Patriots Have Reporters All a Twitter

[drew4008]

I don't understand the title...

Is it supposed to be a la?

 

[Frezo]

I don't understand the title...

Is it supposed to be a la?

TWITTER
1: to utter successive chirping noises
2 a: to talk in a chattering fashion b: giggle, titter
3: to tremble with agitation : flutter

So you could say "All A Flutter".

 

[Wax Frog]

It's a play on the phrase "all atwitter":

a·twit·ter (-twtr)
adj.
Being in a state of nervous excitement; twittering: a crowd atwitter with expectation.

atwitter - definition of atwitter by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[jmt57]

Perhaps this is being overly simplistic, but why don't newspapers have both free content, and more in-depth material available only to those that pay for it on the internet? This is a very common practice of many (not just sports) websites. Another idea (mentioned earlier) is to have people sign up for an electronic nespaper to be delivered by e-mail, that included information not found on the website. Again, there could be both a free and also an enhanced pay version. And the fact that consumers are willing to pay for that content could be a selling point to would be advertisers, showing that they have a dedicated, captive audience.

The in-depth analysis and well informed opinions are what will differentiate the professionals from the amateur bloggers. Despite all the free content available, there is still a market for better quality information.

I could have sworn the Wall Street Journal does that with their electronic edition...

Not surprising, since they are more focused on an ever changing business climate than the rest of the newspaper industry is.

they do.....

Aside from the WSJ, what percentage do that? I see some newspapers charge for archival content, but how many offer subscribers more in depth coverage for a fee? What percentage of newspapers have tried doing anything other than put their physical product on the web, with the addition of a comment section? Have any newspapers tried to stop other websites from copying and pasting full articles, the way the music industry put an end to Napster? I don't know the numbers but I'm pretty sure the answers to each of those questions is fairly small. Their industry is undergoing a huge change, and they'll need to bring in new people with an open mind if they are going to survive. That alone may be their biggest obstacle.

 

[DaBruinz]

After reading the story and the postings on bostonsprotsmedia.com, including the one by SMY and the ones posted on this site, again including the ones by SMY, I've come to the conclusion that the person who leaked the story crossed the line. First off, it's sneaky, if that press box is their water cooler, then the person's character who published the comments can be called into question. Also, even worse and even larger problem, they made the story into something it's not, at the expense of others to make money ! This problem is the cancer of all media in the US and will lead to more issues. In general news is not news anymore, it's entertainment ! I feel like I have to find and read EVERY source on a story to be sure I know what the true facts of the matter are !

While it is unfortunate that Ms. Young and her friend had their joke shared with the public, since when did the water cooler become a private place to talk? I've always been under the impression that the water cooler was the place to tell jokes and gossip and that you said things there at your own risk.

I also have to disagree that the person who mentioned their joke crossed some sort of ethical line. First of all, what line? What ethic was broken? And secondly, neither Ms. Young or her friend were called out directly.

Unfortunately for Ms. Young and her friend, they've become a "victim" of their brethren's actions. One only has to look in the news to see other media members violating the privacy of others on a regular basis in attempts to get "The Story". Yes, its driven by money. Like most things in a capitalist society.

 

[DaBruinz]

I agree 100% with Deus here.

Isaac, with all due respect, I have NO desire for the media to turn into teenybopping fanboys and girls. For that kind of stuff, we come here.

Isaac is proposing the media love the team they are covering. So, perhaps they hush up Nick Kazcur's arrest and testimony last year? Or they start writing long stories about the owner's love life (oops, Boston.com already DID that this week with John Henry).

Nah, we have enough fandom writing in internet forums, I like getting a bit of a professional opinion every now and then also. I also like reading what writers from other cities have to say about the Pats.

Life ain't a pep rally. Insulating oneself does not enlighten.

I don't think Isaac is proposing that at all. I think that what he is saying is that people like Tomase and Borges focus too much on the negative and let their personal feelings cloud what they write to the point that it is no longer the news, but an Op Ed. There must be hundreds of threads on this board talking about Borges when he was with the Globe and how he would attack BB relentlessly in his column. And much of that was attributed to Borges pipeline of information, Bledsoe, being out of the loop and then gone totally. Borges also lamented the fact that Bledsoe wasn't allowed to go whining to Kraft anymore as Kraft made it clear that he supported BB.

I am all for the media asking questions. But the "old guard" seems insistent upon belittling the fans at every turn and acting like we are ignorant and that they are some how more enlightened than everyone. They essentially claim we are lemmings for not following their lead and for believing in BB. (don't you just love the irony there??)

The "newer guard", Curran, SMY, Price, Reiss, et al, have shown a great ability to give us the story without telling us how we should feel. They present the facts and let us make the decision. They may offer their opinion, but they don't let it bias their writing to the point that the "old guard" has.

Does everyone make mistakes? Sure do. Do we castrate the media if they do? Not if they admit to the mistake and offer up their apology and that apology is believed to be sincere.

 

[BrianPat]

While it is unfortunate that Ms. Young and her friend had their joke shared with the public, since when did the water cooler become a private place to talk? I've always been under the impression that the water cooler was the place to tell jokes and gossip and that you said things there at your own risk.

I also have to disagree that the person who mentioned their joke crossed some sort of ethical line. First of all, what line? What ethic was broken? And secondly, neither Ms. Young or her friend were called out directly.

Unfortunately for Ms. Young and her friend, they've become a "victim" of their brethren's actions. One only has to look in the news to see other media members violating the privacy of others on a regular basis in attempts to get "The Story". Yes, its driven by money. Like most things in a capitalist society.

Forget the water cooler, that's been used for comparison. How would you feel if it's understood what's said in the room stays in the room, then you have someone print a story about two people joking around and portraying it as fact. Also, yes it's about the money, but since when is it ok to try and get more by intentionally misleading or attacking others to do so.

Please don't try and legitimize those kinds of actions, remember the Duke Lacrosse players ! Lives ruined to make a buck ! Next time, it could be you !

People who pull this crap should be called out for what they are, not praised or defended.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

But SMY put it properly -- the press box is essentially a water cooler for many reporters. We kick around ideas here and there, and engage in a little back-and-forth -- none of which is meant for print. It's all understood that it's all off the record. Call it an unwritten rule of journalistic etiquette.

No honor amoung thieves huh?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that digs thru peoples trash?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that hires helicoptors to photograph private weddings?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that combed through Sarah Palin's businesses partners divorce records?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that publized a cheerleaders drunken myspace photos that resulted in her being fired?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that will publish quotes of what folks say at private funerals?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that chased the car Princess Diane was in though the streets of London resulting in three deaths?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that goes to press with an unsubstaited claim that Patriots cheated in the SB in 2001 the day before the SB in 2007?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that lives and thrives to take peoples statements out of context to make senatalized news?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that routinely and as a matter of course invades peoples privacy?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that played on TV people breaking into tears as they learned their family members died on 9/11. Or the sounds of their last cries as they died?

Journalistic etiquette is a F^&*ing oxyomoron!

 

[DaBruinz]

Forget the water cooler, that's been used for comparison. How would you feel if it's understood what's said in the room stays in the room, then you have someone print a story about two people joking around and portraying it as fact. Also, yes it's about the money, but since when is it ok to try and get more by intentionally misleading or attacking others to do so.

Please don't try and legitimize those kinds of actions, remember the Duke Lacrosse players ! Lives ruined to make a buck ! Next time, it could be you !

People who pull this crap should be called out for what they are, not praised or defended.

Give me a break. She said that it was their water cooler. Not their privy place where what is said there stays there. Fact is that there have been plenty of things that have come out of press boxes, INCLUDING Polian's tirade a few years ago where he was yelling, "Break his leg".

How is it about the money? Do you actually think that the BSMW gets paid?

I'm not "legitimizing" anything thing UNETHICAL. Nothing UNETHICAL was done. This isn't a situation where Ms. Young was talking to an HR person, a priest, or a psychologist/counselor or something like that. Its a case where a statement was made in public. Around the "water cooler" as Ms. Young put it. Comments like that should be expected to be heard and run with. The Water cooler is and has always been the place for gossip.

Now, as for you bringing up the Duke Lacrosse players. What lives were ruined? Seriously? Who will not be able to get a job because of that other than the DA who tried to prosecute it? Heck, in 5 years no one is even going to remember the incident except for the young men involved. And they will be bitter towards the dumb young woman. And that is an entirely different situation than this.

People like you should be called to the mat for taking things way beyond the realm of common sense.

I don't feel bad for Ms. Young or for her friend who was quoted. In all honesty, all reporters need a dose of reality to keep them honest. To many of them sit in ivory towers and pretend as if they are above others. And no, I am not saying Ms. Young is like that. On the contrary. Ms. Young has done an outstanding job of keeping it real. However, others in the room will definitely take notice. As well they should.

 

[DaBruinz]

No honor amoung thieves huh?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that digs thru peoples trash?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that hires helicoptors to photograph private weddings?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that combed through Sarah Palin's businesses partners divorce records?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that publized a cheerleaders drunken myspace photos that resulted in her being fired?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that will publish quotes of what folks say at private funerals?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that chased the car Princess Diane was in though the streets of London resulting in three deaths?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that goes to press with an unsubstaited claim that Patriots cheated in the SB in 2001 the day before the SB in 2007?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that lives and thrives to take peoples statements out of context to make senatalized news?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that routinely and as a matter of course invades peoples privacy?

Is this the same journalistic etiquette that played on TV people breaking into tears as they learned their family members died on 9/11. Or the sounds of their last cries as they died?

Journalistic etiquette is a F^&*ing oxyomoron!

Just a point of information. Princess Diana's chase and fatal crash occured in Paris.

That being said, I don't lump reporters in with the Paparazzi. Some of what you mentioned is the Paparazzi, who aren't reporters. Other stuff is what investigative reporters do.

The other stuff, you are dead on.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Got this off of SMW comments. Bold is mine. Very good points about "inside look"

After all if these were repeated comments of TO made to a teammate inside a closed lockeroom. This would a behind the scenes look at the innerworkings of the Dallas Cowboys. And outstanding journlism.

Thank you Kerry for bringing me into the sports reporters private locker room.

Kerry says:
April 30, 2009 at 2:05 pmHey Bruce … As the author of the report in question, I just want to let people know that the quotes from the press box were NOT taken out of context.

The female reporter I mentioned, apparently Ms. Young of the ProJo, was exasperated when she said it, at least that’s the way it sounded to me. It was just a few minutes after the other reporter had his mini-fit. He was definitely angry. So it was consistent with his reaction. But I’m happy to take Ms. Young at her word that she was making a joke. The words still reflect the frustration many in the media are feeling.

And I reported these words for a very sound journalistic reason: they offered very telling insight into the powerful institution called the media, during a time of great crisis and turmoil for the industry.

Sadly, because media control the messaging, we never get honest behind-the-scenes views inside the bubble of media power in this time of crisis. But I was able to offer a brief, accurate glimpse of what’s going on inside the bubble. The media call this a “public service” when the subject is anyone but themselves.
The predictable response here, though, is a classic example of the double-standard the media holds for itself.

From my perspective as a reporter for many major publications, and as a media businessman, and as someone intimately familiar with and concerned about the health of the industry, this elitist attitude goes a long way toward explaining the public’s lack of trust in media. It also helps explain the poor financial state of the industry. These factors, the elitism, the double standards, lack of trust, and the lack of financial viability, are intricately intertwined. However, “traditional” media prefer to use the internet, like Twitter for example, as a convenient excuse for their ills.

The reporters in question here may, in fact, be very, very good reporters and quality individuals. I did not use names because I did not want to embarrass any individual. I wish them well. I have no need or desire to impugn their character, and don’t think I did. After all, they did nothing improper or unethical, they merely did something interesting.

I simply offered a look inside the bubble of turmoil in an industry that, as evident by the numbers of comments you received, clearly holds some interest to the public.

 

[eom]

haha...glad to hear from that guy, and it's kind of funny it turned out to be our own smy --- I would've had no idea.

apparently, some of these reporters feel like they're getting cut out of the process, and stand to lose their power as priests of the word if the sources have a way of communicating directly with us.
I guess we're supposed to cry about that.

I'll relate a quick story I heard on npr the other day.
guy worked for the 2nd paper in denver and was telling us about the current newspaper 'crisis', and how it felt to lose his job and take a job offered by his former competitor.
he said as the 2nd paper in town they could basically never beat the top paper on anything, and their whole day was about just trying to be a thorn in the top paper's side.
he said that one time, they broke a story on their website 6 minutes before the top paper, and while he admits nobody outside the 2 papers would even realize it, that was a huge triumph for those guys and they were partying.

the point being, the media has turned into less of a service for the audience, and more a self glorifying bunch of idiots running around desperately trying to scoop each other, get their names and faces out there, and stroke their own egos.

I would have thought a real quality reporter would be excited that there's a way to get information to the audience quicker, but then again, I guess it's all just about them and not the stories.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

haha...glad to hear from that guy, and it's kind of funny it turned out to be our own smy --- I would've had no idea.

apparently, some of these reporters feel like they're getting cut out of the process, and stand to lose their power as priests of the word if the sources have a way of communicating directly with us.
I guess we're supposed to cry about that.

I'll relate a quick story I heard on npr the other day.
guy worked for the 2nd paper in denver and was telling us about the current newspaper 'crisis', and how it felt to lose his job and take a job offered by his former competitor.
he said as the 2nd paper in town they could basically never beat the top paper on anything, and their whole day was about just trying to be a thorn in the top paper's side.
he said that one time, they broke a story on their website 6 minutes before the top paper, and while he admits nobody outside the 2 papers would even realize it, that was a huge triumph for those guys and they were partying.

the point being, the media has turned into less of a service for the audience, and more a self glorifying bunch of idiots running around desperately trying to scoop each other, get their names and faces out there, and stroke their own egos.

I would have thought a real quality reporter would be excited that there's a way to get information to the audience quicker, but then again, I guess it's all just about them and not the stories.

I am not bothered that she is whinning about being cut out of the process. The twittering does in fact reduce the hits her blog or Reiss blog will get.

What I do find to be utterly hypocritical of her and every other reporter is the whinning about being quoted in what she thought was an off the record comment. It is that whinning that makes her sound like an obnoxious little brat. Reporters every day publish comments that that the speaker had not intention of having published and thought was a private conversation. But when it happens to a reporter, "well that shows a lack of journalistic professionalism."

I am fine with her making the comment. But I lose all respect for her when she complains about her comment appearing in print!

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't think Isaac is proposing that at all. I think that what he is saying is that people like Tomase and Borges focus too much on the negative and let their personal feelings cloud what they write to the point that it is no longer the news, but an Op Ed. There must be hundreds of threads on this board talking about Borges when he was with the Globe and how he would attack BB relentlessly in his column. And much of that was attributed to Borges pipeline of information, Bledsoe, being out of the loop and then gone totally. Borges also lamented the fact that Bledsoe wasn't allowed to go whining to Kraft anymore as Kraft made it clear that he supported BB.

I am all for the media asking questions. But the "old guard" seems insistent upon belittling the fans at every turn and acting like we are ignorant and that they are some how more enlightened than everyone. They essentially claim we are lemmings for not following their lead and for believing in BB. (don't you just love the irony there??)

The "newer guard", Curran, SMY, Price, Reiss, et al, have shown a great ability to give us the story without telling us how we should feel. They present the facts and let us make the decision. They may offer their opinion, but they don't let it bias their writing to the point that the "old guard" has.

Does everyone make mistakes? Sure do. Do we castrate the media if they do? Not if they admit to the mistake and offer up their apology and that apology is believed to be sincere.

Bingo- it's not that we want cheerleaders. It's that there's already a negative slant to a ton of what's written. I think a lot of us would prefer something more objective, erring, perhaps, on the side of optimistic.

 

[TruthSeeker]

What I do find to be utterly hypocritical of her and every other reporter is the whinning about being quoted in what she thought was an off the record comment. It is that whinning that makes her sound like an obnoxious little brat. Reporters every day publish comments that that the speaker had not intention of having published and thought was a private conversation. But when it happens to a reporter, "well that shows a lack of journalistic professionalism."

I am fine with her making the comment. But I lose all respect for her when she complains about her comment appearing in print!

I totally disagree with you. Off the record means off the record. Although there was no formal agreement that this should have been off the record, there sure was an informal agreement and apparently no attempt to inform the participants that this was being reported. That's just wrong.

And the generic "reporters do this" doesn't mean a thing unless you show that Shalise or those that she hangs around with are in the habit of doing this. The double standard is in your mind until you show otherwise.

 

[PATSNUTme]

First I want to thank SMY for coming here and engaging us on this subject. Can you imagine Borges, Felger, or many of the others actually coming ot a fan site and engaging real people? Not that we would want them but this shows a huge difference between her and them.

There is no bigger homer on this planet than me. Yet I do want forthright reporting on the team, even if it's something I did not want to hear. We had to close the Crable thread because some of you went way over the top in dissing her. It was not the finest hour of patsfans.

I found nothing wrong with what she said. She is an experienced professional reporter and used her reporters instincts to pick up on something she noticed in BB's tone or mannerisms in how he addressed the Crable question. She may be wrong and I hope she is. She willing to admit it, if she is.

But I think that she has earned enough cred here by coming to this board on several occassions and by the body of work that she has produced over a period of time. We cannot say the same about Tomase.

I think Riess, SMY, and our own C. Price are as close to being fans of the team but still remaining objective as we can want.

 

[Clonamery]

But I lose all respect for her when she complains about her comment appearing in print!

I'm sure she's heart broken.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

I totally disagree with you. Off the record means off the record. Although there was no formal agreement that this should have been off the record, there sure was an informal agreement and apparently no attempt to inform the participants that this was being reported. That's just wrong.

And the generic "reporters do this" doesn't mean a thing unless you show that Shalise or those that she hangs around with are in the habit of doing this. The double standard is in your mind until you show otherwise.

Even if this was an off the record comment. Kerry treated it as such. He mentioned it was "a reporter". To me that is a lot like saying "an unnamed source." Or "a witness at the scene." He did not say "Young, a Providence Journal Reporter." The only reason why we know it was her was because she felt the need to defend the statement and attack the CHFF reporter for reporting it.

While I do recall her reporting things that were "overheard" I don't have a ready example.

But Patriots Journal: Belichick glad to have Tate | New England Patriots | projo.com | The Providence Journal "Crable in the doghouse" is pure conjecture and sleazy journalism.

Kerry gave us an inside look into the inner workings of a pressbox.

If she or Price wants to call out Kerry for providing inside info they should do so in the context of also condemn all reporters who do so. Such as ESPNs hourly reporting of everytime TO and Romo looked at each funny. She has refused to call out Tomasse claiming she is a reporter and not a commentator and therefore is not paid to give her opinion. Yet she calls out CHFF.

Don't say anything in front of a reporter you don't want to see in print. She should know that. It is a rule the rest of us need to live by or get burned by.

 

[Clonamery]

Even if this was an off the record comment. Kerry treated it as such. He mentioned it was "a reporter". To me that is a lot like saying "an unnamed source." Or "a witness at the scene." He did not say "Young, a Providence Journal Reporter." The only reason why we know it was her was because she felt the need to defend the statement and attack the CHFF reporter for reporting it.

While I do recall her reporting things that were "overheard" I don't have a ready example.

But Patriots Journal: Belichick glad to have Tate | New England Patriots | projo.com | The Providence Journal "Crable in the doghouse" is pure conjecture and sleazy journalism.

Kerry gave us an inside look into the inner workings of a pressbox.

If she or Price wants to call out Kerry for providing inside info they should do so in the context of also condemn all reporters who do so. Such as ESPNs hourly reporting of everytime TO and Romo looked at each funny. She has refused to call out Tomasse claiming she is a reporter and not a commentator and therefore is not paid to give her opinion. Yet she calls out CHFF.

Don't say anything in front of a reporter you don't want to see in print. She should know that. It is a rule the rest of us need to live by or get burned by.

You obviously have an ax to grind so it's difficult to take you objectively.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Even if this was an off the record comment. Kerry treated it as such. He mentioned it was "a reporter". To me that is a lot like saying "an unnamed source." Or "a witness at the scene." He did not say "Young, a Providence Journal Reporter." The only reason why we know it was her was because she felt the need to defend the statement and attack the CHFF reporter for reporting it.

While I do recall her reporting things that were "overheard" I don't have a ready example.

But Patriots Journal: Belichick glad to have Tate | New England Patriots | projo.com | The Providence Journal "Crable in the doghouse" is pure conjecture and sleazy journalism.

Kerry gave us an inside look into the inner workings of a pressbox.

If she or Price wants to call out Kerry for providing inside info they should do so in the context of also condemn all reporters who do so. Such as ESPNs hourly reporting of everytime TO and Romo looked at each funny. She has refused to call out Tomasse claiming she is a reporter and not a commentator and therefore is not paid to give her opinion. Yet she calls out CHFF.

Don't say anything in front of a reporter you don't want to see in print. She should know that. It is a rule the rest of us need to live by or get burned by.

As I mentioned before, she was acting on her trained reporters instincts and experience of actually watching BB live through many press conferences. I hope she is wrong about it.

She also has said that she will come here and admit she was wrong, if she was wrong. I believe that she will. You left out that part.