just like Giant fans felt about Eli Manning in his third NFL season and better than what Niner fans felt about Alex Smith last season prior to ridding the team of the offensive coaching staff that was destroying their team
That's not a fair evaluation of Mehta's work. Using anonymous sources is not at all considered "shoddy journalism." It's just more commonly used for stories where the message is more important than the sources (though, arguably, that may not apply to this story). Regardless, it is important that somebody reports this story, even if Jets officials or players are not willing to go on the record. To not report it would be more akin to shoddy journalism. Beat writers often do have a bit of "homer-ism" in their writing, but the good ones know when to report objectively. Managing the fallout is not Mehta's responsibility. His responsibility is simply to report professionally and in good faith--and using anonymous sources can be part of that.
The reason that you don't use only anonymous sources is that there's no way for the reader to verify their intentions in saying what they are saying. Is it ok to use some anonymous sources in a story? Sure, as long as you have some people who are willing to put themselves on the line to put the things being said out there. There's no problem using anonymous sources to corroborate or support a story that people are willing to go on the record about. When you have nobody who will go on the record then the odds are really good you're getting a story that is full of other people's agendas and quite possibly inaccurate in the details. Does anybody here really think Mark Sanchez is lazy? That he's not a gym rat in the film room most of the time? That's the story the Jets have gone on record with for 3 years now. So what happens during the week before the Miami game? Sanchez calls a meeting and Santonio Holmes blows it off. So let's say Sanchez told Holmes he was being lazy in not going to that meeting. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. A week later an anonymous source calls out Sanchez for being lazy. Holmes working out his inner child? Who knows. If the quote was attributed to somebody we could all assess where it came from and why. As an anonymous quote it's just useless and inflammatory.
This kind of story hinges on the credibility of the reporter. You either trust the reporter or you don't. Judging by the praise Mehta received in earlier stories covering the Jets, I'd say most fans trust him. Anonymous sources is just how they journalism game is played in this day and age. Clicks, buzz, etc.
Not for highly negative stories. When you're going to try to rip the lid off of a situation you go with people who are willing to be quoted or you don't go at all. The fact that Mehta used the word lazy is shocking in and of itself because nobody has said anything before this but that Sanchez was a very hard worker who had great integrity in the way he approached the process. Using "lazy" with no attributed sources when the opposite position is what everybody believes is just insane. Does Mehta expect us to believe based on his reputation that every other person who went on the record about Sanchez work ethic over the last three years was lying and this lone anonymous source who made the claim is the one telling the truth? Really? That's a total hatchet job by Mehta. He had a negatively slanted story to begin with and he either went for the big lie himself with that characterization or let somebody else manipulate him into being the vector for it. Whatever else you think about Mehta's body of work this piece was a terribly unprofessional job by him and it should cost him his job.
Simply because you don't like what it portrays? The fact is that this type of story goes through several editors before seeing the light of day. I don't think his bosses are on the same page as you are. EDIT: BTW, didn't the meat of the BoSox collapse come from a bevy of anonymous sources? Don't think that was a positive story.
Listen to what Hasselbeck said and not how it was characterized in print. He never used the word lazy and he never said anybody had told him that Sanchez didn't work hard. What he said word for word was: "I don't know Mark's habits, in and out, in terms of when he leaves the facility. I don't know if Thursday night he's watching extra tape or if he is enjoying a nice dinner in NY or what he's doing. I don't know that. But I haven't gotten the sense from people that he's at the building all the time. So from that point it's always the player's responsibility to digest the system. To be involved in it and to learn it the best you can so that it becomes second nature to you. I'll just put it that way." From that the print summary turned into Hasselbeck says Sanchez is lazy. Give me a break here. He says he doesn't know. He insinuates that somebody told him Sanchez was not always in the building Thursday nights. Again, it's totally anonymous and Hasselbeck said as little as he could about it. He never called Sanchez lazy. That was pure hyperbole by whoever wrote the print copy for ESPN that everybody else picked up.
Learn some history. Deep Throat lead Woodward and Bernstein to sources who went on the record. That's what Watergate was about. If they had never gotten sources to come forward they couldn't have printed the stuff they did. That was the old days when investigative journalism was actually about investigating instead of just doing the Murdoch Slam on whoever you hated.
ok, accuse was too strong of a word. but his intentions were clear. why else would he even bring stuff like that up? i'm just saying it's not the first time that sanchez's work ethic has been brought up. i'm not saying sanchez is lazy. but it's definitely been brought up before. but tim hasselbeck has never been a fan of sanchez.
you're acting like mehta just threw this up on his blog. it went through editors who know more about journalism than the both of us. they obviously read it and thought it was ok. but now you want him fired because you don't agree with the story. if it was a bunch of anonymous sources ganging up on schotty after his resignation, NO ONE WOULD BE SAYING SHIT ABOUT IT.
I wouldn't be in the film room if Kate Upton was naked in my bed at home. Sanchez really isn't 'dating the Jets' anymore. Distractions.
I'm guessing somebody with an agenda put a bug in Hasselbeck's ear on the subject but didn't give him much to go on and that's why he was so general in his comments, clearly disassociating himself from making the specific comments. The odds that it was a player making the comments are pretty low. Does anybody think Santonio Holmes is in offensive meetings late into the night on Thursday night? It must have been one of the coaches, either Schotty, Cavanaugh or Callahan. Those guys work 96 hour weeks to keep their jobs. Players do not work those hours because they wouldn't be able to play well on Sunday with the kind of sleep deprivation that causes. So one of the coaches takes a shot at Sanchez for not working 96 hours a week plus playing on game day because that's the frame of reference they have to what it takes to be successful.
You'd be surprised how few checks there are in what passes for electronic journalism these days. It's a 24/7 news cycle and there's a lot of news to put through the meat grinder. People pass stories all the time that would have gotten checked in the old days because having it up second on the web is almost useless since everybody links the first site that has it.
i agree. i mentioned in another thread that "lazy" can be subjective. i don't think sanchez is lazy. setting up those workouts, the fact that he plays through injury, etc makes me think that he's a hard worker. but if someone called sanchez lazy while answering mehta's question, then it's fair game.
yeah, but this wasn't a breaking news type of story. it was mehta conducting his own little survey in the jets locker room. no one was going to beat him to the punch. anyways, no point in dragging this out. i don't think the sources should have opened their mouths. i just don't think mehta is the villain here. we just have assholes in the locker room.
Yeah but having assholes in the locker room, which is obvious by now, should have caused Mehta to think twice about printing what he did in the way he did it. It's highly inflammatory stuff that will either cause a major shake up in the Jet's organization, or worse yet not cause one. It was a major bomb thrown by Mehta and the odds are pretty good the sources were malcontents and people already on their way out the door. Some stories you sit on. This one got the better of Mehta and it's going to cost him or the Jets big time in the end. BTW, here's the Michael Kay podcast that had both Hasselbeck's non-accusation and Sanchez response to that on it. It's on a link partway down the page. http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/sto...rk-jets-disappointed-fans-booing-mark-sanchez And also, I think it might have been a breaking news type story. Mehta ran with it the day that Schotty went out the door and the day after Callahan left. He had no idea who else they were talking to if indeed either of them were part of the sourcing for his story.
