Guest Vern Gagne Posted July 20, 2003 Report Posted July 20, 2003 When ESPN has to say sources are telling our John Clayton or Peter Gammons that so and so has been traded or signed. Another one is John Clayton is reporting the Saints have signed so and so player. Why is it necessary to include the name of the reporter? What is wrong with just saying the Saints have signed their first round pick, instead of this ego trip for some reporter.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted July 20, 2003 Report Posted July 20, 2003 Makes it sound more important -- like ESPN reporters get the "scoop" or somthing. It happens in the news media, too. I love publications that use the word "exclusive" when taking excerpts from books written by their own reporters. Like it was so freakin' hard for that publication to track down the story...
Guest phoenixrising Posted July 20, 2003 Report Posted July 20, 2003 I think they believe that naming the source has more credibility than just "unidentified sources". Naming sources usually means something is going down, stories with unidentified sources usually seem to be rumors.
Guest bravesfan Posted July 20, 2003 Report Posted July 20, 2003 Clayton, Gammons, Katz and the like are credited journalists and reporters - therefore, it's much more comforting (and concrete) to a viewer if it says - "John Clayton reports...." than "Sources report..." *or* "WKRP-Cincinnati reports"....
Guest Choken One Posted July 20, 2003 Report Posted July 20, 2003 If a Respected and Credible Journalist I.E Gammons/Clayton tag their name to the report then that means to the fans the source must be pretty accurate being that No respectable credible Journalist would put their name to something like that... It's an credibility issue. Not a EGO stroke.
Guest The Czech Republic Posted July 20, 2003 Report Posted July 20, 2003 "WKRP-Cincinnati reports".... as God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now