleblower thing, you can have one source of being a person, but no credible journalist would run with what the whistleblower has to say without some evidence backing up his claims whether it is another whistle. I could get fired from my company tomorrow and tell the press that the president of the company is killing small children in the basement of our building. The journalist could believe me, but no editor would let the journalist run with the story without independent verification whether it be another witness or physical evidence to verify my claims.

Tomase didn't even allow the Pats to dispute the claim or at least mention that he did in his piece. That is another violation of basic journalism.

P.S. even the most famous unnamed source of all time (Deep Throat) did not have what he had to say published until Woodward and Bernstein could independently verify what he was saying was true. Actually, Deep Throat independently verified a lot of the information Woodward and Bernstein already had, but didn't have independent verification to publish.

 

[upstater1]

So if one of Belichick's assistants told Tomase that Belichick purposely tanked the Super Bowl, that is enough to run the story. It is plausible for one of Belichick's assistants to know whether Belichick tanked the Super Bowl.

Sorry, but I was a journalism major in college (it was a while ago though) and I know it at least used to be that you needed three independent credible sources whether it be person or physical evidence to verifies the incident actually happened. Verifying Walsh was in the building only and had opportunity verifes he had opportunity, but it is not independent verification that him videotaping the walkthrough. So how does what your barrier of independent verification go from anything more than a "he said, he said" situation?

The news is always he said, she said. This is its essence. We can pick up the NY Times today and see that newsreporters report what people are saying. They don't comment on it. As I said, I teach this stuff for a living. Explain to me how the Swift Boat guys got their point-of-view across? None of them served on a boat with John Kerry. Their testimony contradicted the official record, and yet the news media ran with it simply because it was alleged by more than one source, none of whom could have possibly witnessed what Kerry had done. This is because there was a news story already out there.

By the way, if a New England Patriot assistant went to the media and said he had proof that Belichick purposely threw the Super Bowl, you honestly think it would not be reported? Of course it would. The fact that this is a New England employee would make it newsworthy. The fact that he claimed he has proof of it would also make it newsworthy.

Anyone can make up anything about anything even credible sources. That is why the journalistic code has a strict rules for independent verification (many largely ignored today).

I've never seen this strict code you speak of. Usually when credible sources make accusations, it's reported in the media. It's been like this forever. I've given you a half dozen examples already. I even opened my morning's Buffalo News, and the main topics of discussions were all about several allegations made by people, and these allegations require investigations. The allegations were singular in three of the cases, made by single people. This is just how the journalist business runs.

As far as the Whistleblower thing, you can have one source of being a person, but no credible journalist would run with what the whistleblower has to say without some evidence backing up his claims whether it is another whistle. I could get fired from my company tomorrow and tell the press that the president of the company is killing small children in the basement of our building. The journalist could believe me, but no editor would let the journalist run with the story without independent verification whether it be another witness or physical evidence to verify my claims.

Tomase didn't even allow the Pats to dispute the claim or at least mention that he did in his piece. That is another violation of basic journalism.

Oh? How do you know?

P.S. even the most famous unnamed source of all time (Deep Throat) did not have what he had to say published until Woodward and Bernstein could independently verify what he was saying was true. Actually, Deep Throat independently verified a lot of the information Woodward and Bernstein already had, but didn't have independent verification to publish.

We're talking about accusing the President of being a criminal here. Um, yeah, independent verification is probably required there.

20 years later that didn't stop people from printing that someone gave the Prez a BJ in the oval office. With no independent verification.

 

[upstater1]

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.

Can't sue Tomase for libel. The Patriots are a public entity, and so they would have to prove malicious intent. Can't happen in this case.

 

[BadMoFo]

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?

How is Yahoo! not a credible news source when most of its stuff is from other agencies. Then what AP isn't credible.

Anyways, Yahoo is a rising sports news service that has caused many "respected and credible" sportswriters from the LA Times, ESPN, Sports Illustrated and others to flee their old jobs.

You think that Yahoo would retract a large portion of their most popular columnist's story without conferring with him, his editors, Yahoo's lawyers and Shanahan's lawyers. You think it this is a one-person decision.

Look, as much as you want to believe that their are teams besides the Patriots known throughout the NFL as having questionable videotaping practices, there isn't. At least none that we can judge the same way as fans of other teams have judged the Patriots. I don't deny that other teams steal signals, I think enough coaches, players and experts have said that. What we're talking about here is commiting an illegal act, as far as the NFL is concerned, and the only team known to commit this illegal act are our Patriots.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Not certain what upstater's agenda here is, but so far he's been all over the map trying to defend his point, and he's gotten more than a couple of things flat wrong.

 

[Rob0729]

We're talking about accusing the President of being a criminal here. Um, yeah, independent verification is probably required there.

20 years later that didn't stop people from printing that someone gave the Prez a BJ in the oval office. With no independent verification.

The Swift Boat Veterans are irrelevant to this conversation. They are not unnamed sources and they made news because they formed a PAC and ran TV ads and released a book against Kerry. They were part of the story, not just providing a journalist information about Kerry for a story. If they released this information as an unnamed source to a newspaper writer, it probably would never have seen the light of day. That is a big difference.

As for my assistant scenario, yes if he had proof then the story would run. That would meet the independent verification standard. But if it was just his word that Belichick threw the Super Bowl without providing any evidence to support that claim, no credible journalist would run that without violating the codes of journalism. Now the source could show the evidence to a journalist to prove his claim with the provision that that evidence doesn't become part of the story. No editor with a brain would run a story like that without proof or independent verification or they would open themselves up to a multimillion dollar lawsuit. Just like Yahoo! Sports just ran away from.

As for the code, it isn't a writen rule. It is an unwritten rule such as plagiarism is not a written rule per sea. Any allegation made publically can be reported in the media without independent verifcation because the allegation is part of public record. So those don't count. Entertainment and gossip columns typically don't count because they ignore the rules.

As for Tomase not giving the Patriots a chance to respond, it is good ethics of journalism to let the accused to respond to any allegation. That is why you always see things like "So and so was not available to comment" or "Our telephone calls were not returned". That is the proper way to write a story.

I don't see a huge leap of accusing the President of being a criminal or any other public figure. The source of this story accused Belichick of committing a crime at least according to Arlen Specter. That is a serious thing,

 

[upstater1]

How is Yahoo! not a credible news source when most of its stuff is from other agencies. Then what AP isn't credible.

We're using our terms differently here. Think about what you wrote: You called Yahoo a news source and then you said it gets its stuff elsewhere. If its an aggregator, then it's not a source. In fact, I think its aggregation mindset which comes from the business side is precisely why they didn' want to get involved with lawsuits. Real news sources should not consider the bottom line, asthey pursue the truth. Plus, Jason Cole isn't writing for the AP. He's writing for Yahoo News, and as a long time news reporter at respected newspapers, he probably woke up this morning and decided that, well, at least they're paying him well, because editorial seems to suck. Even Florio wondered about Cole's status at the end of the PFT piece.

You think that Yahoo would retract a large portion of their most popular columnist's story without conferring with him, his editors, Yahoo's lawyers and Shanahan's lawyers. You think it this is a one-person decision.

I have no idea. All I know is that a respected news reporter wrote that an NFL source said that they had caught the Broncos doing this on multiple occasions, and they had the videotapes. Once you have a source inside the organization going on record like that, you run with it. The only reason you don't is if you're lying. If you're making it up. The fact that Yahoo retracted that makes me think they are scared of being sued. meanwhile, other reporters are going to prison because they stick by their stories. Yahoo quakes in their boots when a story subject threatens to sue.

Look, as much as you want to believe that their are teams besides the Patriots known throughout the NFL as having questionable videotaping practices, there isn't. At least none that we can judge the same way as fans of other teams have judged the Patriots. I don't deny that other teams steal signals, I think enough coaches, players and experts have said that. What we're talking about here is commiting an illegal act, as far as the NFL is concerned, and the only team known to commit this illegal act are our Patriots.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying no other teams except the Patriots tape walkthroughs. What a funny position to take. Bizarre. If that's not what you're saying, I can't understand what you wrote.

 

[upstater1]

Not certain what upstater's agenda here is, but so far he's been all over the map trying to defend his point, and he's gotten more than a couple of things flat wrong.

Thanks for your input. Whatever the it is, because you said nothing.

Name one thing I got flat wrong. Just one.

 

[Rob0729]

Can't sue Tomase for libel. The Patriots are a public entity, and so they would have to prove malicious intent. Can't happen in this case.

They don't have to show malicious intent. They only need to show damage to the entity and that the Herald acted wrecklessly to get the story. Libel cases are hard to win in any case. So I don't know if Kraft would go through the effort, but the Pats would only need to prove is that Tomase ran with the story without doing the proper verification and that the Patriots have had damage to their brand. Proving Tomase didn't do proper verification will be tough to prove even if Tomase clearly didn't.

 

[upstater1]

The Swift Boat Veterans are irrelevant to this conversation. They are not unnamed sources and they made news because they formed a PAC and ran TV ads and released a book against Kerry. They were part of the story, not just providing a journalist information about Kerry for a story. If they released this information as an unnamed source to a newspaper writer, it probably would never have seen the light of day. That is a big difference.

Summer of 2004, they released info to the news from anonymous sources. They formed officially and went public with it in early August. Before that the news stories were already running the anonymous sources. Just like in the Clinton case, long before the blue dress showed up, the accusations were out there. the proof came later. We could look at any newspaper and draw the same conclusions. In Buffalo News today, you have a gay employee of a man who is up for the city's anti-discrimination post accusing his boss of bigotry. you have an assistant basketball coach accusing the principal of firing her as a vendetta. The Superintendent insinuated she's a lesbian who has relations with her players, when all evidence to the contrary is that she's not. You have the Chief of Police being accused of frequenting a crack house (this turned out to be false, he was there for a bust). You have another cop accused of raping a man in a jail cell (another false accusation). People make accusations all the time, and in several of the cases in the Buffalo News right now, the sources are anonymous. They are being reported simply because they are being made in the public sphere. At the same time that Tomase was reporting his story, Walsh's name was on the tip of Specter's tongue (Thursday Specter mentioned Walsh to Goodell, Saturday Tomase reported his story).

As for my assistant scenario, yes if he had proof then the story would run. That would meet the independent verification standard. But if it was just his word that Belichick threw the Super Bowl without providing any evidence to support that claim, no credible journalist would run that without violating the codes of journalism. Now the source could show the evidence to a journalist to prove his claim with the provision that that evidence doesn't become part of the story. No editor with a brain would run a story like that without proof or independent verification or they would open themselves up to a multimillion dollar lawsuit. Just like Yahoo! Sports just ran away from.

Why a lawsuit? Tomase never wrote that the Patriots filmed the walkthrough. he wrote that someone claimed they had proof that the Patriots had filmed the walkthrough. If a Patriots assistant claimed that he had proof that Belichick threw the game, Shaughnessy, MacMullan, Ryan and Mike Reiss would report it. It would be newsworthy. And they couldn't be sued for it because their report would be factual (i.e. someone claimed they had proof that Belichick threw the game).

As for Tomase not giving the Patriots a chance to respond, it is good ethics of journalism to let the accused to respond to any allegation. That is why you always see things like "So and so was not available to comment" or "Our telephone calls were not returned". That is the proper way to write a story.

Again, how do you know he didn't?

 

[upstater1]

They don't have to show malicious intent. They only need to show damage to the entity and that the Herald acted wrecklessly to get the story. Libel cases are hard to win in any case. So I don't know if Kraft would go through the effort, but the Pats would only need to prove is that Tomase ran with the story without doing the proper verification and that the Patriots have had damage to their brand. Proving Tomase didn't do proper verification will be tough to prove even if Tomase clearly didn't.

Nope. In the case of an entity with a public profile like the Patriots, you have to prove malicious intent. Malpractice is not malicious intent.

If the Patriots did not have a public profile, then they could sue without proving malicious intent. However, in this case, they would have to prove a damage to the brand.

 

[Rob0729]

I guess we can go around on this forever. A few clarifications.

The first we heard of the Swift Boat Veterans and their claims was their press conference in May of 2004. Once they had a press conference, their claims were part of public record and fair game.

I don't know if Tomase gave the Pats opportunity to dispute the claims, but if he did he is guilty of sloppy journalism. It is proper journalism to state the Patriots refused to comment or didn't respond to his requests for comment if he did actually seek it. Since he didn't print it, I assume he never got it or tried to get it.

As for Tomase's story, the source never states they have proof or that they can produce proof. The source claims that he/she doesn't even know if Belichick was involved although the story indicts him. That is reckless in itself since the source cannot even connect Belichick to the story although it is positioned as he being involved.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Can't sue Tomase for libel. The Patriots are a public entity, and so they would have to prove malicious intent. Can't happen in this case.

Look into the libel laws a little further and you'll see that newspapers are actually easier targets of libel than individuals - in part because you DON'T have to prove malicious intent... you only need to prove negligence on their part for running a story without proper corroboration, as well as the harm caused.


If a secret source called the Herald with a nasty rumor about you and they didn't make a reasonable effort to corroborate the story and ran it anyway, you'd have a better shot at suing the Herald than you would your accuser.

It's a quirky think that the media itself is an easier target of such suits but I'm 99% sure that's the case - with no malicious intent necessary

 

[upstater1]

Look into the libel laws a little further and you'll see that newspapers are actually easier targets of libel than individuals - in part because you DON'T have to prove malicious intent... you only need to prove negligence on their part for running a story without proper corroboration, as well as the harm caused.


If a secret source called the Herald with a nasty rumor about you and they didn't make a reasonable effort to corroborate the story and ran it anyway, you'd have a better shot at suing the Herald than you would your accuser.

It's a quirky think that the media itself is an easier target of such suits but I'm 99% sure that's the case - with no malicious intent necessary

I'm telling you, it's the opposite, I teach this stuff.

Justice Brennan in NY Times vs. Sullivan spoke for the court when he said that merely getting a story wrong or publishing false information was not enough to be held liable for libel. That court case established protections for the press unavailable to average citizens. The key legalese coming out of the case is that you have to prove the press is publishing false information "with malicious intent."

Brennan's words, not mine.

 

[upstater1]

I guess we can go around on this forever. A few clarifications.

The first we heard of the Swift Boat Veterans and their claims was their press conference in May of 2004. Once they had a press conference, their claims were part of public record and fair game.

I don't know if Tomase gave the Pats opportunity to dispute the claims, but if he did he is guilty of sloppy journalism. It is proper journalism to state the Patriots refused to comment or didn't respond to his requests for comment if he did actually seek it. Since he didn't print it, I assume he never got it or tried to get it.

As for Tomase's story, the source never states they have proof or that they can produce proof. The source claims that he/she doesn't even know if Belichick was involved although the story indicts him. That is reckless in itself since the source cannot even connect Belichick to the story although it is positioned as he being involved.

I can't find the Tomase article. I thought the article claimed the source has a tape of the walkthrough.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Thanks for your input. Whatever the it is, because you said nothing.

Name one thing I got flat wrong. Just one.

Your statement about the Swift Boat guys, for one, and your assertion about the Herald and libel for another.

 

[BadMoFo]

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying no other teams except the Patriots tape walkthroughs. What a funny position to take. Bizarre. If that's not what you're saying, I can't understand what you wrote.

Which teams do you know tape that walkthrough practices of opponents? In case you don't understand what I wrote, I never said the Patriots videotape walkthroughs, but they have used their video cameras for other illegal NFL purposes. The entire nation has seen the handywork.

I have no idea. All I know is that a respected news reporter wrote that an NFL source said that they had caught the Broncos doing this on multiple occasions, and they had the videotapes. Once you have a source inside the organization going on record like that, you run with it. The only reason you don't is if you're lying. If you're making it up. The fact that Yahoo retracted that makes me think they are scared of being sued. meanwhile, other reporters are going to prison because they stick by their stories. Yahoo quakes in their boots when a story subject threatens to sue.

And so because he's respected, Yahoo would have given their star NFL writer the benefit of the doubt, but still determined his story didn't hold water. A news agency will not cave if they are have 100 percent faith in their story. Like, you've even said yourself, it would take a lot to prove that Cole, and Yahoo for that matter, did this maliciously. If the source was wrong, the source was wrong.

Anyways believe what you want to believe. The Broncos videotaped practices, every team videotapes defensive signals, an article published in the 1960s about spying is as true today as it was then, they were holding our defenisve linemen in that final drive in SB 42 ...