delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Did he just tweet it or repeat it too on the NFL Network? If he did the latter, that's where the broadcast rules do come in. And organizations don't get sued because they are supposed to vet 'rumors' to make sure they're facts if they choose to report them. Not that I blame anyone for not watching the spectacle that the news has become these days, but rumors, specualtion, "reports" from sources, true or not are literally all over the news, and often can be damaging to those involved. If there's another tort law in place that makes this unacceptable, then I think that's a different matter than the media reporting rumors, as long as they report them as such. It doesn't matter that it's not fair, malevolent intent or knowledge of falsity are nearly unprovable requirements, when you've got an "anonymous source". If Anonymous Source were actually a real person, he'd have 0 crediblity left by now, with all that's been done in his name over the years. Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Not that I blame anyone for not watching the spectacle that the news has become these days, but rumors, specualtion, "reports" from sources, true or not are literally all over the news, and often can be damaging to those involved. If there's another tort law in place that makes this unacceptable, then I think that's a different matter than the media reporting rumors, as long as they report them as such. It doesn't matter that it's not fair, malevolent intent or knowledge of falsity are nearly unprovable requirements, when you've got an "anonymous source". If Anonymous Source were actually a real person, he'd have 0 crediblity left by now, with all that's been done in his name over the years. Please post an example if it's so prevalent. If they're reporting a rumor, I can assure you they say so. Sapp reported it as a fact if I'm not mistaken, and there is world of difference. So back that up. I'll also add when they say things like "unnamed sources" (plural) that in fact pushes it into the realm of confirming a rumor based on multiple sources. They don't run for scoops at the first word of something because it gets them into trouble. Sapp isn't working with the head of a journalist here, he's running his mouth based on what someone told him. Look at Dan Rather when reporting something as factual and missing my a mile. He got what he deserved on that one, and this is in the ballpark: running out a 'fact' based on what is apparently a single source. (From what I can tell). Edited March 22, 2012 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Please post an example if it's so prevalent. If they're reporting a rumor, I can assure you they say so. Sapp reported it as a fact if I'm not mistaken, and there is world of difference. So back that up. Well, I was trying to link to what he actually said on NFLN, where he made it abundantly clear (and was probably clarifying his tweets), that this was not fact but just what his inside source told him... But then, it looks like the NFLN is a little worried (and I'm again thinking it's related to the federal law that protects "snitches" if it's true, than a lawsuit that they clearly wouldn't have had him on if their lawyers thought it wasn't wise. Networks aren't dumb, they just might have overlooked the federal laws protecting whistle-blowers for unsafe conditions). You are correct that media does present rumor as rumor (or at very least a loophole to protect themselves), which is what they had Sapp on to do, to clarify it as rumor (or rather unverified claim) from a source. Edited March 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Interesting read here. The identity of anonymous sources is sometimes revealed to senior editors or a news organization's lawyers, who would be considered bound by the same confidentiality. (Lawyers are generally protected from subpoena in these cases by attorney/client privilege.) Legal staff may need to give counsel about whether it is advisable to publish certain information, or about court proceedings that may attempt to learn confidential information. Senior editors are in the loop to prevent reporters from fabricating non-existent, anonymous sources, and to provide a second opinion about how to use the information obtained, how or how not to identify sources, and whether other options should be pursued. The use of anonymous sources has been a controversial subject for many years. Some news outlets insist that anonymous sources are the only way to obtain certain information, while others hold strict prohibitions against the use of unnamed sources at all times.[1] News organizations may impose safeguards, such as requiring that information from an anonymous source be corroborated by a second source before it can be printed. Nonetheless, prominent reports based on anonymous sources have sometimes proven to be incorrect. For instance, much of the O.J. Simpson reporting from unnamed sources was later deemed inaccurate.[2] Newsweek retracted a story about a Qur'an being flushed down a toilet that led to riots in the Middle East; the Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 was based upon one unnamed military source.[3] The L.A. Times retracted an article that implicated Sean "Diddy" Combs in the beating of Tupac Shakur.[4] The original article was based on documents and a large assortment of unnamed sources. When reporting on the original story, the Associated Press noted that "[n]one of the sources was named."[5] After the embarrassment, a news organization will often "clamp down" on the guidelines for using unnamed sources, but those guidelines are often forgotten after the scandal dies down. One study found that large newspapers' use of anonymous sources dropped dramatically between 2003 and 2004. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a research group found use of anonymous sources dropped from 29 percent of all articles in 2003 to just 7 percent in 2004.[6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh2 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 From the title, I thought this was a threade about trying to get MTV to set-up a claymation bout between Sapp and Shockey..... However, Libel and Slander are easier to prove with the help of the NFL investigation Service and Security. They would have all the information on who they talked to and who gave them information. This is a big piece of irresponsible journalism which is apart of libel and slander, flagrant disreguard for the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 NFL Network to Warren Sapp - "You're an analyst, not a reporter." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 NFL Network to Warren Sapp - "You're an analyst, not a reporter." "We here at the NFLN are extremely disappointed that Mr. Sapp forced us to have him on to clarify an unverified rumor on our network. We said, "No Warren, we cannot report so irresponsibly", but since Warren is a big guy we had to do what he said. We are extremely sorry we let Warren bully us this way... We can assure you that in the future, warren will use better judgement in what he decides is appropriate content to air on our network... In closing, just remember that we have no control over what we allow on air, so just remember: Blame Warren, and only Warren. We're on your side Sincerely, That big-eared Italian who somehow took over Rich Eisen's job" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 NFL Network to Warren Sapp - "You're an analyst, not a reporter." Wow, that's pretty weak, like he didn't even get a time out or sent to bed without desert. Well so long as they put him in his place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Wow, that's pretty weak, like he didn't even get a time out or sent to bed without desert. Well so long as they put him in his place. IMO, they're not going hard after Sapp, because they had him on their network to report/clarify it, making them a part of the irresponsible story. Perhaps they were just intending to do damage control (not sure if they're at all responsible for what he tweets) to have him on to clarify it as from a "source".... By doing that, maybe it removes legal liability for them (I don't know if that's relevant), but as per the irresponsible reporting, they tied themselves right in with him by being a part of reporting it. Edited March 23, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Wow, that's pretty weak, like he didn't even get a time out or sent to bed without desert. Well so long as they put him in his place. I love how they sent it to PFT as well instead of posting it on their own network site. I guess there's not enough room with all the Saints bounty analysis & Tebow's big head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Looks like Sapp & NFL Network may want to lawyer up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Looks like Sapp & NFL Network may want to lawyer up I hope that fat ass gets whats coming to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh2 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I agree, I hope that Shockey sues. The NFL's investigation will so the truth and then trouble for Sapp - Big Time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Looks like Sapp & NFL Network may want to lawyer up Whoever wrote that article appears to have absolutely no clue about the law. First, I'm not even sure what this means: Moreover, even if Shockey were protected, he’d have to show that the league in some way retaliated against him, and it will be hard to show that a 31-year-old tight end with a reputation for being a bad guy was blackballed because he blew the whistle on the Saints. The league doesn't have to "retaliate" and Shockey's reputation is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it's agaisnt the law to out a whistle-blower against unsafe conditions.... Seems pretty cut and dry if true, that Sapp could be subpeona'd to reveal his source and be in trouble. Shockey could sue Sapp and/or the league for defamation of character, since Sapp uttered facts about Shockey that aren’t true. This is a bunch of drivel too, once Sapp clarified on NFLN that it was not "fact", nor is it necessarily proveable that he knew it wasn't true when he said it. Not saying there isn't maybe an opening for Shockey to have a case, perhaps just based on the tweets stating it as fact, but that article was pure drivel. Edited March 23, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Saw this somewhere else. Basically "there was no single whistler blower" http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/17989984/no-single-whistleblower-in-bountygate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Whoever wrote that article appears to have absolutely no clue about the law. First, I'm not even sure what this means: The league doesn't have to "retaliate" and Shockey's reputation is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it's agaisnt the law to out a whistle-blower against unsafe conditions.... Seems pretty cut and dry if true, that Sapp could be subpeona'd to reveal his source and be in trouble. This is a bunch of drivel too, once Sapp clarified on NFLN that it was not "fact", nor is it necessarily proveable that he knew it wasn't true when he said it. Not saying there isn't maybe an opening for Shockey to have a case, perhaps just based on the tweets stating it as fact, but that article was pure drivel. You're the one who doesn't understand, and I'll go back to my very first post: they are now saying "oops my bad" and that does not let them off the hook, at all. Period point blank. Do a little research to inform your opinions because you've been wrong nearly every step of the way. Edited March 24, 2012 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) You're the one who doesn't understand, and I'll go back to my very first post: they are now saying "oops my bad" and that does not let them off the hook, at all. Period point blank. Do a little research to inform your opinions because you've been wrong nearly every step of the way. Okay, come back when the epic Shockey lawsuit wins, and I'll eat crow, no lie... Edited March 24, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I thought there would be more posts in here on snitching. http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_20224191/vikings-chris-kluwe-lauds-nfl-rips-saints-curses?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 IMO, they're not going hard after Sapp, because they had him on their network to report/clarify it, making them a part of the irresponsible story. Perhaps they were just intending to do damage control (not sure if they're at all responsible for what he tweets) to have him on to clarify it as from a "source".... By doing that, maybe it removes legal liability for them (I don't know if that's relevant), but as per the irresponsible reporting, they tied themselves right in with him by being a part of reporting it. Why not just wash their hands of Sapp. He's a pain in the ass, not very well spoken, and doesn't seem to have a great body of knowledge when it comes to the game as a whole. It's not like they couldn't find a guy several times more competent and coherent to take his place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Okay, come back when the epic Shockey lawsuit wins, and I'll eat crow, no lie... Well we were talking more than that as you didn't even believe a law suit was possible, and didn't think Sapp would have to backtrack. He is running his fat ass into the hills now. I can't imagine what any jury will decide but he process you didn't believe is well under way. And I am curious, from that PFT article what do they not understand about the law that you do? I am curious about that because it reads correct to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Apparently, Shockey has received zero interest on the FA market and is blaming Sapp's comments for the defamation of his character and non existent interest in his services. . This brings on an entire new legal spin on the situation IMO. I hope Sapp gets burned for this. As a football player, he was a monster. As an analysis? Good lord I can't stand his mouth or the stoopid, over the top facial expressions he dons while running his mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) IMO If Shockey sues Sapp, he'll lose. If he sues NLFN and NFL, he may win. None of this is as cut and dried as anyone here is making it out to be. This is a very fact-specific case, and only a tiny portion of the relevant facts are widely known at this time. Edited March 25, 2012 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Regardless of a lawsuit that may or may not happen, Sapp doesn't need to be on NFL Access. It's footballs news, and Sapp has lost any single bit of journalistic integrity. I've never though he had much to offer on NFLN, but I see no way they can keep him around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.