General journalist question

[SoapyCy]

CW said on his radio show keeping sources anonymous is key part of being a journalist.

My question is this: if there is no authenticity in articles and no way to verify statements how is journalism any different than tabloids? Maybe my "academic mind" doesn't understand it but if something is not verifiable to the source then it's not worth anything.

Certainly today's issue isn't life or death but what if Hines wanted to post lies for whatever reason. What's to stop a journalist from claiming a lie from an anonymous source and then claiming journalistic integrity by not naming a source? How do institutions combat that?

What if he didn't want to write a lie so he has a "source" tell him a lie and then say "well the source lied, not me".

 

[Spam]

Reputation is important. Reputation is built when your insider information turns out to be true and/or through high caliber reporting over time. Hines had built a solid reputation, which is why the story had the impact it did. But he may have destroyed his reputation today.

If the same story had appeared in the Des Moines Register by Randy Peterson.....people would dismiss the story from the beginning as yet another nothing story attempting to make ISU look bad.

 

[SoapyCy]

Reputation is important. Reputation is built when your insider information turns out to be true and/or through high caliber reporting over time. Hines had built a solid reputation, which is why the story had the impact it did. But he may have destroyed his reputation today.

If the same story had appeared in the Des Moines Register by Randy Peterson.....people would dismiss the story from the beginning as yet another nothing story attempting to make ISU look bad.

Okay. But a casual fan like my wife will read something and not know the guy who wrote it. It's like picking up the NY Times, you just read it without reading who wrote the article.

Why should every reader have to determine who is credible or not? Why wouldn't the organization take sole responsibility for their work? The big name on the first page means more (to most people) than the little name under the headline. That's why the NYT, without even knowing the specific journalists, is more credible than the Examiner.

 

[ISUCubswin]

3 years ago I said Fred was in Minny actually having contract negotiations with the University. Wasn't gone, but just discussed the possibility of going there.

I was called a non-ISU fan, a troll, people demanded I be permabanned, and, of course, called a "******," because my source was anonymous because I wanted that source to A) not get in trouble B) keep giving me information about the program

3 years later, I still get information from the source, and, of course, turns out they were right, as Fred has said that he DID indeed talk to another school (Minnesota) just prior to his contract extension.

And said source has still been great but I've learned not to post anything on this site because some posters are complete jackholes.

 

[Spam]

Okay. But a casual fan like my wife will read something and not know the guy who wrote it. It's like picking up the NY Times, you just read it without reading who wrote the article.

Why should every reader have to determine who is credible or not? Why wouldn't the organization take sole responsibility for their work? The big name on the first page means more (to most people) than the little name under the headline. That's why the NYT, without even knowing the specific journalists, is more credible than the Examiner.

Sure. Reputation involves both the big name on the front page and the reporter.

Ames Tribune and Travis Hines = good (until today)

Des Moines Register and Randy Peterson = bad (always)

 

[keepngoal]

3 years ago I said Fred was in Minny actually having contract negotiations with the University. Wasn't gone, but just discussed the possibility of going there.

I was called a non-ISU fan, a troll, people demanded I be permabanned, and, of course, called a "******," because my source was anonymous because I wanted that source to A) not get in trouble B) keep giving me information about the program

3 years later, I still get information from the source, and, of course, turns out they were right, as Fred has said that he DID indeed talk to another school (Minnesota) just prior to his contract extension.

And said source has still been great but I've learned not to post anything on this site because some posters are complete jackholes.

darn.

 

[baagoe]

3 years ago I said Fred was in Minny actually having contract negotiations with the University. Wasn't gone, but just discussed the possibility of going there.

I was called a non-ISU fan, a troll, people demanded I be permabanned, and, of course, called a "******," because my source was anonymous because I wanted that source to A) not get in trouble B) keep giving me information about the program

3 years later, I still get information from the source, and, of course, turns out they were right, as Fred has said that he DID indeed talk to another school (Minnesota) just prior to his contract extension.

And said source has still been great but I've learned not to post anything on this site because some posters are complete jackholes.

Hold on, you're getting ISU information from a great source and not posting it? Permaban this non ISU fan troll!

 

[isu83]

Journalists and politicians are all the same. They all are doing what they do for themselves. I personally don't trust either one.

 

[dirtyninety]

What is happening?

 

[Spam]

Journalists and politicians are all the same. They all are doing what they do for themselves. I personally don't trust either one.

Journalists, politicians and pretty much everyone else.

 

[CyArob]

3 years ago I said Fred was in Minny actually having contract negotiations with the University. Wasn't gone, but just discussed the possibility of going there.

I was called a non-ISU fan, a troll, people demanded I be permabanned, and, of course, called a "******," because my source was anonymous because I wanted that source to A) not get in trouble B) keep giving me information about the program

3 years later, I still get information from the source, and, of course, turns out they were right, as Fred has said that he DID indeed talk to another school (Minnesota) just prior to his contract extension.

And said source has still been great but I've learned not to post anything on this site because some posters are complete jackholes.

******

 

[Spam]

3 years ago I said Fred was in Minny actually having contract negotiations with the University. Wasn't gone, but just discussed the possibility of going there.

I was called a non-ISU fan, a troll, people demanded I be permabanned, and, of course, called a "******," because my source was anonymous because I wanted that source to A) not get in trouble B) keep giving me information about the program

3 years later, I still get information from the source, and, of course, turns out they were right, as Fred has said that he DID indeed talk to another school (Minnesota) just prior to his contract extension.

And said source has still been great but I've learned not to post anything on this site because some posters are complete jackholes.

Dude. We have people from this board having lunch with Bowlsby. Your source is nothing in comparison.

 

[singsing]

Post of the year. .totally agree.

 

[cyclones12321]

Just ready for basketball season. You can tell how our football season is going because we have like 5 threads on journalism

 

[ISUCubswin]

CW said on his radio show keeping sources anonymous is key part of being a journalist.

My question is this: if there is no authenticity in articles and no way to verify statements how is journalism any different than tabloids? Maybe my "academic mind" doesn't understand it but if something is not verifiable to the source then it's not worth anything.

Certainly today's issue isn't life or death but what if Hines wanted to post lies for whatever reason. What's to stop a journalist from claiming a lie from an anonymous source and then claiming journalistic integrity by not naming a source? How do institutions combat that?

What if he didn't want to write a lie so he has a "source" tell him a lie and then say "well the source lied, not me".

To answer your question specifically - this is where trust and reading credibility comes in.

Do you believe everything you see on the internet? I don't. If I see something that I question, I always go to a source that I trust before believing it 100%.

Now, if my source (say, Ames Trib) manages to find itself in trouble for lying, or their stories are constantly showing bias, or people are constantly countering their articles, then I'm probably going to find a new news source and the Tribune loses money.

 

[ISUCubswin]

Also - say DeAndre Kane is one of the sources, or Monte Morris, or Melvin Ejim.

Their name in that report, without Hoibergs approval, likely eliminates any chance they have of ever playing for him, and hurts their credibility when other teams look at them and see that they have ratted out former institutions.

 

[dirtyninety]

Melvin Ejim is a source! Wow. I can't wait to tell everybody. My twitter going to be blowing up.

 

[3GenClone]

CW said on his radio show keeping sources anonymous is key part of being a journalist.

My question is this: if there is no authenticity in articles and no way to verify statements how is journalism any different than tabloids? Maybe my "academic mind" doesn't understand it but if something is not verifiable to the source then it's not worth anything.

Certainly today's issue isn't life or death but what if Hines wanted to post lies for whatever reason. What's to stop a journalist from claiming a lie from an anonymous source and then claiming journalistic integrity by not naming a source? How do institutions combat that?

What if he didn't want to write a lie so he has a "source" tell him a lie and then say "well the source lied, not me".

While it's certainly overly dramatic, the HBO show "The Newsroom" definitely discusses this question and does a great job of showing what kinds of effort go into researching and the vetting process before publishing a story.

I understand that this is a fictional show, but the journalistic process is pretty accurate.

 

[roundball]

Vetting the credibility of a journalist's sources is the responsibility of an institution's editors. Unfortunately, with so many citizen/independent "journalists" (i.e., hacks with Twitter accounts who think they are reporters), any Tom, ****, or Harry can spout off some nonsense and a good chunk of legitimate publications, who've become both lazy and greedy, will pick it up and run with it. And increasingly, people are thinking that this is the way it's supposed to be because they don't know any better.

Journalism is is in a sad, sad place right now.

 

[roundball]

While it's certainly overly dramatic, the HBO show "The Newsroom" definitely discusses this question and does a great job of showing what kinds of effort go into researching and the vetting process before publishing a story.

I understand that this is a fictional show, but the journalistic process is pretty accurate.

The Newsroom is OUTSTANDING for to portrayal of modem journalism. I love how it ***** all over "new media".