My take on "Sources"

[joeywa]

I posted this over on OB, but I feel it bears repeating here after reading some of the comments on this board.

Funny thing about situations like this; sources are often correct at the time that the information is passed along, BUT sometimes game plans change due to circumstances that are well out of the control of both the sources and the reporting entities. It doesn't mean that the sources suck or that they were feeding misinformation. It merely means that circumstances change.

There are so many posters that are overlooking this and attacking the validity of sources and those providing information. It's not just here, it's on most of the sites.

When reporters, and we will use Chip in this instance, are putting their rep on the line, they don't just get info from a single source. They get it verified from several. I believe Chip got info from several sources, and that info was verified by several sources, likely some that didn't know that other sources had provided the same info. I don't think Chip just ran with what one source told him, nor do I think that Chip had to piece together very much info to come to his final report. I think he was getting almost the same story from multiple sources.

I'd just like to see people use some common sense when it comes to this stuff. It was a done deal, then things changed. Whether because of Mack's pride/ego/stubbornness or whether it was a timing thing, they changed. The messenger, (Chip,) did his job.

Feel free to change the names of the reporters in this story to McPhaul, Jesus, Burton, Suchomel, whoever. The story fits all of them.

 

[JimR]

I agree, JW. Chip is a professional journalist with a journalist's standards and ethics. When he ran with that story, it was not mere rumor. That MB flip-flopped on a prior agreement should come a no surprise to anyone. See Muschamp, Will, aka HCIW.

 

[sumyungfewl]

joey I agree with you

 

[PTA]

People will attempt to tar and feather "insiders" and journalist that report information/rumor that does not come to fruition. Yet, most of us sit on pins and needles with bated breath for each word they type then go on to dissect and analyze what the outcome could be. Because we do take it as Gospel, right? (sarcasm) I've enjoyed the ride so far...not totally fond of the current outcome...hope something positive comes out of all this. Still holding out hop that MB steps aside for the improvement of UT football.

 

[Chitownhorn]

I posted this over on OB, but I feel it bears repeating here after reading some of the comments on this board.
Funny thing about situations like this; sources are often correct at the time that the information is passed along, BUT sometimes game plans change due to circumstances that are well out of the control of both the sources and the reporting entities. It doesn't mean that the sources suck or that they were feeding misinformation. It merely means that circumstances change.

There are so many posters that are overlooking this and attacking the validity of sources and those providing information. It's not just here, it's on most of the sites.

When reporters, and we will use Chip in this instance, are putting their rep on the line, they don't just get info from a single source. They get it verified from several. I believe Chip got info from several sources, and that info was verified by several sources, likely some that didn't know that other sources had provided the same info. I don't think Chip just ran with what one source told him, nor do I think that Chip had to piece together very much info to come to his final report. I think he was getting almost the same story from multiple sources.

I'd just like to see people use some common sense when it comes to this stuff. It was a done deal, then things changed. Whether because of Mack's pride/ego/stubbornness or whether it was a timing thing, they changed. The messenger, (Chip,) did his job.

Feel free to change the names of the reporters in this story to McPhaul, Jesus, Burton, Suchomel, whoever. The story fits all of them.

I agree 100% with this. My frustration is not with the reporting or sources it's with the outcome, well the outcome at this point in time.

 

[edw339]

Well stated Joeywa. I couldn't agree more. No one involved in the reporting process (all the names you listed) is having a very nice Saturday. I imagine they are really stressed and worried at this point. I may be in the minority, but I will not think any less of them regardless of how this turns out. They are right more than they are wrong and when they are wrong, it usually involves some pretty bizarre stuff changing at the last minute. In this case, nothing is certain. The only thing that happened last night was that an concerted effort was made to make it appear that Mack has all of the decision in his hands. That may be true, but more likely, it is designed for appearances. The original agreement was that he would get to go out under his own steam as long as he went out. We know that he didn't get the timing to do that. Why would it not follow that they are repairing the parameters just enough to achieve the original goal? In other words, they have to convince people that Mack is coming back before they can convince people that he decided on his own to retire. I do not know it to be true, I am simply stating that nothing came out last night that makes me think this isn't going on the way I suspect. Not yet anyway.

 

[Lukus Alderman]

Well said.

 

[Jettrink]

A voice of reason amidst a sea of despare.

 

[DizzG]

Agree with this. Be pissed at the situation and if mack stays but not the people who just share that they hear. Pointless to take it out on Mcphaul, JS etc. Those people just report what is being said confirmed through multiple channels. Shit changes and sometimes doesn't go to plan

 

[Topstarr]

I posted this over on OB, but I feel it bears repeating here after reading some of the comments on this board.
Funny thing about situations like this; sources are often correct at the time that the information is passed along, BUT sometimes game plans change due to circumstances that are well out of the control of both the sources and the reporting entities. It doesn't mean that the sources suck or that they were feeding misinformation. It merely means that circumstances change.

There are so many posters that are overlooking this and attacking the validity of sources and those providing information. It's not just here, it's on most of the sites.

When reporters, and we will use Chip in this instance, are putting their rep on the line, they don't just get info from a single source. They get it verified from several. I believe Chip got info from several sources, and that info was verified by several sources, likely some that didn't know that other sources had provided the same info. I don't think Chip just ran with what one source told him, nor do I think that Chip had to piece together very much info to come to his final report. I think he was getting almost the same story from multiple sources.

I'd just like to see people use some common sense when it comes to this stuff. It was a done deal, then things changed. Whether because of Mack's pride/ego/stubbornness or whether it was a timing thing, they changed. The messenger, (Chip,) did his job.

Feel free to change the names of the reporters in this story to McPhaul, Jesus, Burton, Suchomel, whoever. The story fits all of them.

Mack is the devil in the details.

 

[Texas74]

Agree 100%. Now let's hope for a good ending to this story

 

[Randolph Duke]

What makes a good reporter isn't the ability to cultivate "sources" but rather the ability to judge the credibility of sources. On this, the "insiders" dropped the ball. Not one of them correctly read what was happening and spoke to what we now see as the endgame. None of them have a clue where the program is going next. None of them have a clue what is happening among a group of people whose every move they purported to know just 24 hours ago. It would be interesting if their "sources" could offer some insight or reaction, but instead, we get crickets. Reporters don't drop a story and deliver nothing, they continue to report.

 

[uttailgaters]

In this age of information, it would be wise of all consumers to sharpen their skills when it comes to disgesting, scrutinizing, and ultimately understanding said information.

If I see another "OMG SO AND SO SAID THIS! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" post or tweet I am going to lose it.

Question all sources, and think about the why's instead of just the what's.

 

[CardSID]

Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see.

 

[SonnofBigg]

I agree 100%. Like I said in my first post, all insiders are reporting what they've been told. Nothing more.

You are correct. They can verify the information to the best of their ability, but no one knows until they know. Things do change.

I hope they all continue to report what they hear.