nyg2
Starter
Posts: 4,519
|
Post by nyg2 on May 7, 2021 12:34:11 GMT -5
This definitely hurts his credibility going forward, because when he initially broke the story he made it seem like this was new information coming either from Aaron Rodgers or the Packers side.
Now he wants to backtrack and say that this was an accumulation of information which he used to make his judgement that Aaron Rodgers wants out, meaning that he doesn't even have a source. Using that logic why did he consider the day of the draft, as the perfect time to release this information that he's been "accumulating"? Why not the week before? How about the week after?
It seems like he knew that during the offseason, the only time this would garner the most amount of media and the public's attention was during draft day so he wanted his name to be circulating as the one that "broke the story".
|
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on May 7, 2021 12:37:43 GMT -5
I heard this yesterday or the day before. I consider it very irresponsible journalism from him. I expect better, he tries to portray himself as such a consummate professional, he should know better.
|
|
|
|
Post by TCHOF on May 7, 2021 13:44:02 GMT -5
Not sure you know what "fabricated" means.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuyRich on May 7, 2021 14:53:19 GMT -5
I'm so use to irresponsible journalism that this doesn't bother me as much as it should. I'm so cynical of the media I automatically dismiss just about anything they say as crap and just a headline for themselves to satisfy their own egos. Especially if I hear the words an "anonymous source".
|
|
nyg2
Starter
Posts: 4,519
|
Post by nyg2 on May 7, 2021 15:45:15 GMT -5
I heard this yesterday or the day before. I consider it very irresponsible journalism from him. I expect better, he tries to portray himself as such a consummate professional, he should know better. I found it crazy how he got super defensive as if people shouldn't be calling him out on his BS. All it does is just paint him in a bigger spotlight that what he did was just for publicity |
|
|
|
Post by DJones19 on May 7, 2021 18:24:11 GMT -5
It's well known that Rodgers isn't happy with the situation.
Seems like Schefter is stating the obvious to me.
Rodgers hasn't refuted the story. That tells me all I need to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by snyder55 on May 8, 2021 9:59:02 GMT -5
I think the issue here is whether the reporter issued this as fact or just his opinion..
|
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 11:58:40 GMT -5
This definitely hurts his credibility going forward, because when he initially broke the story he made it seem like this was new information coming either from Aaron Rodgers or the Packers side. Now he wants to backtrack and say that this was an accumulation of information which he used to make his judgement that Aaron Rodgers wants out, meaning that he doesn't even have a source. Using that logic why did he consider the day of the draft, as the perfect time to release this information that he's been "accumulating"? Why not the week before? How about the week after? It seems like he knew that during the offseason, the only time this would garner the most amount of media and the public's attention was during draft day so he wanted his name to be circulating as the one that "broke the story". No he didn't.
The only fabrication is in your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 13:05:36 GMT -5
How was it not fabricated? It was very opportunistic to take a bunch of second hand hearsay and construct a narrative that is based on conjecture. When reporters say he said this . So I think he meant this. Is not reporting . It is tabloid opinion.
Just happens to be draft day. (How convenient ?)
Arron Rodgers said he was concerned about his uncertainty for the future. So the logical conclusion (an idiots conclusion) Schefter makes this from that statement ; Rodgers want out of GB.
Taking a bunch of assumptions. Compiling them into something that sounds to be valid but none the less an opinion pawned off as fact. AKA Fabricated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 13:17:09 GMT -5
How was it not fabricated? It was very opportunistic to take a bunch of second hand hearsay and construct a narrative that is based on conjecture. When reporters say he said this . So I think he meant this. Is not reporting . It is tabloid opinion. Just happens to be draft day. (How convenient ?) Arron Rodgers said he was concerned about his uncertainty for the future. So the logical conclusion (an idiots conclusion) Schefter makes is from that statement is; Rodgers want out of GB, Taking a bunch of assumptions. Compiling them into something that sounds to be valid but none the less an opinion pawned off as fact. AKA Fabricated. He took a bunch of information and put it together to reach this conclusion. Now if you think this isn't quality reporting that makes a lot of sense.
But he never "admitted to fabricating" the story. He just explained how he came to reach the conclusion he did. "Fabricating" is reporting something out of thin air that isn't true. In other words, fabricating is lying.
He is very up front about how he can to draw the conclusion he did. As I said, it may not be enough to report with sufficient certainty in some's opinion and that is a reasonable argument. But it's clearly not a "fabricated" story. Now you can have the opinion that he fabricated the story. I would disagree but one could draw that conclusion. But he certainly never admitted to fabricating the story. THAT is a "fabrication".
I have yet to hear Aaron Rodgers refute it BTW. He may well do that at some point but it's interesting that he hasn't as of yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 13:27:13 GMT -5
How was it not fabricated? It was very opportunistic to take a bunch of second hand hearsay and construct a narrative that is based on conjecture. When reporters say he said this . So I think he meant this. Is not reporting . It is tabloid opinion. Just happens to be draft day. (How convenient ?) Arron Rodgers said he was concerned about his uncertainty for the future. So the logical conclusion (an idiots conclusion) Schefter makes is from that statement is; Rodgers want out of GB, Taking a bunch of assumptions. Compiling them into something that sounds to be valid but none the less an opinion pawned off as fact. AKA Fabricated. He took a bunch of information and put it together to reach this conclusion. Now if you think this isn't quality reporting that makes a lot of sense.
But he never "admitted to fabricating" the story. He just explained how he came to reach the conclusion he did. "Fabricating" is reporting something out of thin air that isn't true. In other words, fabricating is lying.
He is very up front about how he can to draw the conclusion he did. As I said, it may not be enough to report with sufficient certainty in some's opinion and that is a reasonable argument. But it's clearly not a "fabricated" story. Now you can have the opinion that he fabricated the story. I would disagree but one could draw that conclusion. But he certainly never admitted to fabricating the story. THAT is a "fabrication".
I have yet to hear Aaron Rodgers refute it BTW. He may well do that at some point but it's interesting that he hasn't as of yet.
That is the deffination of opinion not fact . Presenting opinions as fact. (exactly what he did on draft day) Is fabrication of the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 13:34:08 GMT -5
He took a bunch of information and put it together to reach this conclusion. Now if you think this isn't quality reporting that makes a lot of sense.
But he never "admitted to fabricating" the story. He just explained how he came to reach the conclusion he did. "Fabricating" is reporting something out of thin air that isn't true. In other words, fabricating is lying.
He is very up front about how he can to draw the conclusion he did. As I said, it may not be enough to report with sufficient certainty in some's opinion and that is a reasonable argument. But it's clearly not a "fabricated" story. Now you can have the opinion that he fabricated the story. I would disagree but one could draw that conclusion. But he certainly never admitted to fabricating the story. THAT is a "fabrication".
I have yet to hear Aaron Rodgers refute it BTW. He may well do that at some point but it's interesting that he hasn't as of yet.
That is the deffination of opinion not fact . Presenting opinions as fact (exactly what he did on draft day) is fabrication of the truth. I don't think that's necessarily true. He essentially reported a conclusion based a lot of circumstantial information. People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence. Now I don't know all the information he used so I can't know if his conclusion was sound.
But either way, the premise of this thread is false. He never admitted to fabricating anything. He just described his process for drawing the conclusion he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 13:50:59 GMT -5
That is the deffination of opinion not fact . Presenting opinions as fact (exactly what he did on draft day) is fabrication of the truth. I don't think that's necessarily true. He essentially reported a conclusion based a lot of circumstantial information. People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence. Now I don't know all the information he used so I can't know if his conclusion was sound.
But either way, the premise of this thread is false. He never admitted to fabricating anything. He just described his process for drawing the conclusion he did.
Again the definition of opinion. Are you saying if he does not admit to journalistic deception . It did not take place? Are you also saying Journalism can be based on conjecture? This what true journalistic investigating suggests he should have done. Why didn't he? Ask the Packers and Rodgers to confirm if he wanted out of GB . If it cannot be confirmed or denied . Then you present your intuition as an opinion not fact. Instead of writing this as a head line Aaron Rodgers doesn't want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say (fabrication of the truth) It should have said Aaron Rodgers may not want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say. (journalistic hypnosis) |
|
|
|
Post by snyder55 on May 8, 2021 15:17:37 GMT -5
semantics...
|
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 15:29:05 GMT -5
I don't think that's necessarily true. He essentially reported a conclusion based a lot of circumstantial information. People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence. Now I don't know all the information he used so I can't know if his conclusion was sound.
But either way, the premise of this thread is false. He never admitted to fabricating anything. He just described his process for drawing the conclusion he did.
Again the definition of opinion. Are you saying if he does not admit to journalistic deception . It did not take place? Are you also saying Journalism can be based on conjecture? This what true journalistic investigating suggests he should have done. Why didn't he? Ask the Packers and Rodgers to confirm if he wanted out of GB . If it cannot be confirmed or denied . Then you present your intuition as an opinion not fact. Instead of writing this as a head line Aaron Rodgers doesn't want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say (fabrication of the truth) It should have said Aaron Rodgers may not want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say. (journalistic hypnosis) All valid points. Perfectly reasonable. Some may agree and some may not.
Bottom line he never admitted to fabricating anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 15:33:42 GMT -5
Again the definition of opinion. Are you saying if he does not admit to journalistic deception . It did not take place? Are you also saying Journalism can be based on conjecture? This what true journalistic investigating suggests he should have done. Why didn't he? Ask the Packers and Rodgers to confirm if he wanted out of GB . If it cannot be confirmed or denied . Then you present your intuition as an opinion not fact. Instead of writing this as a head line Aaron Rodgers doesn't want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say (fabrication of the truth) It should have said Aaron Rodgers may not want to return to Green Bay Packers, sources say. (journalistic hypnosis) All valid points. Perfectly reasonable. Some may agree and some may not.
Bottom line he never admitted to fabricating anything.
No one admits it. |
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 15:36:01 GMT -5
All valid points. Perfectly reasonable. Some may agree and some may not.
Bottom line he never admitted to fabricating anything.
No one admits it. Yet that's what the OP claimed. And that is my beef with it. All of us are certainly free to like or dislike Schefter's journalistic standards. But that wasn't the OP's point.
His OP was dishonest.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 15:52:59 GMT -5
Yet that's what the OP claimed. And that is my beef with it. All of us are certainly free to like or dislike Schefter's journalistic standards. But that wasn't the OP's point.
His OP was dishonest.
IDK . He did backtrack. Having to explain why he did what he did is suspect. If he had proof that he was not dishonest with the truth. He would not have had to explain anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 16:43:24 GMT -5
Yet that's what the OP claimed. And that is my beef with it. All of us are certainly free to like or dislike Schefter's journalistic standards. But that wasn't the OP's point.
His OP was dishonest.
IDK . He did backtrack. Having to explain why he did what he did is suspect. If he had proof that he was not dishonest with the truth. He would not have had to explain anything. Well you spent a bunch of time arguing agianst a point I wasn't making. |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 16:51:21 GMT -5
IDK . He did backtrack. Having to explain why he did what he did is suspect. If he had proof that he was not dishonest with the truth. He would not have had to explain anything. Well you spent a bunch of time arguing agianst a point I wasn't making. It was fabricated. The op did not suggest he admitted to it . He said he backtracked because he knew it was a artical based upon an assumption not facts. The op is spot on. Schefter presented opinion as fact from the headline. |
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 17:04:11 GMT -5
Well you spent a bunch of time arguing agianst a point I wasn't making. It was fabricated. The op did not suggest he admitted to it . He said he backtracked because he knew it was a artical based upon an assumption not facts. The op is spot on. Schefter presented opinion as fact from the headline. I'm sorry but what part of...... "Schefter admits he fabricated the Rodgers draft day story" .....is lost on you? |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 17:16:01 GMT -5
It was fabricated. The op did not suggest he admitted to it . He said he backtracked because he knew it was a artical based upon an assumption not facts. The op is spot on. Schefter presented opinion as fact from the headline. I'm sorry but what part of...... "Schefter admits he fabricated the Rodgers draft day story" .....is lost on you? Mistake on my part . He is still right on what his post is saying .He lost credibility what little he had left. I read his original article every part of it including his bs about the 49ers wanted to trade for Rodgers was completely designed to deceive. I don't understand the blowback the OP is getting when Schefter is the one that delivered steaming pile of crap to steal thunder away from the draft. |
|
|
|
Post by TCHOF on May 8, 2021 18:09:14 GMT -5
This definitely hurts his credibility going forward, because when he initially broke the story he made it seem like this was new information coming either from Aaron Rodgers or the Packers side. Now he wants to backtrack and say that this was an accumulation of information which he used to make his judgement that Aaron Rodgers wants out, meaning that he doesn't even have a source. Using that logic why did he consider the day of the draft, as the perfect time to release this information that he's been "accumulating"? Why not the week before? How about the week after? It seems like he knew that during the offseason, the only time this would garner the most amount of media and the public's attention was during draft day so he wanted his name to be circulating as the one that "broke the story". This thread should be deleted and the OP should be instructed to look up and then write out the definition of “fabricated” 1000 times. Complete nonsense |
|
|
|
Post by Nite on May 8, 2021 19:16:25 GMT -5
This whole affair is very shady and underhanded. My problem is not with the 'facts' as whatever one wants to define as such. It is the timing of the release, that bothers me. Seems to me that the released was timed to get maximum exposure for Mr Rodgers and to take away exposure for the young men on one of the most important day of their lives..
What I can concluded so far is that AR hates the management in Green Bay and wants O-U-T..Communication must be non-existent up there as this situation has been brewing for some time
|
|
|
|
Post by DandyDon on May 8, 2021 20:12:36 GMT -5
That is the deffination of opinion not fact . Presenting opinions as fact (exactly what he did on draft day) is fabrication of the truth. I don't think that's necessarily true. He essentially reported a conclusion based a lot of circumstantial information. Now I don't know all the information he People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence.used so I can't know if his conclusion was sound.
But either way, the premise of this thread is false. He never admitted to fabricating anything. He just described his process for drawing the conclusion he did.
Lol. "People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence." Yeah, but when they do its not without 12 other peeps getting the facts. You equating sports reporting to a jury trial is a classic straw man argument you use all the time. He "created" a story before a very popular event, hoping to bring more ratings to his show. I dont understand how total bullshit is not called that anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 20:14:35 GMT -5
I don't think that's necessarily true. He essentially reported a conclusion based a lot of circumstantial information. Now I don't know all the information he People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence.used so I can't know if his conclusion was sound. But either way, the premise of this thread is false. He never admitted to fabricating anything. He just described his process for drawing the conclusion he did.
Lol. "People can be convicted of a crime with circumstantial evidence." Yeah, but when they do its not without 12 other peeps getting the facts. You equating sports reporting to a jury trial is a classic straw man argument you use all the time. He "created" a story before a very popular event, hoping to bring more ratings to his show. I dont understand how total bullshit is not called that anymore Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 21:02:19 GMT -5
I'm sorry but what part of...... "Schefter admits he fabricated the Rodgers draft day story" .....is lost on you? Mistake on my part . He is still right on what his post is saying .He lost credibility what little he had left. I read his original article every part of it including his bs about the 49ers wanted to trade for Rodgers was completely designed to deceive. I don't understand the blowback the OP is getting when Schefter is the one that delivered steaming pile of crap to steal thunder away from the draft. I wouldn't call it blow back. What he claimed simply wasn't true and in the context of our conversation, I pointed that out. |
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 21:18:23 GMT -5
Mistake on my part . He is still right on what his post is saying .He lost credibility what little he had left. I read his original article every part of it including his bs about the 49ers wanted to trade for Rodgers was completely designed to deceive. I don't understand the blowback the OP is getting when Schefter is the one that delivered steaming pile of crap to steal thunder away from the draft. I wouldn't call it blow back. What he claimed simply wasn't true and in the context of our conversation, I pointed that out. It semantics . As I said Schefter is the the I need attention grabber in this whole thing. A typical ESPIN move. |
|
|
|
Post by Morehead State on May 8, 2021 21:20:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it blow back. What he claimed simply wasn't true and in the context of our conversation, I pointed that out. It semantics . As I said Schefter is the the I need attention grabber in this whole thing. A typical ESPIN move. It's not semantics. What he said wasn't true. Schefter never admitted anything.
Come on T....
And when someone fabricates a story...it means they completely made it up. That's not what happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEM on May 8, 2021 21:24:52 GMT -5
It semantics . As I said Schefter is the the I need attention grabber in this whole thing. A typical ESPIN move. It's not semantics. What he said wasn't true. Schefter never admitted anything.
Come on T....
I am not disputing that . I am saying . It was fabricated if he admits it or not. The op basic narrative is sound. |
|
