Hoynes: rumor that Indians are interested in Roberts

4 months ago palcal Comment 16 comments 0 recs |

Comments

The Indians, since spring training, have been rumored to be interested in Baltimore second baseman Brian Roberts [...]

Well, that’s ever-so-slightly more informative than an Olney-esque “if the Indians are looking for infield help, they could do worse than to consider Brian Roberts,” but only just. There’s nothing about who is doing the rumoring (or how well-placed they are), or what they may be offering (aside from a throw-away reference to our “wealth of starting pitching”), or what Baltimore may be asking, or, really, anything of any substance at all.

Furthermore, I’d speculate that at least 20 teams have contacted Baltimore “since spring training” about Roberts, although I hasten to point out that this is mere speculation on my part, not anything I have heard.

Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving.

by Fiddlesticks on May 16, 2008 10:41 PM EDT 0 recs

So is he starting Saturday night?

by Nat on May 16, 2008 10:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

for us….?

by Nat on May 16, 2008 10:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

He also mentions, in the same piece, the Atkins speculation, and describes it as a rumor. Since we know it’s speculation, not rumor, and certainly not fact by any normal definition of fact, it’s probable that the Roberts stuff is speculation. There has been tons of talk about Roberts going to the Cubs, much more than the Indians. That may also be speculation, probably is. I hear they’re going to trade Hoynes to the Chicago paper for a video of Mike Royko and a Studs Terkel interview with Ernie Banks. But, the Chicagoans are demanding that we pay part of his salary.

by peter m on May 17, 2008 10:02 AM EDT 0 recs

Interestingly, here’s the online edition linked:

The Indians, since spring training, have been rumored to be interested in Baltimore second baseman Brian Roberts, but if any trade is going to be made it’s probably at least a month away. Teams have until July 31 to make a deal without acquiring waivers on a player.

Here’s the print edition in front of me:

The Indians, since spring training, have been rumored to be interested in Baltimore second baseman Brian Roberts, but if any trade is going to be made it’s probably at least a month away. There have also been rumors connecting them with Colorado Rockies third baseman Garrett Atkins. Teams have until July 31 to make a deal without acquiring waivers on a player.

Why the omission from the online edition?

by The DiaTriber on May 17, 2008 10:18 AM EDT up 0 recs

Good question. I had read the story in the paper edition, which contained the Atkins “rumor.” Very interesting.

By the way, props to you on the Aubrey call-up. Your rumors are better rumors (or your speculation is less speculative?). Do the mysterious spirits tell you anything else of interest about our hitless wonders’ future moves?

by peter m on May 17, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

I think the online version is just the earlier draft. The bolded sentence was most likely added after he learned of Olney’s speculation, and that’s what he filed for the paper.

by odradek on May 17, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up 0 recs

Since Olney’s speculation is now about three days old, I’m not sure I buy this explanation. He may have more lines available in the print edition or something, is another possibility or he just decided to embellish a bit more. The point is that the Roberts story has to be considered just an idea, not even something that was overheard being discussed by Indians people, since the Atkins story appears to be just talk (and Hoynes linked the two).

by peter m on May 17, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

I wouldn’t know where Hoynes got the Atkins idea, but it is logical his print edition supercedes his online post.

by odradek on May 17, 2008 12:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ugh. I’ve got a sneaky feeling where that “rumor” came from. If he heard something from the Indians organization or someone associated with it or connected with it…gardener, mistress, barber, taxi driver, priest, rabbi, bridge partner,drug dealer, or checkout lady at the grocery store…I’m all ears. Otherwise.

by Bogalusa Bomber on May 17, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

All of this with Olney and Hoynes and Drennan and whoever is like how reporters on the White House beat work: they report what they say to each other and cite “well-placed sources.”

by Fiddlesticks on May 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

It’s not an omission, it’s a correction.

peter m speculates there may have been more space available in print than online. That is of course never, ever the case. It’s the opposite. There would never be a need online to cut a sentence out for space.

I honestly believe that it was in the print version, and at some point somebody — possibly even seeing the story here — realized that the “rumor” wasn’t coming from within the industry, but rather is just a random rumor circulating the Internet, based on no actual source other than a writer’s speculation.

This is actually the heart of the whole subject. Media outlets often use the crutch of “reporting the report,” and a notch below that “reporting the rumor.” But there is still a sliver of responsibility that goes along with “reporting the rumor” for a professional journalist. When a professional journalist reports a rumor, he/she is saying that the rumor stems from sources who actually would be in a position to know.

If some random guy at the gas station says, “I hear the Indians are interested in Atkins,” that isn’t reason enough to print that there is a rumor. My guess is that the online editor (or maybe even Hoynes himself) realized that this “rumor” wasn’t anything higher than the guy-at-the-gas-station standard, so he axed the statement from Hoynes’ report — appropriately.

by Jay on May 17, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up 1 recs

Jay, I think you’re giving too much credit to the online editor. The way the Plain Dealer has been working is to get hot stories online immediately. This is the reason for those mid-inning Cleveland.com updates by Manoloff and Maxse. So Hoynes files the first version of his story—which he’s working on in the press box—to be posted online. The print version comes second, and is more properly edited. Hoynes would have a chance to edit his first version before it goes to print. Maybe a copy editor on the sports desk heard the Atkins rumor at Speedway and put it in. There is nothing factually inaccurate about the print statement: There have indeed been rumors.

by odradek on May 17, 2008 7:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

Nope, Jay is exactly right. My brother is an editor at the PD. The current online version is much more likely to be an edited version based on the understanding the rumor was bunk.

by tabler84 on May 18, 2008 10:45 AM EDT up 0 recs

This is one my single biggest pet peeves about reporting: passive attribution. Such BS.

Hoynes writes, “The Indians have been rumored…” By WHOM, Paul? WHO is spreading the rumor?

We had a conversation in our newsroom last month after I got fired up about passive attribution. It is so, so easy to write stuff like this: “It’s expected that Clinton will drop out after Oregon,” or, “It’s expected that Martin will face charges.” You know who is doing the expecting, most of the time? Reporters! And they’re gutless to admit it, or they think it’s legitimate, but they know they can’t be their own source.

So either attribute it or say it another way. Tell me the source of the rumors. Tell me where the rumors are circulating. Is it internally, or is it on some message board?

This is beyond sloppy.

by tabler84 on May 18, 2008 10:49 AM EDT 0 recs

Ha! I just went back and re-read the piece, and I see that Hoynes says that the Indians “are not expected to be one of the teams interested in Griffey.” PERFECT example. It would probably help the reader if Paul explained whether reporters didn’t expect the Tribe to go after Griffey, or if the front office was saying they didn’t expect to go after Griffey.

by tabler84 on May 18, 2008 10:53 AM EDT up 0 recs