Bob McCown chronology of events at 5pm EST on the Fan 590

[ColoradoHockeyFan]

I just caught the tail end of some opening comments from Bob McCown on the Fan 590. He indicated that he's going to be going over a chronology of the events that transpired between Wednesday night and Saturday, coming up at 5pm EST on the Fan 590 (fan590.com), I think with a guest too... I only caught a piece of the comments. Just a heads up.

Click to read more...

 

[go_leafs_go02]

wow..listening to him right now..he sounds pretty upset about the media, feels like he was used by the media to make it sound like the season was being uncancelled..

hmm...interesting.

 

[Isles72]

all we need is the name of the player who was mike brophy's impeccable source who informed him a deal was done and we will get to the end of the joke .

brophy wont ''out'' his source , you can bet the house on that

 

[go_leafs_go02]

Gretzky will be on the show within the next half hour or so..

Might want to check in...although it probably will be same old, same old.

 

[Dr Love]

all we need is the name of the player who was mike brophy's impeccable source who informed him a deal was done and we will get to the end of the joke .

brophy wont ''out'' his source , you can bet the house on that

Nor should he because players won't give him any info if he leaves another player out to dry.

 

[Sammy*]

Nor should he because players won't give him any info if he leaves another player out to dry.

Yeah, god forbid he outs his source. Where else would the media be able to get such honest & good "info".

 

[CarlRacki]

Yeah, god forbid he outs his source. Where else would the media be able to get such honest & good "info".

He shouldn't out his source, unless he believes he was intentionally lied to and even then manybe not. Brophy likely pledged the source would remain unnamed. Revealing his source now would be breaking that promise.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Yeah, god forbid he outs his source. Where else would the media be able to get such honest & good "info".

Outing a source is a cardinal in journalism.
Several reporters are facing jail time because they refuse to out a source.
It's a quesiton of integrity. If you tell someone they'll be anonymous, they must remain so.
If you reveal your source, good luck ever getting info in confidence again.

However the writer in question now faces his own credibility issues with readers. It's one of several catch 22s in journalism. Using anonymous sources sure is convenient when you can't get anyone to go on the record (You'd be surprised how hard it is to convince some people to go on record, even in a seemingly harmless story. It's nearly impossible in real controversial stories. So either you use the anonymous sources, or you settle for scripted PR, which sheds almost no light on anything substantive in many cases)

 

[Kritter471]

Outing a source is a cardinal in journalism.
Several reporters are facing jail time because they refuse to out a source.
It's a quesiton of integrity. If you tell someone they'll be anonymous, they must remain so.
If you reveal your source, good luck ever getting info in confidence again.

However the writer in question now faces his own credibility issues with readers. It's one of several catch 22s in journalism. Using anonymous sources sure is convenient when you can't get anyone to go on the record (You'd be surprised how hard it is to convince some people to go on record, even in a seemingly harmless story. It's nearly impossible in real controversial stories. So either you use the anonymous sources, or you settle for scripted PR, which sheds almost no light on anything substantive in many cases)

You never, ever, ever, ever, ever out your source if s/he requests anonimity. Yes, it's a pain in the butt when they lead you astray and ideally, you use anonymous sources as deep background (meaning you take what they tell you and ask someone on the record "so, I've heard XXX. what can you tell me about that?"), but in the case of a breaking story that you can verify with several other anonymus sources, or someone who is verifying what you've already heard, I can see how he ran with it.

There's very little he can do to regain his credibility other than just wait it out. Even the most informed sources can sometimes get something wrong.

 

[rwilson99]

Outing a source is a cardinal in journalism.
Several reporters are facing jail time because they refuse to out a source.
It's a quesiton of integrity. If you tell someone they'll be anonymous, they must remain so.
If you reveal your source, good luck ever getting info in confidence again.

All such privledges have exceptions.

Lawyers must divulge private, protected conversations with clients if there is crime or fruad. Journalists are not legally bound in most states to any promise of annonymity in the event of a lawsuit.

With that in mind, if the NHL goes the impasse route. The identities of players who offered up the "done deal" story will be fair game.

 

[CarlRacki]

All such privledges have exceptions.

Lawyers must divulge private, protected conversations with clients if there is crime or fruad. Journalists are not legally bound in most states to any promise of annonymity in the event of a lawsuit.

With that in mind, if the NHL goes the impasse route. The identities of players who offered up the "done deal" story will be fair game.

It's not about being legally bound, it's about being ethically bound. A reporter's reputation is about all he/she has when it comes to cultivating and keepiing sources. If a reporter starts burning his/her sources, not only do those sources stop talking, but so will others for fear they too will be outed. Simply put, not only is outing confidential sources unethical, but it's career suicide.

 

[I Hate You All*]

Gretzky sounded depressed. I like watching the show on Sportsnet and seeing all the stupid stuff that people text message in scroll across the bottom of the screen.

"Bob looks hot today!"

"I like your glasses, Bob!"

"If Steve Moore can't play with the big dogs, tell him to stay on the PORCH!"

"Forget hockey, play poker!"

"Gretzky is a sellout. He's the one who started big $$$ contracts!"

lol

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

All such privledges have exceptions.

Lawyers must divulge private, protected conversations with clients if there is crime or fruad. Journalists are not legally bound in most states to any promise of annonymity in the event of a lawsuit.

With that in mind, if the NHL goes the impasse route. The identities of players who offered up the "done deal" story will be fair game.

Sure. Several states do have laws protecting reporters from revealing sources. The NYT and TIme magazine reporters facing jail time because of the Valeria plame affair have been speaking, understandably, about federal laws protecting journalists.
(Funny, isn't it, that Robert Novak, the guy who wrote the god damned story, isn't facing a lick of trouble? And the NYT and Time Magazine reporters, who didn't even write the story Novak wrote, are facing jail time. Being a republican spin doctor has its advantages, I suppose)

Anyway, I understand what you are saying. But keeping this on the subject, it's safe to say that the Hockey News reporter isn't going to face jail time if he protects his source.