CC: Adam Schefter on Countdown: Harbaugh to Michigan

...sucks balls.

Yeah Urban Meyer is a real sack of shit.  Can you believe he quit a multmillion dollar job where he's beloved to be a better father? The audacity of that motherfucker. 

/sarcasm

I really think I lose more braincells reading the comments on this site than I've lost in years of smoking weed and drinking heavily.  Yeah, let's keep trying to win with this whole bullshit notion of "class".  We'll be the next Notre Dame in notime!

thing about this whole CC, timeline thing.  Nobody even knows if DB has even started his evaluation yet. Let alone what his decision is.

Ohlmeyer seems to like Adam Schefter, per this ESPN-Ombudsman column:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=5220492

At the same time, Ohlmeyer decried the rampant use of anonymous sources.

So how about this:

Dear Mr. Ohlmeyer,

In May of this year, you cautioned ESPN readers/viewers and, presumably, the ESPN staff about anonymous sources.  You seemingly went out of your way to laud the work of Adam Schefter.

Now, Schefter has relied on anonymous sources to report that Jim Harbaugh may be headed to Michigan to replace Ridh Rodriguez.  Schefter didn't identify the sources by any other description, such as the general position of the individual.  Schefter didn't say why his sources might need anonymity.  Those are the two hallmarks -- along with approval by a higher-ranking editor -- of normal journalistic rules for anonymous sources.

So did Schefter follow any of those guidelines?

Sincerely,

"Sent."

to this thread

Dear God,

Make it stop.

Sincerely,

-Most of us.

What someone says, I am an AS fan but at this point I just want the bowl game to get here, go down and enjoy a Michigan victory and then sit back and watch what happens with our coaching staff.  With or without speculation from sources I think we are still a good 10 days away from "knowing" anything.

are as bad as the shots directed at Rodriguez. Will we ever mature as a fan base ?

can we all remember that whatever our view on the coaching situation, or for that matter the defense, or Tate's future, the vast majority of posters here, love Michigan.  Just because you disagree with a view posted, it doesn't help to post an ad hominem response.

Isn't it funy though how the AD from Stanford says JH getting ready to sign an extension any time and now Harbaugh says he must have gotten his facts wrong?  That should say something right there.

Again: Adam Schefter is not some clown talking-head. He's a respected reporter with a reputation for accuracy and great sourcing. That's why what he says is relevant. Stop broad-brushing everyone in the media.

Liking Schefter on this one.

When we all fight...and the day after Christmas, no less. Also, nobody has pinned me yet, so it's still Festivus. Wait, is this the airing of grievances? If so, I got a lot of problems with you people!

Jim Harbaugh may or may not be coming to michigan, and Rich Rodriguez may or may not be fired?

Since we are mentioning what MSM are saying about JH.  Peter King on NBC's football night said he talked to JH about Luck and there is a chance Luck stays for another year.  I caught it while having dinner and there was alot of talking, so hopefully someone can confirm as well.

I can't wait 'til another person utters the words,  "No one knows what DB is thinking."  It's a simple and yet really stupid effort to silence a head coach thread.

the level of willful ignorance demonstrated tonight on MGoBlog, on the proper use of "anonymous sources" is really staggering to me.  If someone wants to say, "Schefter's been right in the past; I wouldn't bet against him," I'd say, that's not my point.  He might be right.  He might be wrong, as so many others have in the recent past.

If someone wants to alternatively say, "This is sports!  It ain't national security, or a federal prosceution!" I'd also say, fine; if you think Schefter occupies a position of sub-journalistic infotainment, I might agree.

But for the people who accused me of not knowing how source-anonymity is supposed to work, well, here's the New York Times to help you out:

Principles for Granting Anonymity

The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation – as much as we can supply to let a reader know whether the sources have a clear point of view on the issue under discussion.

In routine interviewing – that is, most of the interviewing we do – anonymity must not be automatic or an assumed condition. In that kind of reporting, anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions will occur in the reporting of highly sensitive stories, when it is we who have sought out a source who may face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with us. Similarly they will occur in approaches to authoritative officials in government who, as a matter of policy, do not speak for attribution. On those occasions, we may use an offer of anonymity as a wedge to make telephone contact, get an interview or learn a fact. In such a case, the reporter should press the source, after the conversation, to go on the record with the newsworthy information that has emerged.

Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source – in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.

In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story.

We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available.

Confidential sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us — or they must be the authorized representatives of an authority, known to us, who has such knowledge.

We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.

We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.

Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous.

We do not promise sources that we will refrain from additional reporting or efforts to verify the information being reported.

We do not promise sources that we will refrain from seeking comment from others on the subject of the story. (We may, however, agree to a limited delay in further inquiries – until the close of stock trading, for example.)

Responsibilities of Editors

When anonymity is granted, reporter and source must understand that the commitment is undertaken by the newspaper, not alone by an individual journalist. Any editor who learns a source's identity is required to maintain exactly the same confidentiality as the reporter. That editor may not divulge the identity to other reporters, or to unauthorized editors. And the editor may not use the source – either for reporting on the current story or for later ones.

• In the case of a routine story with unidentified sourcing, the name or explicit role of the source should be conveyed confidentially to the reporter's department head. At the discretion of the department head – and provided the reporter agrees – the responsibility for learning about the source may be delegated to a subordinate supervising editor. (Departments are expected to formulate their own day-to-day routines, in consultation with reporters, for expeditious handling of source information.) In all such routine cases, the department head is accountable for knowing the identity of the source, or for knowing which subordinate editor has been informed. Upon request, the executive editor and the managing editors are entitled to know the identity of the source.
• In the case of a moderately sensitive story, the reporter may wish to share the identity with the executive editor or managing editor only. Such a request should be honored without prejudice, and not taken to signify a lack of trust.
• In the case of exceptionally sensitive reporting, on crucial issues of law or national security in which sources face dire consequences if exposed, the reporter may appeal to the executive editor for total confidentiality. In such circumstances, intended to be extremely rare, the executive editor may choose to ask for only a limited description of the source and waive the right to know the full identity. Only the executive editor may approve such a request.

The standards editor, while not necessarily entitled to know the identity of a confidential source, is responsible for spot-checking compliance with our procedures – that is, for knowing which editors have learned the identity.

Forms of Attribution to Confidential Sources

When we agree to anonymity, the reporter's duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability. We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials. We should not use blind attribution – "sources said," for example – which is more a tease than a signpost. Attribution should never amount to a truism: since "source" merely means a provider of information, "one source said" is equivalent to "somebody said." And "informed" or "reliable source" is no improvement. (Would The Times quote an uninformed or unreliable one?) The objection is not to the word "source," but to its emptiness without a meaningful modifier: "a Senate source," for example, may be acceptable – unless, of course, it is possible to tell the reader still more. The word "official" is overused, and cries out for greater specificity.

Trail markers should be as detailed as possible. "United States diplomat" is better than "Western diplomat," which is better than "diplomat." Still better is "a United States diplomat who took part in the meeting." And "a lawyer who has read the brief" or "an executive close to the XYZ Company" is far better than "a person familiar with the case," a phrase so vague that it could even mean the reporter.

Readers value signs of candor: "The report was provided by a Senate staff member working to defeat the bill."

Whenever possible, in writing about documents we should specify how we received them.

We should avoid automatic references to sources who "insisted on anonymity" or "demanded anonymity"; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic. When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives.

In editing on the copy desk or at higher levels, the description of a source must never be altered without consultation with the reporter who made the confidentiality commitment.

It should go without saying that The Times is truthful. We do not dissemble about our sources – we do not, for example, refer to a single person as "sources" and do not say "other officials" when quoting someone who has already been cited by name. We do not say a source has refused to comment if in fact that person has commented off the record. (We may, however, say – when it is true – that the source refused to comment on a specific aspect of the story.) There can be no prescribed formula for attribution, but it must be literally truthful, and not coy.

Multiple Anonymous Sources

When we grant anonymity, we do not necessarily require multiple sources. A cabinet official, for example, or the White House adviser on national security, may require anonymity while conveying a policy decision that is clearly "authorized," necessitating no corroborating source.

But when we grant anonymity for less verifiable assertions – especially if they form a disputed account, or are potentially damaging to one side in a court case, for example – corroborating sources are often necessary. The reporter should confer with the department head or senior deputy to agree upon the need and the number.

In such a case, the reporter and editor must be satisfied that the sources are genuinely independent of one another, not connected behind the scenes in any kind of "echo chamber" that negates the value of a cross-check.

http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html