Miami Dolphins QB Tua Tagovailoa ‘electric’ during day two of minicamp | Page 10 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Miami Dolphins QB Tua Tagovailoa ‘electric’ during day two of minicamp

My favorite media story was 20+ years ago, I saw an interview with a former NY Yankee journalist that used to travel with the team back when Babe Ruth was still playing. I think he was around 90 years old, maybe 100.

He was asked how the media has changed from his time and he told this story…He and a fellow journalist were having dinner on a train in the dining room car. The door to the car opened and Babe Ruth came running through the car butt naked. In hot pursuit was a woman chasing him with a knife. When they ran into the next car the journalist he was having dinner with said, “Did you see that?” to which he replied, “Nope, or I would have to write about it in the paper tomorrow.” The story never got reported.

I have heard the big shift from being sports reporters to drama reporters was OJ Simpson. Before OJ there were a few of the cable networks that would show up to cover the dramatic events. With OJ the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all jumped in and it has been that way ever since.

I missed the days as a kid calling in to the local newspaper that did phone recordings to give score updates throughout the day and then pouring over the box scores in the newspaper the next day and a piece recapping the game.

Back then it was about the love of the sport. Today it seems the game is secondary to the “drama” around the players and the game. I don’t blame the media. If people did not feed into the drama it would stop being reported so much. For the most part, people are drama-whores.
 
Last edited:
Normally, I'd be inclined to agree with you but there are too many very good reporters that have openly reported that Miami would make a change only if Watson is available. Why would anyone in our organization come out and say that? Again, this is rumor that adds fuel to the fire on Tua with the media.
This is glorious, talk about making content up
 
My favorite media story was 20+ years ago, I saw an interview with a former NY Yankee journalist that used to travel with the team back when Babe Ruth was still playing. I think he was around 90 years old, maybe 100.

He was asked how the media has changed from his time and he told this story…He and a fellow journalist were having dinner on a train in the dining room car. The door to the car opened and Babe Ruth came running through the car butt naked. In hot pursuit was a woman chasing him with a knife. When they ran into the next car the journalist he was having dinner with said, “Did you see that?” to which he replied, “Nope, or I would have to write about it in the paper tomorrow.” The story never got reported.

I have heard the big shift from being sports reporters to drama reporters was OJ Simpson. Before OJ there were a few of the cable networks that would show up to cover the dramatic events. With OJ the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all jumped in and it has been that way ever since.

I missed the days as a kid calling in to the local newspaper that did phone recordings to give score updates throughout the day and then pouring over the box scores in the newspaper the next day and a piece recapping the game.

Back then it was about the love of the sport. Today it seems the game is secondary to the “drama” around the players and the game. I don’t blame the media. If people did not feed into the drama it would stop being reported so much. For the most part, people are drama-whores.
I have taken training from media types who when I asked them politely about journalists getting stories straight

He all but said we are at their mercy so we best bend over - and hope they are nice
 
If you don't think the "news" doesn't report on "unsubstantiated" information, why did four (or was it five) "New York Times" reporters who earned "Pulitzer" prizes for their stories , have to face the embarrassment of having to acknowledge those stories were complete fabrications, resulting in the retraction of those "Pulitzer" prizes?

And speaking of "Pulitzer"; one of his claims to fame was that a Spanish spy blew up the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor.

Modern examination shows the explosion took place in the arms locker.

It is important to note that the USS Maine was equipped with some "special" 20" guns. Compared to the big 16" guns used on WWII era battleships, these were monsters, but what made them special was that they were "pneumatic".

This was necessary in order to be able to launch rounds with explosive warheads without blowing up the gun. The large "modern" WWI battleship guns were so powerful with their 20 mile range of fire that explosive warheads of the time would explode under acceleration in their barrels. The pneumatic 20" guns on the USS Maine only had a 2 mile range but could launch the exploding warheads with more reliability.

In the end, the explosive warheads of the time were determined to have a tendency to be unstable and even blow up just due to the heat that often developed in the big ships arms locker. This is what is now considered the cause of the explosion in the USS Maine. There was never any proof of a spy getting on board the USS Maine and considering the extra precautions that prevented entry to the arms locker, the possibility of an agent getting in was vanishingly small. Knowing that there were special munitions stored that were unstable in high temperatures along with confirmation that the explosion occurred from within the locker, as opposed to being set off from outside the locker, excludes the "spy" theory that was pushed by Pulitzer.

Eventually a reliable exploding warhead was developed that the big guns with 20 miles of range could fire them without blowing themselves up. The information of the experimental 20" guns and exploding warheads was available in Pulitzers' time, but he believed in "national expansionalisim" and used his news papers to push that angle.

Is it surprising to find that this "Fraud" has his name on a prize issued to reporters who are then found to have "fabricated" their stories?

Don't take my word for it, check it out.

Don't try telling me the problem with the different "NYT" reporters was a "fluke". One fraudulent award could have been a "fluke", but four or five over a span of a few years was a pattern.

Do you still say the media doesn't lie?
You honestly think I’m reading all of that? It’s a football forum.
 
My favorite media story was 20+ years ago, I saw an interview with a former NY Yankee journalist that used to travel with the team back when Babe Ruth was still playing. I think he was around 90 years old, maybe 100.

He was asked how the media has changed from his time and he told this story…He and a fellow journalist were having dinner on a train in the dining room car. The door to the car opened and Babe Ruth came running through the car butt naked. In hot pursuit was a woman chasing him with a knife. When they ran into the next car the journalist he was having dinner with said, “Did you see that?” to which he replied, “Nope, or I would have to write about it in the paper tomorrow.” The story never got reported.

I have heard the big shift from being sports reporters to drama reporters was OJ Simpson. Before OJ there were a few of the cable networks that would show up to cover the dramatic events. With OJ the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all jumped in and it has been that way ever since.

I missed the days as a kid calling in to the local newspaper that did phone recordings to give score updates throughout the day and then pouring over the box scores in the newspaper the next day and a piece recapping the game.

Back then it was about the love of the sport. Today it seems the game is secondary to the “drama” around the players and the game. I don’t blame the media. If people did not feed into the drama it would stop being reported so much. For the most part, people are drama-whores.
But if the story never got reported how did filter all the way down to you.
 
If you don't think the "news" doesn't report on "unsubstantiated" information, why did four (or was it five) "New York Times" reporters who earned "Pulitzer" prizes for their stories , have to face the embarrassment of having to acknowledge those stories were complete fabrications, resulting in the retraction of those "Pulitzer" prizes?

And speaking of "Pulitzer"; one of his claims to fame was that a Spanish spy blew up the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor.

Modern examination shows the explosion took place in the arms locker.

It is important to note that the USS Maine was equipped with some "special" 20" guns. Compared to the big 16" guns used on WWII era battleships, these were monsters, but what made them special was that they were "pneumatic".

This was necessary in order to be able to launch rounds with explosive warheads without blowing up the gun. The large "modern" WWI battleship guns were so powerful with their 20 mile range of fire that explosive warheads of the time would explode under acceleration in their barrels. The pneumatic 20" guns on the USS Maine only had a 2 mile range but could launch the exploding warheads with more reliability.

In the end, the explosive warheads of the time were determined to have a tendency to be unstable and even blow up just due to the heat that often developed in the big ships arms locker. This is what is now considered the cause of the explosion in the USS Maine. There was never any proof of a spy getting on board the USS Maine and considering the extra precautions that prevented entry to the arms locker, the possibility of an agent getting in was vanishingly small. Knowing that there were special munitions stored that were unstable in high temperatures along with confirmation that the explosion occurred from within the locker, as opposed to being set off from outside the locker, excludes the "spy" theory that was pushed by Pulitzer.

Eventually a reliable exploding warhead was developed that the big guns with 20 miles of range could fire them without blowing themselves up. The information of the experimental 20" guns and exploding warheads was available in Pulitzers' time, but he believed in "national expansionalisim" and used his news papers to push that angle.

Is it surprising to find that this "Fraud" has his name on a prize issued to reporters who are then found to have "fabricated" their stories?

Don't take my word for it, check it out.

Don't try telling me the problem with the different "NYT" reporters was a "fluke". One fraudulent award could have been a "fluke", but four or five over a span of a few years was a pattern.

Do you still say the media doesn't lie?

Ray, while I agree with you that the media is not always honest, I noticed you failed to include any links. Care to show your work here as it’s an interesting story that I’d like to get more information.
 
Ray, while I agree with you that the media is not always honest, I noticed you failed to include any links. Care to show your work here as it’s an interesting story that I’d like to get more information.

I wish I could remember them or I would. The Pulitzer prize fraud by the NYT reporters was national news, but at a "less than headline" level.

The USS Maine incident was covered in a show on TV, if I remember correctly.

Pulitzers involvement in the USS Maine explosion was covered in a high school class I took back in 1964. There was also a TV show about Pulitzer. I remember they spent some time at his Mansion in California and touched on his "championship" of America Expansionism. As I recall his papers were also big supporter's of bringing the Statue of Liberty to the US. The paper's had a nationwide program whereby those supporters could send in donations to help pay for the statue and its transportation to the US.

I'll do a search to see what I can find. I'll probably be more interesting then reading about training camp anyway.
 
Ray, while I agree with you that the media is not always honest, I noticed you failed to include any links. Care to show your work here as it’s an interesting story that I’d like to get more information.

Look under USS Maine and Yellow Journalism.

It appears I have confused Pulitzer with Hearst.
 
Ray, while I agree with you that the media is not always honest, I noticed you failed to include any links. Care to show your work here as it’s an interesting story that I’d like to get more information.

When I looked up Newspaper and plagiarism I found that in 2011 the Washington Post suspended a Pulitzer prize winning reporter for two plagiarized articles. This is about the time I recall reading about the plagiarism, but what I remember about the article I read was that:

1) There were several reporters involved.
2) One of the articles was about a child in welfare that was entirely a fiction, not a report of an actual occurrence. That memory is a little too specific to be my imagination. The fact I couldn't find information about it makes me suspect "cover up".
 
Ray, while I agree with you that the media is not always honest, I noticed you failed to include any links. Care to show your work here as it’s an interesting story that I’d like to get more information.

FOUND IT.

Another Washington Post reporter, Janet Leslie Cooke, back in 1980. She wrote about a child heroin addict. It turns out the entire report was pure fiction.

It's good to know my memory isn't totally gone, not yet at least - LOL

Remember the wise old adage - Believe only 1/2 of what you see and none of what you hear (or read).
 
Look under USS Maine and Yellow Journalism.

It appears I have confused Pulitzer with Hearst.
Well, if you go down that rabbit hole, with Patty and the Symbionese Liberation Army, you may be lost for the season.

That's one of those "truth stranger than fiction" circumstances.
 
This is glorious, talk about making content up
Making up content? There's 100 articles on it. Google it. ****, watch the segment. Smoke...fire. You keep getting your feelings hurt about meaningless stories in the meantime.
 
Back
Top Bottom