Jump to content

Pat Burns Rip


Recommended Posts

You have confirmation? Because CTV pulled the story and claimed they have nothing to report.
Apparently you're correct Zach. QMI (who is in quebec) reported confirming it from a family member, then Burn's son said it was wrong..
Link to post
Share on other sites
Be awake in peace Pat.
oh, dear...Sorry, Pat!!! May you fully recover and kick the ass of whoever reported that!"Reports of my death are greatly exagerrated" - Mark Twain and Pat Burns
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't even begin to imagine how something like this could be misreported.I truly hope he is still alive.
He actually called Bob McKenzie and was laughing about it, I guess as much as someone who really is in their last days can laugh about something like this.From Twitter:
Pat Burns just called me Seriously. Here's what he said. "Here we go again. They're trying to kill me before I'm dead...I come to Quebec to spend some time with my family and they say I'm dead. I'm not dead, far f------ from it. They've had me dead since June.Tell I'm alive. Set them straight." Done, my friend. Done. What a beauty. A great man, a great friend. Just leave him the hell alone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, this getting the scoop thing is getting fcking ridiculous.
Totally agree, and, while it's a discussion for another day, you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the blogosphere..
Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree, and, while it's a discussion for another day, you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the blogosphere..
Absolutely false. You can blame it on social media. That is not the same as blogging. 'Real' reporters discrediting bloggers for publishing unfounded reports has been shown to be pretty ridiculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely false. You can blame it on social media. That is not the same as blogging. 'Real' reporters discrediting bloggers for publishing unfounded reports has been shown to be pretty ridiculous.
You're right: but where it comes from is this: ten years ago, when I would write any kind of a story like that, or whatnot, I would submit it to my editor. The editor might then call me two hours later and say, 'we can't get a confirmation on this, so we can't run it'. Now, speed has replaced accuracy. The very same editor would now turn around and say 'get it up on the website fast before someone else gets on this story'. This is purely as a result of independant websites and bloggers who will run with a story without confirmation of ANY kind. Real writers were always trained to 'get it and get it right'. Now it's simply get it. It is an interesting topic tho. I'm doing Grillroom tonight and I called the producers to ask if we can swap this topic for one of the other ones. BTW, I've been calling around, and it was apparently Kevin McGran from the Star who broke this (UNCONFIRMED! lol) . I'm trying to get a hold of him to find out where he got it...
Link to post
Share on other sites

This story WAS not broken by the blogosphere. MSM give that group such a bad name, but there are dozens upon dozens of bloggers doing significantly more responsible reporting than the so-called MSM.Just because social media has quickened the delivery of the news stories doesn't mean it has any blame here. That somebody or somebodies in the MSM broke this without confirmation, clearly, is the shameful part. The fact that bloggers, twitterers, etc picked up on the story, from somebody who is supposed to do their homework, double check their sources, etc, and ran with it can still be traced back to the absolute failure of whoever it was that initially broke the story.There's a big debate going on now between MSN and Bloggers, over whether or not bloggers should be allowed access to press boxes, dressing rooms, etc. The problem, IMO, is that you really can't just lump every single person/people who run a blog into the same lump sum group. Like I said above, there are a ton of guys who will follow journalistic protocal to a T, but you'd still lump them into the same group, negatively being portrayed by the few, or maybe majority, who do run stories without any facts at all. They credible ones are the ones getting the hits, the ones getting credentials for NHL teams, etc.The old school MSM types (not all of you) need to understand that this social media, blogging, etc, it's not going away. It's new, it's more effective, it's more efficient, and for a lot of people, it's more reliable. They need to learn to embrace it, rather than try to kill it, Bruce Dowbiggin.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1708258/

Link to post
Share on other sites
This story WAS not broken by the blogosphere. MSM give that group such a bad name, but there are dozens upon dozens of bloggers doing significantly more responsible reporting than the so-called MSM.Just because social media has quickened the delivery of the news stories doesn't mean it has any blame here. That somebody or somebodies in the MSM broke this without confirmation, clearly, is the shameful part. The fact that bloggers, twitterers, etc picked up on the story, from somebody who is supposed to do their homework, double check their sources, etc, and ran with it can still be traced back to the absolute failure of whoever it was that initially broke the story.There's a big debate going on now between MSN and Bloggers, over whether or not bloggers should be allowed access to press boxes, dressing rooms, etc. The problem, IMO, is that you really can't just lump every single person/people who run a blog into the same lump sum group. Like I said above, there are a ton of guys who will follow journalistic protocal to a T, but you'd still lump them into the same group, negatively being portrayed by the few, or maybe majority, who do run stories without any facts at all. They credible ones are the ones getting the hits, the ones getting credentials for NHL teams, etc.The old school MSM types (not all of you) need to understand that this social media, blogging, etc, it's not going away. It's new, it's more effective, it's more efficient, and for a lot of people, it's more reliable. They need to learn to embrace it, rather than try to kill it, Bruce Dowbiggin.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hock...article1708258/
No, you're right zach, this wasnt a bloggers story. I posted somewhere above that it was Kevin McGran from the Star, a hockey beat writer. What I was referring to wasn't today, it was the way the journalism business has devolved since the bloggers started. When I was starting out as a writer, there was an unwritten rule about writing about a rumour or story: 3 sources to confirm. It was hard and fast, and you would get eaten alive if you screwed up. Editors would always have someone else check YOUR checks. It was considered an absolute crime to have to print a retraction cos you got something wrong. Then along came bloggers, independant websites, and, to a lesser extent, twitter et al. And what happened was bloggers would fire up a story without any checking. Sometimes it was right, sometimes it was wrong, but it was always FAST. Some bloggers were very good, and very accurate. But without having to check and double check, they could break a story faster than anyone else could. The second part of the equation came when people started making more out of the credit for breaking the story than the actual story. You've heard it now for sure, and from the mainstream media too. "In a story broken by TSN, the Boston Bruins etc.." Getting the story OUT became the game. Unfortunately, it was a game that most of the public could care less about. I'm sure most of you would trade 20 mins in learning that Wade Belak was traded to Atlanta for finding out that it was ACTUALLY Florida. Accuracy is important to readers and listeners, but credit and back patting self congratulations are important to the media. I, for one, hate that. You can't blame the mainstream guys. I've heard an editor rip his beat writer because someone else ran a rumour story before he did. The writer couldnt get it confirmed. The editor didn't care. However, this isn't an attempt to make excuses for the MSM either. It's more a personal diatribe on the way things have slid from credibility being the measuring stick of good journalism to speed being the goal. It's irresponsible-people get hurt, whether it's a player who finds out he was traded before the team could tell him, or a player who reads he WAS traded when he wasn't, or...like today.... something more serious. I'm not against blogging, or social media. I think they serve a fair purpose, and that ultimately they are good for checks and balances in the world. The more people that write about a subject, the more likely we are to see ALL sides of a story. But it was the birth of this quick media that started us down this slippery slope. The worst part to me was that EVERY news outlet picked up this story today. Not one that I saw apologized for getting something so horribly wrong....
Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, the Toronto Maple Leafs Cliff Fletcher was the buffoon....http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/2010/09/a...st-mistake.html
I read this earlier, and I gotta say, I was pretty dissapointed in Cox.Im a big Damien fan, I generally appreciate his style and writing, but this sounds bad to me. "I stepped away and proceeded to report Fletcher's news on my Twitter account. This was no rush to "break" news, as some have tut-tutted. Fletcher had told a large group, which meant there was no news to "break." He wasn't a "source," per se that required corroboration; he was a public figure making a statement at a hastily called press gathering. As soon as it became clear the news was incorrect, I deleted the information from my Twitter account because I didn't want it to spread more by my doing. Clearly, however, there was nothing mischievous or malicious intended by Fletcher." Why does Damien take NO responsibility for the fact that he took information from Fletcher, didnt even bother to check with anyone else, and put it out on Twitter. Him saying "this was no rush to break news" is the biggest garbage I have EVER heard. If there is no rush to break news, whats it doing on your Twitter account, mere seconds/minutes after hearing the news. Why are you sharing it with your Twitter community? I think if I heard a friend just passed, Id be calling another friend who we all shared a bond with first, instead of typing it into my Blackberry so my 15,000 followers could find out what happened."I'm sure he feels terrible, but he shouldn't. He believed he was mourning a friend, and sharing sad news with people that know Burns well in a town where to many he is still beloved."I dont like to cast judgement on others, but BOTH of them need to think about the power they wield as public figures, especially on something like Twitter, and the damage/hurt it can cause. I dont think they quite get it yet.Fletchers was a mistake, it happens. Cox's was simply a case of him being so hungry to get the news out, that he didnt take into account its validity. If Fletcher had told him a trade had gone down between Calgary and Florida, wouldnt he have checked some sources first???
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll just add this as well, from Twitter:From ESPN's Scott Burnside What a proud day for Twitter journalism. People tripping over themselves to be first to report a man's death. @Damien Guess Cliff was one of many that didn't have their facts right. But it's not his job to be right. It's ours. Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'll just add this as well, from Twitter:From ESPN's Scott Burnside What a proud day for Twitter journalism. People tripping over themselves to be first to report a man's death. @Damien Guess Cliff was one of many that didn't have their facts right. But it's not his job to be right. It's ours. Right?
That's right on the money...
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right: but where it comes from is this: ten years ago, when I would write any kind of a story like that, or whatnot, I would submit it to my editor. The editor might then call me two hours later and say, 'we can't get a confirmation on this, so we can't run it'. Now, speed has replaced accuracy. The very same editor would now turn around and say 'get it up on the website fast before someone else gets on this story'. This is purely as a result of independant websites and bloggers who will run with a story without confirmation of ANY kind. Real writers were always trained to 'get it and get it right'. Now it's simply get it. It is an interesting topic tho. I'm doing Grillroom tonight and I called the producers to ask if we can swap this topic for one of the other ones. BTW, I've been calling around, and it was apparently Kevin McGran from the Star who broke this (UNCONFIRMED! lol) . I'm trying to get a hold of him to find out where he got it...
I can definitely get onside with this. I can also see how, following this argument, it is caused by blogging and that type of information source, though it seems you agree that the 'fault' is not really theres.I hope you're able to get this point across when you're discussing it. I'm afraid coming from a mainstream standpoint, saying this in an incomplete way will just sound like another mainstream guy whining about bloggers having no reputability.
And I'll just add this as well, from Twitter:From ESPN's Scott Burnside What a proud day for Twitter journalism. People tripping over themselves to be first to report a man's death. @Damien Guess Cliff was one of many that didn't have their facts right. But it's not his job to be right. It's ours. Right?
Nice.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...