- Trib: Dubois To Take Over As Starting Leftfielder
- Dubois to Get Bulk of Playing Time in Left After All
- Baker: Hairston Will Get Most of the Playing Time at Second Base
- Cubs Won't Trade Zambrano for Tejada; Likely to Bring Grissom to Spring Training
- Kiley: "Major League Source" Says Baker Could Receive an Extension
Contrary to Report, Baker Sticking With Hollandsworth In Left
Submitted by cubsnet on Mon, 2005-05-09 21:17.
Todd Hollandsworth got the start in leftfield in tonight's game. The Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan had reported in today's paper that the Cubs were going to give Jason Dubois a shot as the full-time starter in left, and make Hollandsworth a backup once again. Sullivan didn't cite a source and none of the other papers had reported the same information. Sullivan was unwilling to disclose his source when I emailed him. In fact, when I asked Sullivan for his source, his response was, "I hope you're kidding me." I replied to Sullivan asking if he hoped I was kidding because it was improper to ask a reporter for his source when it was not freely disclosed in the article. This was his reponse to that email: "Yes, that's exactly why. But Dusty said he's sticking with Hollandsworth, so stay tuned."
In summary, this is what appears to be the situation: Sullivan has an unnamed source that said Dubois was going to take over. That source was wrong. Dusty Baker says he is sticking with Hollandsworth, meaning that Baker is almost certainly not the source. And it's unlikely that one of the members of Baker's coaching staff would be telling Sullivan something was going to happen that Baker had no intention of doing. The source has to be someone in the front office. And if it's not Jim Hendry, it must be one of Hendry's assistants.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- cubsnet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Or it could have been specula
Or it could have been speculation on Sullivan's part. This is a sportswriter who has a history of getting stuff wrong.
Yes, it definitely could have
Yes, it definitely could have been speculation. But Sullivan did indicate that he didn't want to reveal his source, which makes one think he had a source to begin with.
Actually, unsourced
Here's the quote from Sullivan's story:
"Jason Dubois will get a shot at becoming the everyday left fielder, beginning Monday. The Cubs have decided to make Todd Hollandsworth a backup and aren't currently seeking outfield help."
There's no source attribution there, unless you count "the Cubs" as a source. I'm not sure if this is just Sullivan or sporst reporting in general, but they seem to be a lot looser with attributing information than, for example, political or business reporters. Obviously, the source was not Baker, and Hendry was attempting to put public pressure on Baker to play Dubois.
But a responsible journalist shouldn't let himself be manipulated like that -- the point is to report what's happening, not what the GM thinks *should* be happening (unless it's reported that way: "Hendry Unhappy With Hollandsworth in Left" is a great story to write). At the very least, Sullivan should get a comment from Baker to see if it's true. He's the one, after all, making the decisions. Either that or give the reader *some* context for determining the likelihood of the statement's truth.
Sullivan was wrong, but he didn't have to be. He's not breaking news, he's just hurting his own reputation.
--
Kevin B. O'Reilly
http://kevin.oreilly.net/howl/
I'm not sure if this is just
I'm not sure if this is just Sullivan or sports reporting in general, but they seem to be a lot looser with attributing information than, for example, political or business reporters.
I've noticed this as well. It's annoying. I complained a bit during the 2003 season about Mike Kiley at the Sun-Times doing this, until I just got used to it. It's one of the reasons why I was so skeptical about Sullivan's report on Dubois.