General journalist question

[Wesley]

I don't think he is making anything up either. I also believe that he was just reporting what he was told by his sources. The problem is the fact that he wasn't actually given information from his sources that was the whole story.

For example... the hotel room. Yes - it is a fact that if a player or coach wanted to take a nap after noon on checkout day they would have had to sleep in the hotel ballroom on their luggage. That is true. It is also a fact that the departing flight left at 6 pm. No mention of that at all. That changes the "travesty" of the situation. The story reads as if Iowa State had these guys sleeping overnight in the freaking hotel lobby.

Another... the free ticket scandal. Fact... assistant coaches used to get totally free tickets (not taxed). Now they have to pay the taxes on their tickets (due to the IRS not Jamie). So the source was right - they technically do have to pay (at least something) for their tickets now. The story made it sound like the assistants now have to pony up full season ticket prices for seats. There was NO mention of only paying the taxes on them.

Another... the funding of family members on the trip to San Antonio. It is true that the AD payed for some of it's administrators families for the trip and the assistants had to foot the bill for theirs. That is in an open records request. Travis wasn't lying. The problem is that there is no mention of the fact that the coaches got the trip to Hawaii paid for and most AD personnel that went to San Antonio didn't even go to Hawaii. It was an "either/or" choice that Fred agreed to.

Travis is certainly correct saying that he stands by his story. He didn't lie about anything. It seems that there was some serious intentional misleading going on, either by his sources or Travis himself.

Actually better hotels have couches in main part that they could have slept on. A better question was why are they not out sightseeing in Hawaii.

 

[BryceC]

Because he can be sued and the paper sued. I mean come on people. Hines isn't making anything up.

Agreed, but the part written about the hotel and sleeping on the floor obviously makes it appear that it was all night instead of a few hours. A national publication even ran with it stating that. So he either:

1. Deliberately concealed that to sensationalize it.

2. Is a poor writer.

3. Didn't vet the information well enough.

Any one of these options is really bad for s serious journalist.

 

[im4cyclones]

I don't think he is making anything up either. I also believe that he was just reporting what he was told by his sources. The problem is the fact that he wasn't actually given information from his sources that was the whole story.

For example... the hotel room. Yes - it is a fact that if a player or coach wanted to take a nap after noon on checkout day they would have had to sleep in the hotel ballroom on their luggage. That is true. It is also a fact that the departing flight left at 6 pm. No mention of that at all. That changes the "travesty" of the situation. The story reads as if Iowa State had these guys sleeping overnight in the freaking hotel lobby.

Another... the free ticket scandal. Fact... assistant coaches used to get totally free tickets (not taxed). Now they have to pay the taxes on their tickets (due to the IRS not Jamie). So the source was right - they technically do have to pay (at least something) for their tickets now. The story made it sound like the assistants now have to pony up full season ticket prices for seats. There was NO mention of only paying the taxes on them.

Another... the funding of family members on the trip to San Antonio. It is true that the AD payed for some of it's administrators families for the trip and the assistants had to foot the bill for theirs. That is in an open records request. Travis wasn't lying. The problem is that there is no mention of the fact that the coaches got the trip to Hawaii paid for and most AD personnel that went to San Antonio didn't even go to Hawaii. It was an "either/or" choice that Fred agreed to.

Travis is certainly correct saying that he stands by his story. He didn't lie about anything. It seems that there was some serious intentional misleading going on, either by his sources or Travis himself.

What about the part where Hoiberg reportedly told him 3 weeks ago there was nothing to the story and, yet, Hines says Hoiberg could't be reached for comment. Those don't jive.

 

[Yellow Snow]

What about the part where Hoiberg reportedly told him 3 weeks ago there was nothing to the story and, yet, Hines says Hoiberg could't be reached for comment. Those don't jive.

Well, If he talked to Hoiberg "off the record" it would be exactly that. The conversation never took place. It was off the record. Pollard was the only one to bring up the conversation between Hines and Fred.

Considering the backlash Travis is getting, it was pretty admirable not to bring an off the record conversation to light.

That said, i don't understand why Hines didn't just use a quote or two from Fred in his article and decide whether to run with it from there. According to Pollard, Fred was willing to go on record. Maybe Hines didn't like what he was saying? Who knows...

 

[Cyclone1985]

Not citing your source is an easy cop-out and allows journalists to exaggerate their "facts" and get more clicks/likes/reads.

If they don't give up the source, he/she doesn't really care if their "facts" are exaggerated because they are not tied back to them, and their "facts" were published. The source can continue to push whatever "facts" fit their agenda and both source and journalist remain happy.

FTR, I don't think all journalists are like this, but I am sure they are out there.

 

[sabulba]

Saying these journalists we're talking about as being reliable sources of news all depends on what they have reported on in the past. What kind of journalist work does TH do in the past (I don't read the Ames Tribune so I really don't know)? If he is reliable in that he wrote about what the score of last nights game was and how many points people scored isn't the same as being reliable when careers, reputations etc.. are on the line. I think a big doner who has a beef with JP got to TH and encouraged him to run this ($$).

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Anonymous sources in journalism can be valuable. And it's not anonymous to everyone. The editors of the paper know who it is, and double and triple check the information. But Hines didn't use the anonymous sources right. You use them as a source to dig for more information to get someone to say something on the record, confirming at least in part some of what the anonymous source is saying.

People bring up Woodward and Bernstein (obviously) and Deep Throat when talking about anonymous sources. What they did was take that information, not trust it, and dig, dig, dig, dig.

What Hines did was take that information and lazily write a story about it using no other information than what was told to him by the unnamed sources.

Anonymous sources have their value in journalism, they're just not meant to be the whole story like they were for Hines.

And i highly question that he was working on that for 4-5 months.

 

[allfourcy]

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.

I hear ya ...,Went thru the same.

 

[roundball]

Anonymous sources in journalism can be valuable. And it's not anonymous to everyone. The editors of the paper know who it is, and double and triple check the information. But Hines didn't use the anonymous sources right. You use them as a source to dig for more information to get someone to say something on the record, confirming at least in part some of what the anonymous source is saying.

People bring up Woodward and Bernstein (obviously) and Deep Throat when talking about anonymous sources. What they did was take that information, not trust it, and dig, dig, dig, dig.

What Hines did was take that information and lazily write a story about it using no other information than what was told to him by the unnamed sources.

Anonymous sources have their value in journalism, they're just not meant to be the whole story like they were for Hines.

And i highly question that he was working on that for 4-5 months.

Well-put; you nailed it.

 

[psyclone51]

Right on cyrocks... That is why social media is so dangerous. Instead of a quality journalist checking on sources to test their veracity, the reader is supposed to take on that role, and of course rarely has the time or expertise to do so.