• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Yahoo, Tattoos, and tOSU (1-year bowl ban, 82 scholly limit for 3 years)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
3074326;1884857; said:
This isn't even a response to what I said.

If the story is based on a lousy source, no evidence and OSU didn't have a chance to respond, it would be awful reporting and Yahoo would take a huge credibility hit. Why would they do this? It just doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Why would they do it? Just look at the buzz that it has generated already, and I think that you can answer your own question pretty easily. With one unsubstantiated allegation, the Yahoos have effectively branded Ohio State as a "dirty" program - that's big time, a journalistic home run! They just manufactured some news, generated some web hits, made some money - even if it turns out to be untrue, so what? There will be plenty more "news" to sell between now and the "credibility hit".

3074326;1884857; said:
I've already said I'd be surprised if Yahoo didn't have evidence, and OSU had three hours to respond. I've said plenty about unnamed sources, and whether or not we think the journalist should've showed "integrity" and not ran the story is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if the Yahoos did have evidence. Why? Because they didn't present any. And they didn't even say that they had any evidence in their possession, like tapes or emails. I've already addressed the ridiculous three hours to respond argument.

You are right about one thing - journalistic integrity is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1884874; said:
Why would they do it? Just look at the buzz that it has generated already, and I think that you can answer your own question pretty easily. With one unsubstantiated allegation, the Yahoos have effectively branded Ohio State as a "dirty" program - that's big time, a journalistic home run! They just manufactured some news, generated some web hits, made some money - even if it turns out to be untrue, so what? There will be plenty more "news" to sell between now and the "credibility hit".


I'd be surprised if the Yahoos did have evidence. Why? Because they didn't present any. And they didn't even say that they had any evidence in their possession, like tapes or emails. I've already addressed the ridiculous three hours to respond argument.

You are right about one thing - journalistic integrity is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'll just end our debate by saying I sincerely hope you're right.

I still stand by all of my opinions, however.
 
Upvote 0
Yahoo is too confident in their story. Could this all be smoke and mirrors to scare Ohio State into admitting wrongdoing? Kind of like a bluff... which hey, if it is and it works, still means OSU/Tressel f'd up..
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705;1884869; said:
I'm about to go there...

People who are inclined to believe the Yahoo story would say the same thing goes for Coach Tressel.
Click to expand...

This is true....there's still a lot of ground to be covered....their story, even if it is just a teaser, has limited new material and an accusation based on anonymous sources.
 
Upvote 0
3074326;1884875; said:
I'll just end our debate by saying I sincerely hope you're right.

I still stand by all of my opinions, however.
Click to expand...
I'm not speculating on the truth of the allegations, and I hope that the facts come out, one way or the other. All I am saying is that Yahoo ran the story in an irresponsible fashion ... but that unfortunately has become the norm in the neverending news cycle.
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1884863;[B said:
]Three hours? Do you honestly think that three hours is enough time to formulate a proper response[/B], given all of the people who have to be notified and provide their input, including the Ohio State legal team? The Yahoos were apparently investigating the story for two months, yet they give Ohio State three hours to respond. I'm just glad that public prosecutors aren't allowed to operate on such patently unfair terms.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Very classless move by Yahoo imho. Just that move alone makes them lose credibility in my book.

:osu:
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1884878; said:
I'm not speculating on the truth of the allegations, and I hope that the facts come out, one way or the other. All I am saying is that Yahoo ran the story in an irresponsible fashion ... but that unfortunately has become the norm in the neverending news cycle.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Neither of us would have done it the way it was done, but like we've both said.. that doesn't matter since Yahoo held the opposing opinion.

I think I'm probably in agreement with everyone.. I'm just a little defensive of journalists sometimes. Blame the editors! :pissed:

:tongue2:
 
Upvote 0
OH10;1884876; said:
Yahoo is too confident in their story. Could this all be smoke and mirrors to scare Ohio State into admitting wrongdoing? Kind of like a bluff... which hey, if it is and it works, still means OSU/Tressel f'd up..
Click to expand...


They can't scare you into admitting something if you didn't actually do anything. You aren't going to trip yourself up with an unequivocal denial of a baseless accusation unless, well there is something to the accusation.

A) you either did know about it before 12/8/10 or B) you did not know about it before 12/8/10.

Count me as one who wonders why it takes so long to craft a response to an A or B question. Time to get the story straight seems the most likely answer.
 
Upvote 0
I'm with LJB on this.

At the end of the day, journalism, particularly web-based journalism, is just a business. Yahoo may be well respected, but let's think about this. If they had proof, why not present it now? What they have is a "source". As long as they have that-- no matter who the source actually is, they aren't lying. They are reporting what they have been told. If effect, Yahoo gets this huge traffic boost, and will suffer no consequences if it turns out to be bologna. Reputation? Hah! Any "hit" they take will be forgotten within a month.

I have faith in JT, he wouldn't do this.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck;1884882; said:
They can't scare you into admitting something if you didn't actually do anything. You aren't going to trip yourself up with an unequivocal denial of a baseless accusation unless, well there is something to the accusation.

A) you either did know about it before 12/8/10 or B) you did not know about it before 12/8/10.

Count me as one who wonders why it takes so long to craft a response to an A or B question. Time to get the story straight seems the most likely answer.
Click to expand...

Well stated....it all comes down to that date...lets see who the source is. We have overcome media slaughter before....unfortunately we have creeps like Hooley and Livingston in Ohio that want to perpetuate this crap as well as the National guys.
 
Upvote 0
Jaxbuck;1884882; said:
Count me as one who wonders why it takes so long to craft a response to an A or B question. Time to get the story straight seems the most likely answer.
Click to expand...

Maybe they need the time to remove all of the ill-advised jokes about installing a tattoo parlor in the WHAC from Gene Smith's statement.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top