Alan Shipnuck - is his time over finally? (*** NO POLITICS ***)

[golfheaven69]

Let’s see what before blasting. He certainly exposed the joke Philly Mick. 

[golfortennis]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:01 PM, jdl said:

The best thing about social media - everyone has a voice!

 

The worst thing about social media - everyone has a voice!

 

I might tweak that a little, and say everyone has a voice they believe needs or deserves to be heard.  People who think others are interested in what time they took their last dump, or that they are having a latte at this moment tend to think others care about their opinions on matters of greater importance.

[JungleJimbo]

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/10/inside-phil-mickelsons-backdoor-dealings-saudis-liv-golf-superleague

 

 

[OrangeGravy]

On 10/10/2023 at 10:35 AM, Retrop1 said:

I certainly hope so, but it does make one wonder. In theory, the reporter is the inflection point between the source and the reader. It is on the reporter to verify, but to also maintain the identity of the source. It just makes me wonder why so much of the information comes from "anonymous sources" so often. Like the whole Cantlay hat thing. Some of that information had to come from someone inside the team room, or someone extremely close to the team room. No way all that information came from a 3rd person near enough to hear a private moment between Cantlay and Sands in a very loud environment. I would think the team room would be pretty sealed off to anything like that, but apparently Jamie Wier had what he felt was credible information. Regardless, it just stinks for my faith in humanity. Either way, someone lied, or violated trust in a delicate situation. 

You wonder why nobody wants to put their name on any potential controversial statements? I get being skeptical, but most of these players are cowards when it comes to stuff like this and they are protecting their "brand" or reputation if you will at all costs. I don't thinks it's odd at all that the only thing you'll get is unnamed sources if you're a writer. You only get to burn a source once, so which way would you go if you were a writer?

[puttingmatt]

The whole Shipnuck saga  never got along with me as any hack can capture  a burn the bridges , tell all story  on sport personalities.  Not certain why any sport player would feel safe to speak to Shipnuck about anything, 

[54CW]

No one else seems willing to tell this story besides Shipnuck. Who else is getting and reporting this information and isn't being paid by LIV or PGA? 

[golfortennis]

5 minutes ago, 54CW said:

No one else seems willing to tell this story besides Shipnuck. Who else is getting and reporting this information and isn't being paid by LIV or PGA? 

 

This is a good point.  Word was *every* writer knew about Woods' extra curriculars before the fire hydrant, but nobody said anything because they wanted to stay in the good graces and keep their gravy train flowing.  Why is he the only one?  

[54CW]

14 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

This is a good point.  Word was *every* writer knew about Woods' extra curriculars before the fire hydrant, but nobody said anything because they wanted to stay in the good graces and keep their gravy train flowing.  Why is he the only one?  

People mad about Shipnuck’s reporting seem to be the ones who become upset when Status Quo is wrinkled. 

[Retrop1]

23 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

You wonder why nobody wants to put their name on any potential controversial statements? I get being skeptical, but most of these players are cowards when it comes to stuff like this and they are protecting their "brand" or reputation if you will at all costs. I don't thinks it's odd at all that the only thing you'll get is unnamed sources if you're a writer. You only get to burn a source once, so which way would you go if you were a writer?

That is a tough one honestly, and one could go around in circles until the end of time trying to figure that out. My biggest sticking point is (at least in the latest case at the Ryder Cup), the unnamed source is violating the trust associated with the team room already in order to talk to the journalist. If that source can't be trusted by the team, why then should we trust them as the reader to be telling the complete truth?

 

Also as a reader, if the sources are primarily unnamed, then how are we supposed to fully trust the journalist not to just run with rumors? For the record, I do not think Shipnuck is doing this, but he is in a position where he gets paid to get people to read his work. The more salacious, the more eyeballs see it. I think it is natural for a person (presuming one can think for one's self) to at least wonder what is going on here.

[jonsnow]

You may as well ask if the cockroach's time is finally over...