Well damn! Someone actually posted the most plausible reason in this entire thread.
I agree DS.
Uhm Matt Wyatt Has Some Explaining to Do
- Thread starter ArcherSPS
- Start date
Well damn! Someone actually posted the most plausible reason in this entire thread.
I agree DS.
Yeah, but I could see you saying "According to a source, take this with a grain of salt, ...." I mean, it's possible that was his devious plan, but given the environment around sports reporting in the SEC I think it is far more plausible that he was wanting to get out in public with a "scoop" before anyone else.
Apparently, Matt's already told Nutt's lawyer exactly what Hugh told him. I think that's probably good enough for now.
So what exactly do you folks want? Matt DID say "Sources." He gave himself and any reader a little wiggle room. Are you folks wanting Matt to be a 100% pro MSU homer like Yancy, Kellenburger, et al? I thought that was what separated us from those idiots.
Last edited:
This is the part that makes Freeze look smart by calling Matt directly and asking for it to be off the record. He knows that part of the journalistic code is to never reveal your sources unless forced to do so in court. Matt and the other reporters have all had to keep quiet about what Freeze did. Hopefully Nutt's lawsuit will free them up to say what happened in public. Too bad it likely won't ever go to court.
If Yancy or Whataburger ever played QB for us then yes. I would expect him to use a little more discretion.
No, no, no... this stupid argument is being used the wrong way. I don't think Matt is a traitor, I think he did something stupid and should be made fun of because the Ole Miss Head Coach, while under NCAA investigation, calls him directly and feeds him something that should smell a lot like ******** and he ran to the Twitters and immediately and dutifully reported it. I also thing all the other guys also did something stupid and should also be made fun of as well. I'm doing exactly what you are requesting, treating Matt like any other journalist who should be at the very least skeptical of the HC of a school under investigation and known to cover their asses. The only thing him being a MSU guy has to do with this is that he should have been even more skeptical than most reporters! Jesus folks, not eating our own here, he f'ed up, he should be called out on it.
Also, I understand keeping sources confidential but shouldn't part of that arrangement be that the source doesn't knowingly lie his/her *** off? If it were me I would throw Freeze all up under the bus because he tried to use me and screw me by lying. Can't see where this falls under protecting your sources, because he's a scumbag and not a source.
And that's why you're not a journalist. You didn't see Forde or Wolken or any of the others publicly out Freeze as a liar either.
From a journalistic standpoint The fact that Matt played QB for dear old State has absolutely nothing to do with what he reports. How many times on SPS did we blast, and rightfully so, old Lou Holtz every time he starting fellating Notre Dame on ESPN? There is a long list of former players/coaches who go full blown homer every time their beloved institution is the topic of conversation whether it be good or bad. This is one of the things wrong with journalism today.
Minor in Journalism, although I never used it because I like nice things and computers = $$. Are you a Journalist?? Seems not everyone agrees with your take...
It’s often viewed as sacred tenet of journalistic ethics that a source should never be divulged, no matter what, but that’s not true. In The Elements of Journalism, first published in 2001, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote:
A growing number of journalists believe that if a source who has been granted anonymity is found to have misled the reporter, the sources’ identity should be revealed. Part of the bargain of anonymity is truthfulness.
And there is at least one highly notable precedent. In 1996, the Wall Street Journal(2/1/96) published a story: “Getting Personal: Brown & Williamson Has 500-Page Dossier Attacking Chief Critic.” The Journal had been given dubious and exaggerated dirt on cigarette whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand. Rather than running with it—or just passing on it—they exposed it. Writers Suein L. Hwang and Milo Geyelin effectively turned on a source and outed the information they were provided as part of an oppressive smear campaign.
As it is, the prospect that a source can maintain their anonymity after placing false stores ensures that it will happen again and again. The source can simply go to another media outlet the next day. Or, worse still, the same outlet, as if nothing wrong was going on.
Protection cannot be an invitation to falsification. If there’s evidence of malicious intent on the part of the source—perhaps malicious intent that the journalist shares for ideological or other reasons—then both should be effectively exposed. A media outlet should indeed have an ethical obligation to expose a falsifying source.
Agreed.
I would like to know whether Matt asked the caller why he is conveying this info? What did the caller want Matt to do with the info?
Did the caller expressly ask Matt not to name him?
At any point during or after the conversation, did Matt think to himself . . . hmmm, how might the caller benefit if I publish this unsubstantiated rumor? (In other words, did Matt think the caller might be lying, or have reason to lie?)
Under these circumstances, I would have asked the caller whether he had written evidence to demonstrate the veracity of his statements.
If he said yes, then I'd ask him to provide a copy of the written evidence to me.
Otherwise, I'd report what the caller said along with the caller's name.
Perhaps they do, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't considered inviolate to burn a source who knowingly lies. This certainly has more to do with keeping the pipelines open than any ethical dilemma. I do enjoy how you changed the topic from "Matt did nothing wrong by tweeting the BS information as-is" to "Matt isn't doing anything wrong by not revealing his sources". I actually agree that his decision to not rat out Freeze is valid, hell, he hardly needs to anymore since Huston Nutt did it for him.
If Forde, Wolken, etc. regurgitated information as if it were true when their only way of obtaining the information was a single, biased source, then they don't deserve to be called, "respected journalists."
So what would you have done in that scenario? He has a statewide radio show that is not limited to just Mississippi State. His first priority is to feed his family. This helped him do that.
furthermore, i dont want a pro msu guy posting anything positive about ole miss in any capacity. did it somehow advance his career posting what he heard from sources? we all know the answer is no. he should have put it in his back pocked out of loyalty alone. why be a sounding board for something that casts a hated rival in a positive light at a time where nothing but lies are coming from them? (at the time, the narrative was that there was no investigation)
When the source is the head coach of the university - why would you not run with it? Freeze being right or wrong - there is no reason he shouldn't have tweeted out that information.
Just because we don't know what we are arguing about anymore doesn't mean we have to stop does it?
Apparently every journalist in the USA would have run with it except for a handful of experts on this message board.
that is ********. he could and should have said nothing. again, why cast a rival in a good light especially given their propensity for deceit. food was not taken on or off the table by saying/not saying this...and it appears that it might have hurt his career/family VERY modestly in exactly this scenario.
why would a msu guy be running with a positive om story? answer me that.
and fwiw, i used to be a big wyatt supporter and still like him, but if i am given the info and i am a former athlete not in contention for a Pulitzer and HAVE to be the first out there, i tell freeze: cool story bro and text richard cross's number to him. its not like wyatt gained positive notoriety for his part, actually the opposite is now true, and he is pissed about it as he should be.
and fwiw, i used to be a big wyatt supporter and still like him, but if i am given the info and i am a former athlete not in contention for a Pulitzer and HAVE to be the first out there, i tell freeze: cool story bro and text richard cross's number to him. its not like wyatt gained positive notoriety for his part, actually the opposite is now true, and he is pissed about it as he should be.
Matt should try to verify what he is being told, otherwise he loses all credibility as a "journalist". Regurgitating off the record comments as facts make him look like a hack.
I did not read this entire thread, so it may have been discussed here.... but the key thing to me is that the use of anonymity in this instance is a little generous. Journalistic codes call for journalists to give anonymity in cases in which great physical harm could be levied against the source. The code also plainly states that giving anonymity to a source who has something to gain by sharing information is a really, really bad practice.
Hugh, obviously, had a **** ton to gain by leaking this information.... and Matt, along with several other journalists, got used and abused by Hugh, Bdork, and co.
What I'm waiting on, is for one of these "journalists" who helped perpetuate a lie that will negatively influence a large number high school athletes to fight back and come clean. I'm looking at Asschoff, Low, Godfrey, and Wyatt as those who need to atone for their complicitness, grow a sack, and call out the OM administration for being the chicken ***** that they are.
Hugh, obviously, had a **** ton to gain by leaking this information.... and Matt, along with several other journalists, got used and abused by Hugh, Bdork, and co.
What I'm waiting on, is for one of these "journalists" who helped perpetuate a lie that will negatively influence a large number high school athletes to fight back and come clean. I'm looking at Asschoff, Low, Godfrey, and Wyatt as those who need to atone for their complicitness, grow a sack, and call out the OM administration for being the chicken ***** that they are.
Amen. There are crazies in every thread, but Shamoan is poised to take a swan dive into the shallow end.
Just give me the push. Matt cashes checks written by msu. It's not like he is some random neutral journalist trying to make a name for himself. He is employed by our university on a limited basis, covers our team, does analysis of our games, so why is he so willing to promote pro ole miss news? He was contacted by Hugh to spread the narrative and did it thinking he was breaking substantial pro om news. Naive at best. I'm not willing to go as far as others, but there is a lesson to be learned here.
This is the best post of the whole thread. It is a joke to keep the Head to Head show going. It's at best a UM homer vs a guy that's trying to feed his family (as DS said). Matt is not a friend of MSU.
There is a lesson to be learned here and that is use some common sense. I hope you'll try that approach going forward.
so he took word from a coach where a university has been under investigation for 3 years that it was all stuff from before 3 years ago? it was a dumb move by him. sit back and objectively examine the information regardless of who it comes from and then run with it. It would have sounded fishy to me and i would have let dick cross retweet and run with it and kept out of it. Let Cross play use it then Matt could cast a little doubt on it by not naming sources but merely pointing out that this is news 3 years after the investigation has been ongoing. Play to your audience. Them debating it back and forth would have made for much better radio.
He is married into a Rebel family, his father-in-law has all but disowned his own Bulldogs. The women wear the pants in that family.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball
Bulldogs prepare to level up competition, starting with Xavier in neutral site meeting
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Who carries the load?
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Run vs. Run
-
04
Maroon and White Basketball
Mississippi State 79-57 Troy: Bulldogs build big early lead in home win over Trojans
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Kamario Taylor speaks on return to Mississippi State for 2027