I agree with you. In fact, I've had this very discussion with Sports Editor of my company's main newspaper and with editors of around half of the other papers owned by the company. I was on a tangent that day and also talked to a half of a dozen or so programming directors for the TV stations my company owns as well.
It was a clear consensus that the problem lies with the editors but started with those guys when they were reporters. I can attest to budget meetings where the interest in how many page views certain writers have rival, if not exceed, the amount of subscriptions a paper has. Far too often it is about what is going to spark interest instead of what's actually the truth of the matter.
In context of what Dodd put out...
If there is one thing I hate about the 'net now-a-day is the use of the word "source." I have plenty of "sources" but it's not the kind of thing that I use period when offering news. My problem, in particular with Dodd's article, is what qualifies as a source.
Damn...going off on a tangent here...
^^RAN
Case in point. Ian's list of possible OC's before McElwain was hired. He said "his sources had indicated to him..." when in fact his "source" on that happened to be names that a writer for one of the subscription Alabama sites had listed. The problem was the original article had no real source for that information. It was all conjecture.
Hell, just last week I saw Gentry Estes use one of his own articles as "proof" what he was writing was indeed fact.
Very rarely do I step out and say, "this is the case." Going back in the time I've written for websites I can think of a few situations where I've said "this is the case" but at that time didn't hesitate to say who it was from. (ask TigerBait3 the discussion on Saban on his LSU forum...that was a doozy)
^^RAN
Bottom line...until I'm proven wrong, I don't believe a damn thing Dodd puts out because he hasn't proven he has any legitimate sources when it comes to the sport he covers.
