Rondo did what?

Mrkleen,

If reporters always revealed their sources, there would be no sources.  That's why so many reports simply refer to "sources" without specifying details.  There's absolutely not the slightest reason why she should reveal her source when, more often than not, her colleagues don't.  (And, where Jackie's concerned, there are usually more than one source.  Multiple eyewitnesses were involved in the earlier case you mentioned.)

I'm still dumbfounded at all the furor over what she said "in an open mike." She stated what other reporters have stated—that Rondo would not be re-signing with the Celtics and wanted out. So what? What's the big deal? People are acting as though she had committed treason or had killed a baby. Similar reports have surfaced—many much more formally—about other players since time immemorial. She wouldn't have said it if she hadn't had more than one reliable source. That's how she works.

Sam

I am not talking about revealing the name of a source Sam. I am talking about going ON THE RECORD with a statement that you have a lead and a "reliable source" to back it and then telling your story and standing behind it.

Jackie seems to have a recurring problem where she has all of this "inside information" which she is happy to share with friends or when she thinks the cameras are off. Yet when it comes time to pen an article and go on the record with that information, she is conspicuously absent.

If she was truly the EF Hutton of the media world, why did ESPN basically whitewash the incident from their website, remove the video and do all they could to pretend it never happened?

Mrkleen,

The formality of going on the record and reassuring that you have a reliable source might be appropriate in a prepared report. This was an informal comment. Totally different. You're shooting the bull with the boys; and, you make statements without hauling out a list of eyewitnesses. If you're challenged, then you have the option of citing sources. Was she challenged as to the veracity of her comments during the exchange that appeared on the video? Did her comments appear to surprise other panelists? It surely doesn't seem that way to me. Why? Because it's not a new thesis. They've heard it before. I believe that, in her own mind, her emphasis was not on announcing that Rondo wanted out but, rather, on getting it over already.

I haven't the slightest idea of your logic in somehow trying to force a link between my description of her as the EF Hutton of the basketball media world to the reason why ESPN whitewashed the incident from their website, etc. As for why ESPN whitewashed the incident from their website, I think they regretted that they had released it when they realized so many people weren't going to be able to handle it for reasons I still can't fathom. I believe their practice of releasing informal, off-air comments is playing with fire but perfectly in keeping with their "anything for a buck" mentality.

Oh, and Jackie MacMullan didn't get into the Hall of Fame by being conspicuously absent.

Sam

There is a difference, at least to my eyes and ears between - two ideas.  The first is the general idea that "Rondo May Be Looking To Leave The Celtics" - which many in and outside the team wouldnt find too surprising.  What Jackie did was take it MANY steps further, saying "It will happen because he's told them he wants out, and no one believes me but that's the truth"

If you are a "hall of famer" and believe you have some kind of inside information, a scoop so to speak that you are so confident in that you feel the need to blab it to your fellow panelist on a show that is known to broadcast off the cuff comments (she has been on Around the Horn nearly 500 times, so she well knows this) - why would you not say it in print?  Why would you not stand behind your rock solid source?

My point in bringing up the EF Hutton comparison - is that people only listen when your sources are reliable and you stand behind them.  Saying that I know this inside information and then refusing to go on the record with it, isnt very authoritative.

Lastly, I am not sure what being in the hall of fame has to do with this particularly situation.  As if being a great writer makes you beyond reproach.  This isnt a zero sum game.  You can be an all time great writer, and still have a few missteps along the way.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

I agree

the "he wants out" part along with the "he won't resign here" parts ARE the news.

now maybe she was shooting off the cuff with that won't re-sign with the Celtics.

but IF true and Ainge knows it.......he should take whatever he can get for a one year Rondo rental.

This sure isn't the first time shes been wrong, if she could keep her mouth shut instead of opening a can of worms and covering sports in general at the same time, we'd all be better off.

Sam Jackie Mac is in the Hall of what?

cowens/oldschool wrote:Sam Jackie Mac is in the Hall of what?

On May 12, 2010, Jackie MacMullan and longtime Cleveland Cavaliers radio play-by-play announcer Joe Tait received the Curt Gowdy Media Award from the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.^[3] The awards are presented annually to members of the print and electronic media who made a significant contribution to the game of basketball. MacMullan was the first woman to receive the honor in its 21-year history.

TJ,

Thanks for posting that.  I was about to do so.  Anyone could have looked it up by googling "Jackie MacMullan Hall of Fame."

Sam

Cow, you're right. All journalists should shut up or only issue bland (excuse me Sherrod) information. At exactly what point in a conversation should a journalist be able to predict (oh how I love that word), in advance, what the results of a given remark will be? She knew that what she said wasn't mind-boggling because she can read and hear the remarks of other journalists who have said much the same thing. Of course, she probably had more reason to be confident, rather than tentative, in her statement because she has better sources than most.

And what the heck does covering sports in general have to do with anything other than to underscore her versatility?

Sam

cowens/oldschool wrote:This sure isn't the first time shes been wrong, if she could keep her mouth shut instead of opening a can of worms and covering sports in general at the same time, we'd all be better off.

This your opinion that she is wrong.
I think she will be shown to be right and Rondo will be traded.

Here's a time she was right and maybe didn't look like it from the outset.

On May 4, 2013, in an article for ESPN,^[4] MacMullan took a controversial stance among members of the Boston media when she suggested that the Boston Celtics should part ways with team captain Paul Pierce.

112288 wrote:Rondo is one of the top 3 point guards on the planet...........an elite athlete..................an elite athlete with the confidence or ego the size of a large city.

Therefore, I can assure everyone Rondo could care less who the Celtics drafted. He's not looking over his shoulder folks!

I AM RAJON RONDO.........I AM 4X ALL-STAR........I AM A CELTIC..........PERIOD.......BRING IT ON!

112288

PS

If Rondo signs a 5 year mega deal........it will be Smart who either has to change his position or start to worry about a trade.  The Celtics would not sign Rondo to a new deal only to turn around and not use the guy or trade him!  No logic in that.

I a free with this all the way down to the P.S.

Then in comes another factor.. let's go and say smart turns out to be the real deal.. A potential future all star with the ability to make a real impact immediatly..

Why would either player worry about getting traded.. If he turns out that good many are guessing he will see time at both guard spots.. that won't create a situation where you need to get rid of someone.... that's freaking depth!!

Rondo averages 33 mpg over his career & has missed 108 games over his career. He has only played 80 or more games twice.

Bradley has never played more than 64 games in a single season and has never averaged even 31 mpg.

Even if both players played all 82 games ride is leaving 15 minutes on the floor and avery is leaving 17.

That's 32 minutes.. there's plenty of time for all three available, allowing Brad to create a 48 minute nightmare for other teams just rotating those three.

Added depth with presley at the point.. and the ability to toss turner, thortan, even young and green in at the 2 makes boston very deep all around- that's an assest, not a liability..

MrKleen,

What the Hall of Fame honor has to do with this situation is to help solidify the very credibility that you referenced in your EF Hutton remark. If she says something, people pay more attention to it than they would if other journalists had made the same remark. All of this furor bears testimony to that obvious fact.

Journalists have the right to decide what to cover and when, both privately and publicly. Seems to me that making the remark during a conversation that could be aired constitutes "going on the record". She committed herself publicly. That's "going on the record."

Sam

It's true, as others have mentioned, that every journalist can make an error now and then in terms of the accuracy of a statement—especially when a topic of a predictive nature is involved. But one of the things that separates the best journalists from the lesser journalists is their track record of being right. And, when one considers Jackie's track record over thousands of pronouncements, it's excellent. Largely because her sources are excellent, although any given source can also prove wrong (which is why any good journalist believes in using multiple sources).

Anyone, in an attempt to discredit her, can dig back and find an isolated case or two that perhaps didn't turn out as she had expected. That proves nothing except that there are exceptions to every rule. It's the overall track record that determines credibility. And hers is great.

Frankly, if this were just a conversation about whether Rondo would stay or go, I would probably just make a couple of comments and move on because it's really just a large-scale prediction (which I avoid). But a very good journalist is being vilified here for being a very good journalist who is sure of herself. The messenger is being skewered by sheer conjecture—not a shred of real proof (I believe the agent thing was a sham, as I have written earlier). I think that's a shame.

None of this is written by Sam the Moderator. This Forum has never been intended to try to influence the nature of comments—within the context of civility. This is just Sam the person expressing personal regrets over what I consider a very unjust, and at the very least entirely premature, situation.

Sam

sam wrote:Seems to me that making the remark during a conversation that could be aired constitutes "going on the record".  She committed herself publicly.  That's "going on the record."

Sam

Disagree. ESPN has whitewashed their website of both the clip and any mention of the incident, and Jackie has not come out and stood behind her statement. Neither of those are close to going on the record....the are more akin to covering your ass after you spoke out of it.

As for all the rest, I agree that Jackie has a good track record. I also again state that her track record has zero to do with her credibility as it relates to THIS incident. You might be a great driver with 30 years of spotless driving record. You may also be able to reference that when a State Trooper pulls you over. But that in no way means you were not speeding, it simply means that on aggregate - you are still a good driver. The Trooper may even give you the benefit of the doubt. But on that day, you - Mr Good Driver, were still speeding - and no proclamation of your great driving record or hall of fame status undoes that.

You are friends with Jackie, so I dont expect you to be objective when people are criticizing her - that is just human nature and it actually makes me like you more to know you stand up for your friends. But there are times, when even the best of us - talks out of school. I dont even know that is the case, as she may truly have an iron clad source that told her the Rondo wants out. But the fire drill at ESPN to remove any reference to the statement AND the lack of a follow up of any kind from Jackie MacMullan, says a lot in my opinion.

sam wrote:Cow, you're right.  All journalists should shut up or only issue bland (excuse me Sherrod) information.  At exactly what point in a conversation should a journalist be able to predict (oh how I love that word), in advance, what the results of a given remark will be?  She knew that what she said wasn't mind-boggling because she can read and hear the remarks of other journalists who have said much the same thing.  Of course, she probably had more reason to be confident, rather than tentative, in her statement because she has better sources than most.

And what the heck does covering sports in general have to do with anything other than to underscore her versatility?

Sam

Sam theres alot of ways to inform fans on many issues of sports, I like hearing training procedures and different offensive and defensive strategies in general on whatever sport, I don't need her to waffle about a player Thomas whose already been traded from that team, then her opening up a can of worms about Rondo. If you find her comments insightful then fine, to me shes no EF Hutton, she sounds closer to a sports bimbo on the recent topic on video that we"re talking about to me.

I'm not saying shes a bimbo, I'm saying on this topic that was seen, on this subject, being so misinformed, then opening a can of worms about Rondo, then having ESPN distance itself from the whole video and remark....on this topic she sounds like a bimbo.

Matty wrote:

112288 wrote:Rondo is one of the top 3 point guards on the planet...........an elite athlete..................an elite athlete with the confidence or ego the size of a large city.

Therefore, I can assure everyone Rondo could care less who the Celtics drafted. He's not looking over his shoulder folks!

I AM RAJON RONDO.........I AM 4X ALL-STAR........I AM A CELTIC..........PERIOD.......BRING IT ON!

112288

PS

If Rondo signs a 5 year mega deal........it will be Smart who either has to change his position or start to worry about a trade.  The Celtics would not sign Rondo to a new deal only to turn around and not use the guy or trade him!  No logic in that.

I a free with this all the way down to the P.S.

Then in comes another factor..  let's go and say smart turns out to be the real deal.. A potential future all star with the ability to make a real impact immediatly..

Why would either player worry about getting traded..  If he turns out that good many are guessing he will see time at both guard spots..  that won't create a situation where you need to get rid of someone.... that's freaking depth!!

Rondo averages 33 mpg over his career & has missed 108 games over his career. He has only played 80 or more games twice.

Bradley has never played more than 64 games in a single season and has never averaged even 31 mpg.

Even if both players played all 82 games ride is leaving 15 minutes on the floor and avery is leaving 17.

That's 32 minutes..  there's plenty of time for all three available, allowing Brad to create a 48 minute nightmare for other teams just rotating those three.

Added depth with presley at the point.. and the ability to toss turner, thortan, even young and green in at the 2 makes boston very deep all around- that's an assest, not a liability..

if I'm Danny, I want to keep all 3, thats a winning backcourt, 3 of the fastest most dynamic guards all together. If Smart is everything advertised and Coach K seems to think so and AB makes another jump after last year, we could have a historical backcourt. Rondo wants help, well the help is coming and blossoming....got it Jackie?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimbo

• Cached
  
• Similar
  

Wikipedia

Loading...

Bimbo is a derogatory slang term for an attractive but unintelligent female.


I thought Jackie sounded confident and sure about what she was saying.
It wasn't a Stephen A. Smith or Bill Simmons wanting to make a grand prediction...

mrkleen09 wrote:If you are a "hall of famer" and believe you have some kind of inside information, a scoop so to speak that you are so confident in that you feel the need to blab it to your fellow panelist on a show that is known to broadcast off the cuff comments (she has been on Around the Horn nearly 500 times, so she well knows this) - why would you not say it in print?  Why would you not stand behind your rock solid source?

My point in bringing up the EF Hutton comparison - is that people only listen when your sources are reliable and you stand behind them.  Saying that I know this inside information and then refusing to go on the record with it, isnt very authoritative.

I have heard or read on multiple occasions that seasoned sportswriters divulge only a small portion of what they know to the general public and keep a lot of information to themselves for a variety of reasons:

-- As background information. The information gives the writer affirmation of what they eventually do publish while being unnecessary to include in the final published piece.

-- To avoid becoming part of the story. For example, a writer may not publish what they know about ongoing trade negotiations if the negotiations would be altered or killed if they became public knowledge.

-- At the request of sources. Sources may provide information "off the record," and the writer's demonstrated capacity to not publish such information develops trust with the source.

-- To further develop and maintain personal relationships with sources. Writers may go beyond the explicit "off the record" information to keep other sensitive information to themselves if the writer thinks that publishing that information would harm their relationship with sources. This may happen with information they get directly from source A (they don't publish it in order to maintain their relationship with that source) or from a different source (they don't publish information from source A in order to not harm their relationship with source B).

-- To avoid using tainted information. Sources may provide information to serve an agenda -- to put themselves or their organization in a favorable light, for example, or to promote a notion with little or no basis in fact to benefit them or the people they work for (such as an agent saying that teams B and C are interested in his player in order to strengthen his negotiating position with team A). Sources may not explicitly provide false or misleading information but may just "color" the information they provide with their own bias. Seasoned sportswriters learn over time to avoid using this type of information because it can make them look bad or damage their relationships with sources.

I wish I could find one of the quotes I've seen from a sportswriter saying how much information they have that they never use. Steve may have some personal insight on this. But the point is that a seasoned writer like Jackie Mac wouldn't forsake everything in order to publish something that we might consider a "scoop" but is based on off-the-record or hearsay information.

While sportswriters may not use a lot of this information in published pieces, in the small world of seasoned sportswriters, they may mention some of this stuff in casual conversations with other writers they view as peers and trust to keep to themselves. The problem for Jackie Mac is that she fell into that mode while the cameras were rolling in an "off air" situation but it ultimately made it onto the YouTube video. The Around the Horn staff made a mistake including that clip in the YouTube video, but Jackie Mac also made a mistake by having that conversation with Frank Isola while cameras were still rolling. I'm sure everyone involved will learn from it.

mrkleen09 wrote:But the fire drill at ESPN to remove any reference to the statement AND the lack of a follow up of any kind from Jackie MacMullan, says a lot in my opinion.

I guess that's a matter of interpretation. I view ESPN's removal of the video and not including any reference to it, by Jackie or anyone else at ESPN, as an indication that a mistake was made by posting the video in the first place. I don't see it as an indication that she was wrong or didn't have reason to believe what she said, only that she didn't want it to be a publicly released commentary.

I have still not received one response as to why her utterances were so terrible. She said what she believed. She had good sources or she wouldn't have said it. It's a topic on which many, many members of the media have expressed opinions.

It seems we can assume she knew her comments could become public. So what? Why was it a mistake to say what she said? She voiced an opinion, which has been done roughly 120,000 times on this forum. She's got a lot of credibility and seemed particularly self-assured on this one. She spoke about a public figure, and public figures are fair game for media conjecture. She didn't defame anyone. That makes her some kind of bimbo? Wow! I hereby second and third my earlier "vilification" comments.

Sam

If more members of this board were more concerned about the Celtics as a team instead of being addictively concerned about one of its members this topic would have died within one day of JM's statement. Can't we just relax a bit and wait to see how it all turns out. Does anyone really believe that JM is out to damage the Celtics? Shall we crucify her?

What this really boils down to is that Jackie is tired of talking about RR, and wishes he would just be gone from the Celtics scene so they can move on to other players/subjects. She just got caught saying something that she thought was off camera.

Rosalie

Berlin-T wrote:If more members of this board were more concerned about the Celtics as a team instead of being addictively concerned about one of its members this topic would have died within one day of JM's statement. Can't we just relax a bit and wait to see how it all turns out. Does anyone really believe that JM is out to damage the Celtics? Shall we crucify her?

No Berlin, we should not crucify her. But we shouldn't hold her up as some kind of saint who is beyond reproach either.

She is a public figure who earns her living writing and speaking as a sports insider....so when she makes a proclamation that she knows something for a "fact", that no one else in the world can corroborate, that IS news. Sorry you dont agree.