deadspin

[NovaScotian]

without discussing the original story, as i respect the decision to ignore it, i was curious about the attitude toward deadspin on this site (both the board and the main page). i understand that many may feel that the site has a bias against duke (the same bias that many would argue exists everywhere), but the new tactic seems to be shifting towards questioning deadspin's credibility. from a (now locked) thread:

"Not sure how true this is, since deadspin has an apparent aversion to fact checking."
"Deadspin isn't exactly a "mainstream media outlet." They're not exactly in the business of getting to the bottom of the facts."

and from the homepage article:
"...it’s Deadspin, which is hit or miss when it comes to credibility."

nevermind that deadspin was not the primary source for this story, and that the story appeared on several other sites including the Daily mail. i'm not quite sure if this reflexive dismissal of deadspin as a rumor-mongering web-rag is justified. i've read deadspin for several years, and while it has verged far into the world of gossip, it generally does not invent or blindly repeat stories, especially as they've moved into the mainstream over the past few years. can anyone point to examples of stories they have just gotten plain wrong?

[FerryFor50]

without discussing the original story, as i respect the decision to ignore it, i was curious about the attitude toward deadspin on this site (both the board and the main page). i understand that many may feel that the site has a bias against duke (the same bias that many would argue exists everywhere), but the new tactic seems to be shifting towards questioning deadspin's credibility. from a (now locked) thread:

"Not sure how true this is, since deadspin has an apparent aversion to fact checking."
"Deadspin isn't exactly a "mainstream media outlet." They're not exactly in the business of getting to the bottom of the facts."

and from the homepage article:
"...it’s Deadspin, which is hit or miss when it comes to credibility."

nevermind that deadspin was not the primary source for this story, and that the story appeared on several other sites including the Daily mail. i'm not quite sure if this reflexive dismissal of deadspin as a rumor-mongering web-rag is justified. i've read deadspin for several years, and while it has verged far into the world of gossip, it generally does not invent or blindly repeat stories, especially as they've moved into the mainstream over the past few years. can anyone point to examples of stories they have just gotten plain wrong?

Deadspin has several issues. For one, it's one of those crowd-sourced blog sites, where pretty much anyone can contribute. That can be good, but it's usually bad. You generally don't get shining journalism from the masses.

Another problem I have with them is the nature of the stories. Not a lot of quality content in the Manti T'eo hoax or the Brett Favre junk pictures.

Then there was the handling of the Steve Phillips affair:

http://www.aolnews.com/2009/10/21/espn-horndog-dossier-deadspin-espn-fight-raises-legal-question/

As for getting stories wrong, I again point you to Manti T'eo.

http://www.onefootdown.com/2013/1/29/3924714/the-teo-hoax-the-damage-of-deadspin
http://www.cjr.org/full_court_press/disappointing_deadspin.php?page=all

They got the story wrong and then blasted T'eo when they finally got it right. They pull the trigger to get the scoop before checking the facts.

As Duvall aptly put it, they're basically the Globe or National Enquirer or sports journalism. Sometimes they get it right, but you always feel like you need a shower when they do.