Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
Name your source and people will back off. Shepard was writhing in pain and was back at practice 4 days later without a problem...
Ankle was the low ankle variety. Beckhams is the high variety, with unknown severity... per Dr Chao, whom does know his stuff. He said if ODB was really sore the next day, that will be the indicator to the severity. He was.
That said, I think they will play it safe and not push something that could reoccur during the year, if they don't play it safe now. I'm hoping for the season opener but wouldn't be surprised if he stays off it for two weeks and then it takes him two more to slowly build back up.
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
It's important for BBI to remember that beat writers such as yourself can see Shepard supposedly shed tears from 120+ yards away and that the Giants are required to file all contracts with you as well as the league. And that it's perfectly acceptable to voice an opinion on the radio and acknowledge that there are no sources behind it, but then claim in writing an hour or two later that "sources say..."
Maybe stop being a clickbait hack and people will stop treating you like one.
And if speculation based on Chao is considered a "source," I'm really struggling to understand how the hack's article can possibly pass as a piece of journalism.
And if Beckham will miss week one and the interpretation of Chao is the reason behind the article... Then just say so, so we can kill that shit stick too.
Did Raanan write an article saying this, or ESPN posted a blog entry "quoting" him "quoting" an unnamed source? And, did something change in the 4 hours between the radio spot and the posting?
It's not ludicrous to think Week 1 could be a question mark at this time. It's quite another to report it as a possibility as laid out by team personnel.
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
Because there is zero you add to the statement other than that "he might miss week 1 or more." No concrete info on the injury he sustained along with historical examples of players being out for the time you suggested with a similar injury. No statements from people close to the situation. Literally NOTHING other than an unsupported possibility that I can only assume you came up with because he had an MRI.
We view it as not reporting and merely click bait because he has been walking around without a boot (I heard that right after the injury they didnt wven wrap it) and is "only sore." Yet you throw out a lead about him missing games and provide no specific evidence to support your opinion.
You have been on this site before and you know how the crowd is. While "reporting", as it has tradionally been known, has morphed into something very different, this was a classic example of "juicy lead + no substance = you'll click anyway."
That pisses us off. That may be the way they want things reported at the world wide leader and I congratulate you on your success. But coming here to defwnd that drivel is pretty damn provocative. Much like your overt criticism of Reese's picks in the past.
If someone in the front office, for example, told him this information, then (1) it's something I'd want to know; and (2) it's a legitimate source, and he doesn't owe it to you to reveal the person's name.
If someone in the front office, for example, told him this information, then (1) it's something I'd want to know; and (2) it's a legitimate source, and he doesn't owe it to you to reveal the person's name.
my issue is why go on a radio spot 4 hours earlier and say he didnt have sources on it and said the exact same thing...
RE: RE: You guys are overreacting and being juvenile.
If someone in the front office, for example, told him this information, then (1) it's something I'd want to know; and (2) it's a legitimate source, and he doesn't owe it to you to reveal the person's name.
my issue is why go on a radio spot 4 hours earlier and say he didnt have sources on it and said the exact same thing...
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
sorry, reporting as obj missing even "possibly" 2 weeks beforehand of season opener, is bad reporting..How does anyone know 2 weeks later the ankle will not be healed enough to play? It's just trying to generate clicks for your journalism..i know that's how it works in that business..just not good imo putting it out there now..if you said it the week of game then it may seem possible..js
RE: RE: RE: You guys are overreacting and being juvenile.
In comment 13571183 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
In comment 13571171 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
In comment 13571166 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
If someone in the front office, for example, told him this information, then (1) it's something I'd want to know; and (2) it's a legitimate source, and he doesn't owe it to you to reveal the person's name.
my issue is why go on a radio spot 4 hours earlier and say he didnt have sources on it and said the exact same thing...
Umm, maybe he had a subsequent conversation?
it is the definition of click bait, you and me could of wrote that and claimed sources...
all he says is he "may" miss openeer, of course he might until he is back on the practice field he might miss the game, there are no sources for that
It is August 24th. Giants play in Week 1 on Sept 10th.
How can anyone site sources that not only could Beckham miss Week 1, but he could miss Week 2?
Siting sources that someone "could" miss one or two games is extremely lame and lazy journalism. No wonder people have lost respect for journalists. There is no integrity and they hide behind sources (I get the reason why), but they always just move onto the next "sourced" story when the previous one is found to be untrue or made up.
Jordan must have the same sources as his fellow ESPNer in Chris Mortensen when Eli hurt is shoulder in Week 1 of 2007. Mort said Eli will miss at least a month with his shoulder injury. Eli was back under center in Week 2 and every other game on the way to the Super Bowl. Link - ( New Window )
is that reporters report what they know - and then news develops.
If someone who they believe is in the know gives them information and requests anonymity - what would you have them do? ignore it.
Like it or not Beckham is news -- and whether Jordan's source is right or not is the issue here -- not whether he should report it or not.
We all want Beckham to be okay - but the truth is that you (no one who posts here) don't know how badly injured he is - you are basing all your opinions on what you are hearing being reported.
There is no reason to bash someone for reporting news scraps about it. You're mad because of the way it was written? Yeesh!
is that reporters report what they know - and then news develops.
If someone who they believe is in the know gives them information and requests anonymity - what would you have them do? ignore it.
Like it or not Beckham is news -- and whether Jordan's source is right or not is the issue here -- not whether he should report it or not.
We all want Beckham to be okay - but the truth is that you (no one who posts here) don't know how badly injured he is - you are basing all your opinions on what you are hearing being reported.
There is no reason to bash someone for reporting news scraps about it. You're mad because of the way it was written? Yeesh!
it is click-bait, you dont need a source to tell you he may miss week 1, every single person on this site could of wrote that...
until he practices of course he "could" miss week 1, but claiming sources come on ranaan is better than that...
i like ranaan i think he is a very good writer, i didnt think he would stoop to graziano level and write something just to generate clicks...
talk in 50-50's scare the fans so they click your link and if he plays you say he healed up in time and of he doesnt play he can say i told you so. either way you cant claim he was wrong
is that reporters report what they know - and then news develops.
If someone who they believe is in the know gives them information and requests anonymity - what would you have them do? ignore it.
Like it or not Beckham is news -- and whether Jordan's source is right or not is the issue here -- not whether he should report it or not.
We all want Beckham to be okay - but the truth is that you (no one who posts here) don't know how badly injured he is - you are basing all your opinions on what you are hearing being reported.
There is no reason to bash someone for reporting news scraps about it. You're mad because of the way it was written? Yeesh!
it is click-bait, you dont need a source to tell you he may miss week 1, every single person on this site could of wrote that...
until he practices of course he "could" miss week 1, but claiming sources come on ranaan is better than that...
i like ranaan i think he is a very good writer, i didnt think he would stoop to graziano level and write something just to generate clicks...
This is the Headline: Sources: Ankle injury could sideline Giants' Odell Beckham Jr. for opener vs. Cowboys.
It doesn't say he will, it says he could - I'm sorry that's news -- it's a great headline -- it's interesting. Stop the madness!!!!
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
NOW if a "source" said "Odell has a torn ligament not a sprain"
then that's news or info ..than the obvious of he "may miss the opener 2 weeks away"..plus even Odell doesn't know 2 weeks out if he'll be sidelined...yeesh..its bad journalism tactic for clicks now
RE: ESPN reporting is now like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC
crap, sensationalism, and all about getting clicks. The truth be dammed.
Patterson Plank -- you are generally a reasonable poster. I don't get what you are so irate about here. Even McAdoo said we'll see how he responds to treatment -- there are no definites here. All these guys are doing is saying "could" -- it's news.
then that's news or info ..than the obvious of he "may miss the opener 2 weeks away"..plus even Odell doesn't know 2 weeks out if he'll be sidelined...yeesh..its bad journalism tactic for clicks now
This is the Headline: Sources: Ankle injury could sideline Giants' Odell Beckham Jr. for opener vs. Cowboys.
Why do you need sources for that? The statement is so vague that it really isn't doing anything but trying to grab attention.
Now if it said: Source: Beckham has Mid-Grade Ankle Sprain, Will Miss 4-6 weeks that's a headline. Using generalities and words like "could" is the equivalent of giving readers nothing. They lap it up anyway, which is why it is done, but it isn't really journalism - it is just an attention grab
Any of us could have come up with the assumption that Beckham COULD miss a game. But shouldn't we expect a reporter with sources to give us specifics?
I'm sure you'd be fine with a weatherman saying "it could rain today or could be sunny. Enjoy!"
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
because it is click bait, he didnt have to write an article about it and post a headline acting like he had some source telling him what the injury was...
he wrote it for the sole purpose of gaining clicks, that is my point...when i say anyone could of wrote it i mean there is no source needed, he wrote it that way so peopke would think he has some source...
just like when a signing goes down and a reporter 20 minutes later writes sources confirm, it is bs...
RE: RE: ESPN reporting is now like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC
crap, sensationalism, and all about getting clicks. The truth be dammed.
Patterson Plank -- you are generally a reasonable poster. I don't get what you are so irate about here. Even McAdoo said we'll see how he responds to treatment -- there are no definites here. All these guys are doing is saying "could" -- it's news.
Its the thing in its entirety that is getting to me. I saw Graziano on some ESPN fantasy show last night, and he was going on and on about Beckham missing games. Then he gets "lauded" for quality reporting. It sounded just like Wolf Blitzer to me on CNN when someone comes on with complete crap, and he ends it with "Great reporting". Odell says he will play, the Giants say its just a twisted ankle, he was walking around with nothing on his ankle in the 2nd half, and there is 3 weeks to go.
IMO they are stretching the truth to make a story. Now if we are on September 8th and we hear the Odell still isn't cleared then I'd be fine with this. But now, its no more than a guess to create clicks.
everything about Beckham is news and people want to read about it. If I'm a reporter, and someone who's information I think places weight on a speculation, and they are a source because they don't want to be identified -- then I'm reporting it.
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
everything about Beckham is news and people want to read about it. If I'm a reporter, and someone who's information I think places weight on a speculation, and they are a source because they don't want to be identified -- then I'm reporting it.
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
gidi another thing, not even 3 hours before that was written ranaan said that mcadoo was being secretive amd that is why he thought it was worsr no sources...
then he was asked will beckham play week 1, he said he thinks so, and that he has no sources and it was just a guess
Of new information, however I don't see the need for people to be nasty about it, I know, "thin skin thin skin". There is absolutely no reason to be personal about an article. Sometimes I think it's a being rude and downright mean is a prerequisite for this place.
The Golden rule around here seems to be, "if you say something I deem stupid, I get to treat you like trash".
Perhaps instead of insulting someone who made comments deemed stupid, that post or comment could be ignored (which is against personal pride), or attempt to educate the person on why their comments are off base.
that people want to read it. I'm complaining that the Art of Journalism no longer exists.
There's also a subtle difference here - people will read whatever news is about Beckham, but should that be the impetus for spreading "news" that isn't educating the reader or providing them any insight? If you take that stance, then pretty much reporting anything constitutes a good job and serving the public's wants.
Raanan didn't make anything up because he didn't provide anything to refute. Once he used the word "could" that shirked any responsibility he has to be tied to the validity of the reporting.
Like I said, if he wrote "Source: Beckham with High Ankle Sprain. First 4 games of season in doubt" Even then - he uses a term like "doubt", but he's at least provided a specific injury and a timetable of games missed.
i think ranaan is a good writer, good reporter, just took me back he would write something like this with graziano of all people...
and the whole retweeting doctors on the internet is also a little much if you ask me, but he was the one making a living writing about sports and i am just a nobody on a message board so who am i to judge...
I understand that -- in fact I talked with a number of the Journalists on the beat about this at Camp -- and had a nice chat especially with Dan Duggan.
The beats in general certainly have a different perspective than most of our readers would like - as they are a lot of times trying to gain readership for their respective bosses. I'm afraid that there is an element of capitalism involved in all this -- they all have to have their bills paid.
then that's news or info ..than the obvious of he "may miss the opener 2 weeks away"..plus even Odell doesn't know 2 weeks out if he'll be sidelined...yeesh..its bad journalism tactic for clicks now
It's not news because it's obvious? Holy Moly!
yes..i guess you don't get the jist of it as other in other words stated as well.
Old people tend to forget that online publications require new content all day long. So now you have "articles" which are merely a few statements based off of a few quotes that are really blog post updates.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
Old people tend to forget that online publications require new content all day long. So now you have "articles" which are merely a few statements based off of a few quotes that are really blog post updates.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
that has nothing to do with it...
he could of wrote the exact same article and didnt write it like it was a source and there would be no problem...
if beckham plays against cowboys do you say ph ranaan was wrong?
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
How about "OBJ could play in opener despite ankle sprain"? It's still the same bs IMO with the "could" but taking the positive approach doesn't get clicks.
Anything could happen, and I agree with most here, source or not, the headline is click bait. The article offers nothing concrete and does nothing for me except regret for clicking on it.
It's important for BBI to remember that beat writers such as yourself can see Shepard supposedly shed tears from 120+ yards
^^^
This.
This is far more damaging than how the OBJ's opening-game status was reported/surmised/discussed. This reporting, if true, is pure imagination, or utter fabrication.
And because of this, then of course reasonable readers will FOREVER question whether any "sources" this reporter EVER cites really exist, or whether it's just another one of his imagination/fabrication.
Couple years ago, an ID here ("Rich_Houston_Giants_WR_1972" or something like that) claimed he just attended a Giants road game, and sat on the 1st row behind the team's bench, and overheard many conversations among the players, mostly echoing the sentiments that had been recently expressed here in BBI ("our team are getting old", "so-and-so player can't play; should replace him with so-and-so", and so on). His thread was first met with great positive responses, until someone declared that he didn't believe a word of it, that no way one could hear players talk in a noisy stadium even from where he claimed to be sitting, and even more unbelievably, the players just happened to echo opinions being voiced here at BBI. He demanded Rich Houston to show his game ticket, or any other evidence, that he was even in the stadium for that road game ...
This "I saw Sterling Shepard shedding tears" reporting while standing 120 yards away, if true, is in the same nature as Rich Houston's story.
This is stupid. The only news on Beckham that matters
Quote:
In comment 13570266 scrimmage said:
Quote:
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
Jordan, don't worry about it.
Quote:
In comment 13570266 scrimmage said:
Quote:
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
Name your source and people will back off. Shepard was writhing in pain and was back at practice 4 days later without a problem...
That said, I think they will play it safe and not push something that could reoccur during the year, if they don't play it safe now. I'm hoping for the season opener but wouldn't be surprised if he stays off it for two weeks and then it takes him two more to slowly build back up.
Quote:
In comment 13570266 scrimmage said:
Quote:
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
It's important for BBI to remember that beat writers such as yourself can see Shepard supposedly shed tears from 120+ yards away and that the Giants are required to file all contracts with you as well as the league. And that it's perfectly acceptable to voice an opinion on the radio and acknowledge that there are no sources behind it, but then claim in writing an hour or two later that "sources say..."
Maybe stop being a clickbait hack and people will stop treating you like one.
And if Beckham will miss week one and the interpretation of Chao is the reason behind the article... Then just say so, so we can kill that shit stick too.
It's not ludicrous to think Week 1 could be a question mark at this time. It's quite another to report it as a possibility as laid out by team personnel.
It's sports, not a subpoena to appear at a senate hearing.
Quote:
In comment 13570266 scrimmage said:
Quote:
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
Because there is zero you add to the statement other than that "he might miss week 1 or more." No concrete info on the injury he sustained along with historical examples of players being out for the time you suggested with a similar injury. No statements from people close to the situation. Literally NOTHING other than an unsupported possibility that I can only assume you came up with because he had an MRI.
We view it as not reporting and merely click bait because he has been walking around without a boot (I heard that right after the injury they didnt wven wrap it) and is "only sore." Yet you throw out a lead about him missing games and provide no specific evidence to support your opinion.
You have been on this site before and you know how the crowd is. While "reporting", as it has tradionally been known, has morphed into something very different, this was a classic example of "juicy lead + no substance = you'll click anyway."
That pisses us off. That may be the way they want things reported at the world wide leader and I congratulate you on your success. But coming here to defwnd that drivel is pretty damn provocative. Much like your overt criticism of Reese's picks in the past.
Sorry dude, but your article was lame sauce.
my issue is why go on a radio spot 4 hours earlier and say he didnt have sources on it and said the exact same thing...
Quote:
If someone in the front office, for example, told him this information, then (1) it's something I'd want to know; and (2) it's a legitimate source, and he doesn't owe it to you to reveal the person's name.
my issue is why go on a radio spot 4 hours earlier and say he didnt have sources on it and said the exact same thing...
Quote:
In comment 13570266 scrimmage said:
Quote:
Raanan has turned into a sensationalist hack after joining ESPN. Sad because he used to be one of my favorite reporters.
Yup - basically ESPN gets to throw his name on a bunch of their hyped-up stories and he gets to play along.
Not journalism. Not even close
Wait, reporting that the injury is a bit more serious than a rolled ankle and that Week 1 is now possibly in doubt is not journalism? As a Giants fan you don't want to know that? It's not pertinent information?
I'm having trouble finding how so many people have a problem with this.
sorry, reporting as obj missing even "possibly" 2 weeks beforehand of season opener, is bad reporting..How does anyone know 2 weeks later the ankle will not be healed enough to play? It's just trying to generate clicks for your journalism..i know that's how it works in that business..just not good imo putting it out there now..if you said it the week of game then it may seem possible..js
Quote:
In comment 13571166 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
If someone in the front office, for example, told him this information, then (1) it's something I'd want to know; and (2) it's a legitimate source, and he doesn't owe it to you to reveal the person's name.
my issue is why go on a radio spot 4 hours earlier and say he didnt have sources on it and said the exact same thing...
Umm, maybe he had a subsequent conversation?
it is the definition of click bait, you and me could of wrote that and claimed sources...
all he says is he "may" miss openeer, of course he might until he is back on the practice field he might miss the game, there are no sources for that
How can anyone site sources that not only could Beckham miss Week 1, but he could miss Week 2?
Siting sources that someone "could" miss one or two games is extremely lame and lazy journalism. No wonder people have lost respect for journalists. There is no integrity and they hide behind sources (I get the reason why), but they always just move onto the next "sourced" story when the previous one is found to be untrue or made up.
Jordan must have the same sources as his fellow ESPNer in Chris Mortensen when Eli hurt is shoulder in Week 1 of 2007. Mort said Eli will miss at least a month with his shoulder injury. Eli was back under center in Week 2 and every other game on the way to the Super Bowl.
Link - ( New Window )
If someone who they believe is in the know gives them information and requests anonymity - what would you have them do? ignore it.
Like it or not Beckham is news -- and whether Jordan's source is right or not is the issue here -- not whether he should report it or not.
We all want Beckham to be okay - but the truth is that you (no one who posts here) don't know how badly injured he is - you are basing all your opinions on what you are hearing being reported.
There is no reason to bash someone for reporting news scraps about it. You're mad because of the way it was written? Yeesh!
:)
If someone who they believe is in the know gives them information and requests anonymity - what would you have them do? ignore it.
Like it or not Beckham is news -- and whether Jordan's source is right or not is the issue here -- not whether he should report it or not.
We all want Beckham to be okay - but the truth is that you (no one who posts here) don't know how badly injured he is - you are basing all your opinions on what you are hearing being reported.
There is no reason to bash someone for reporting news scraps about it. You're mad because of the way it was written? Yeesh!
it is click-bait, you dont need a source to tell you he may miss week 1, every single person on this site could of wrote that...
until he practices of course he "could" miss week 1, but claiming sources come on ranaan is better than that...
i like ranaan i think he is a very good writer, i didnt think he would stoop to graziano level and write something just to generate clicks...
Quote:
is that reporters report what they know - and then news develops.
If someone who they believe is in the know gives them information and requests anonymity - what would you have them do? ignore it.
Like it or not Beckham is news -- and whether Jordan's source is right or not is the issue here -- not whether he should report it or not.
We all want Beckham to be okay - but the truth is that you (no one who posts here) don't know how badly injured he is - you are basing all your opinions on what you are hearing being reported.
There is no reason to bash someone for reporting news scraps about it. You're mad because of the way it was written? Yeesh!
it is click-bait, you dont need a source to tell you he may miss week 1, every single person on this site could of wrote that...
until he practices of course he "could" miss week 1, but claiming sources come on ranaan is better than that...
i like ranaan i think he is a very good writer, i didnt think he would stoop to graziano level and write something just to generate clicks...
This is the Headline: Sources: Ankle injury could sideline Giants' Odell Beckham Jr. for opener vs. Cowboys.
It doesn't say he will, it says he could - I'm sorry that's news -- it's a great headline -- it's interesting. Stop the madness!!!!
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
Patterson Plank -- you are generally a reasonable poster. I don't get what you are so irate about here. Even McAdoo said we'll see how he responds to treatment -- there are no definites here. All these guys are doing is saying "could" -- it's news.
It's not news because it's obvious? Holy Moly!
Why do you need sources for that? The statement is so vague that it really isn't doing anything but trying to grab attention.
Now if it said: Source: Beckham has Mid-Grade Ankle Sprain, Will Miss 4-6 weeks that's a headline. Using generalities and words like "could" is the equivalent of giving readers nothing. They lap it up anyway, which is why it is done, but it isn't really journalism - it is just an attention grab
Any of us could have come up with the assumption that Beckham COULD miss a game. But shouldn't we expect a reporter with sources to give us specifics?
I'm sure you'd be fine with a weatherman saying "it could rain today or could be sunny. Enjoy!"
Quote:
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
because it is click bait, he didnt have to write an article about it and post a headline acting like he had some source telling him what the injury was...
he wrote it for the sole purpose of gaining clicks, that is my point...when i say anyone could of wrote it i mean there is no source needed, he wrote it that way so peopke would think he has some source...
just like when a signing goes down and a reporter 20 minutes later writes sources confirm, it is bs...
Quote:
crap, sensationalism, and all about getting clicks. The truth be dammed.
Patterson Plank -- you are generally a reasonable poster. I don't get what you are so irate about here. Even McAdoo said we'll see how he responds to treatment -- there are no definites here. All these guys are doing is saying "could" -- it's news.
Its the thing in its entirety that is getting to me. I saw Graziano on some ESPN fantasy show last night, and he was going on and on about Beckham missing games. Then he gets "lauded" for quality reporting. It sounded just like Wolf Blitzer to me on CNN when someone comes on with complete crap, and he ends it with "Great reporting". Odell says he will play, the Giants say its just a twisted ankle, he was walking around with nothing on his ankle in the 2nd half, and there is 3 weeks to go.
IMO they are stretching the truth to make a story. Now if we are on September 8th and we hear the Odell still isn't cleared then I'd be fine with this. But now, its no more than a guess to create clicks.
Hell, I 'could' run into Blake Lively tonight.
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
If you're complaining about it because people want to read it - then I really am flabbergasted.
Now if it is just being made up -- and there is no credible source -- or they are just using their interpretation of what has already been publically said - for instance by someone like McAdoo -- then that goes to the integrity of the Journalist
gidi another thing, not even 3 hours before that was written ranaan said that mcadoo was being secretive amd that is why he thought it was worsr no sources...
then he was asked will beckham play week 1, he said he thinks so, and that he has no sources and it was just a guess
The Golden rule around here seems to be, "if you say something I deem stupid, I get to treat you like trash".
Perhaps instead of insulting someone who made comments deemed stupid, that post or comment could be ignored (which is against personal pride), or attempt to educate the person on why their comments are off base.
There's also a subtle difference here - people will read whatever news is about Beckham, but should that be the impetus for spreading "news" that isn't educating the reader or providing them any insight? If you take that stance, then pretty much reporting anything constitutes a good job and serving the public's wants.
Raanan didn't make anything up because he didn't provide anything to refute. Once he used the word "could" that shirked any responsibility he has to be tied to the validity of the reporting.
Like I said, if he wrote "Source: Beckham with High Ankle Sprain. First 4 games of season in doubt" Even then - he uses a term like "doubt", but he's at least provided a specific injury and a timetable of games missed.
What does - "He could miss the opener" even mean.
'Could' is just so damn vague. There was no meat to the article.
and the whole retweeting doctors on the internet is also a little much if you ask me, but he was the one making a living writing about sports and i am just a nobody on a message board so who am i to judge...
'Could' is just so damn vague. There was no meat to the article.
Sf, I'm not sure why you thought I was including you
The beats in general certainly have a different perspective than most of our readers would like - as they are a lot of times trying to gain readership for their respective bosses. I'm afraid that there is an element of capitalism involved in all this -- they all have to have their bills paid.
Man bites dog is still the golden rule for them.
Even better, have Flowers give him a noogie messing up his hair and throw him in a locker.
Quote:
then that's news or info ..than the obvious of he "may miss the opener 2 weeks away"..plus even Odell doesn't know 2 weeks out if he'll be sidelined...yeesh..its bad journalism tactic for clicks now
It's not news because it's obvious? Holy Moly!
yes..i guess you don't get the jist of it as other in other words stated as well.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
People need to chill.
Writers need to constantly be writing stuff and you get smaller tidbits now throughout the day.
Internet publications changed things years ago. Catch up.
that has nothing to do with it...
he could of wrote the exact same article and didnt write it like it was a source and there would be no problem...
if beckham plays against cowboys do you say ph ranaan was wrong?
What does - "He could miss the opener" even mean. [/quote]
It means he may not play Week 1. I agree with gidiefor, there is no reason to bash him or say this isn't journalism.
Quote:
of course he could, until he practices of course he could miss the opener...
Thia officially makes your comments ridiculous -- if you agree that it may be true, then what's the problem? Really you are making very little sense here. Move on
How about "OBJ could play in opener despite ankle sprain"? It's still the same bs IMO with the "could" but taking the positive approach doesn't get clicks.
Anything could happen, and I agree with most here, source or not, the headline is click bait. The article offers nothing concrete and does nothing for me except regret for clicking on it.
^^^
This.
This is far more damaging than how the OBJ's opening-game status was reported/surmised/discussed. This reporting, if true, is pure imagination, or utter fabrication.
And because of this, then of course reasonable readers will FOREVER question whether any "sources" this reporter EVER cites really exist, or whether it's just another one of his imagination/fabrication.
Couple years ago, an ID here ("Rich_Houston_Giants_WR_1972" or something like that) claimed he just attended a Giants road game, and sat on the 1st row behind the team's bench, and overheard many conversations among the players, mostly echoing the sentiments that had been recently expressed here in BBI ("our team are getting old", "so-and-so player can't play; should replace him with so-and-so", and so on). His thread was first met with great positive responses, until someone declared that he didn't believe a word of it, that no way one could hear players talk in a noisy stadium even from where he claimed to be sitting, and even more unbelievably, the players just happened to echo opinions being voiced here at BBI. He demanded Rich Houston to show his game ticket, or any other evidence, that he was even in the stadium for that road game ...
This "I saw Sterling Shepard shedding tears" reporting while standing 120 yards away, if true, is in the same nature as Rich Houston's story.
Until then, clicking on Ranaan or any other beat's article is your own damn fault...