Former UCF QB: Motivation far different than intimidation

[KB]

I'd take the player article more seriously if it wasn't all anonymous.  If anything, putting your name on the quote protects you cause the poop will hit the fan if the staff goes after you(if you are indeed telling the truth).  It's too easy to embelish if your name isn't tied to your quotes.  That's why I'm not buying it.  Could there be more to this?  Absolutely, but I need evidence, not anonymous quotes.

I've heard varying interpretations of the NCAA rule, so I'm reserving judgement on that.

Either way, the UCF football family is on shaky ground.

You either have rats or whistle blowers.  Bad either way.  

[DawgPound]

Oh I agree that it's not cool.  I just dont see how the newspaper is justified by publishing a fully anonymous article.  There needs to be something tangible.

[Brad]

Geez, turns out O'Leary isn't the only one to throw Moffet under the bus...

:ROFLMAO

[USF_Grouper]

Oh I agree that it's not cool.  I just dont see how the newspaper is justified by publishing a fully anonymous article.  There needs to be something tangible.

There is no journalistic integrity rule that prevents newspapers from publishing anonymous articles.  Practically every political article you see has the "representative in the XYZ campaign speaking on a condition of anonymity".  Watergate was based entirely on an anonymous source.  There is a long tradition of journalist going to jail to protect the identify of their sources.  The journalist has to feel confident that the information being provided is reasonably accurate.  Having four current players is sufficient for me.  I am really not sure where UCF fans are getting this idea that a paper shouldn't publish anonymous articles.

[South_Florida_Flip]

I'd take the player article more seriously if it wasn't all anonymous.  If anything, putting your name on the quote protects you cause the poop will hit the fan if the staff goes after you(if you are indeed telling the truth).  It's too easy to embelish if your name isn't tied to your quotes.  That's why I'm not buying it.  Could there be more to this?  Absolutely, but I need evidence, not anonymous quotes.

I've heard varying interpretations of the NCAA rule, so I'm reserving judgement on that.

Fair enough. Maybe they are embellishing things, but their fear of of retribution by the coaches is a pretty good reason to remain anonymous. 

[DawgPound]

I'd take the player article more seriously if it wasn't all anonymous.  If anything, putting your name on the quote protects you cause the poop will hit the fan if the staff goes after you(if you are indeed telling the truth).  It's too easy to embelish if your name isn't tied to your quotes.  That's why I'm not buying it.  Could there be more to this?  Absolutely, but I need evidence, not anonymous quotes.

I've heard varying interpretations of the NCAA rule, so I'm reserving judgement on that.

Fair enough. Maybe they are embellishing things, but their fear of of retribution by the coaches is a pretty good reason to remain anonymous. 

Imagine if they went on the record and there was retribution.  That would make UCF look horrible.  I think they would be safe if they stepped forward and gave their names.  It also could help verify their story.

[Orlando Bull]

FWIW - I saw Moffet playing in a co-ed flag football game here in Orlando, and I think I witnessed him throwing two picks, one to a girl, in about 3 series that his team had the ball. It wasn't all his fault, he was used to receivers actually running routes, and catching bullet passes as opposed to standing around, and needing the ball lobbed to them, but still, not good stats for a co-ed flag football game.

As for the articles, it would be interesting to see what other former players have to say. If more come forward with similar issues, I think it validates it. I personally would remain anonymous too if I were a current player. When you are playing on a scholarship, the coach basically owns you. For instance, GOL could say to these players "son, I think you need to work harder in the class room, if you don't get a 3.5 this semester, I think it would be best if you were suspended for x games." Thats not something that the paper would kill GOL for, it's too easy for him to say "Geez, I am just looking out for this guy's future, I want him to do well in school, and football has to be secondary for him." Just an example, the coach knows everything about his guys, if he finds the 4 guys who talked, he can easily make their lives hell without it looking like punishment.

[Knight_Light]

DP... for the record, the St. Pete Times and the Orlando Sentinel were the only papers in the most recent round of circulation reports (November 2007) to report an INCREASE in circulation.  Every other paper in Florida lost readership and saw circulation numbers shrink due to alternate forms of media.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/hancock/blog/2007/11/doh.html

"The most recent circulation numbers, which covered the six months ended 30 September, were the Sentinel’s best circulation performance in several years, the sources noted"

Sounds like they were doing just fine before they decided to blow the lid off of O'Leary's house of cards.

Your excuse doesn't fly.

Sentinel has LOST 40,000 daily subscribers over the past 2 years:

"The newspaper, which in 2005 had daily circulation figures of about 251,000, slid 10% and in 2007 reported weekday circulation of 213,406, according to industry figures."

Look for more daily subscriber losses with the Spring and Fall 2008 numbers are released.

[Knight_Light]

Oh I agree that it's not cool.  I just dont see how the newspaper is justified by publishing a fully anonymous article.  There needs to be something tangible.

There is no journalistic integrity rule that prevents newspapers from publishing anonymous articles. 

Actually...every newspaper has their own ethical standards published for the public to see.

Here's 2 parts from the Sentinel's Code of Ethic on Accuracy, Integrity and the use of Anonymous sources:

3. Accuracy and Integrity

Breaking the law. Editorial staffers will not engage in illegal activities in pursuit of news, and editors will not encourage or tolerate illegal behavior.

Fabrication. Fabrication has no place in journalism and will not be tolerated. To guard against confusion, fictional and satirical writing should be clearly labeled if there could be any doubt in readers' minds about whether such writing deals with real events and persons.

Plagiarism. Plagiarism ? the taking of wording or ideas from another person or organization without attribution ? is a cardinal sin of journalism and will not be tolerated. When original information, quotes, ideas and distinctive language from other sources are used in our reports, they should clearly be attributed. Sentences or paragraphs taken from wire stories should be attributed either within the text or by a shirttail explaining that wire services were used in compiling the report.

Deception in reporting. Misrepresenting one's identity to get information is generally unacceptable, although there may be occasional exceptions. A restaurant critic, for example, may need to make reservations under an alias. Reporters who contact news sources with the intention of gathering material for a story should be candid about who they are and what they are doing.

Fictitious names. The use of a fictitious name to protect a subject's privacy should be used only as a last resort. In these rare cases, the use of the pseudonym must be explained to readers and approved by the Managing Editor.

Posing and alteration of photographs. Photographers must not stage or direct the content of news photographs or alter the elements of a news scene. This does not preclude a reasonable degree of posing in non-news situations or the art direction of studio photographs. Once taken, a photo must not be altered in any way that turns it into something the photographer did not see in the viewfinder. Changes must be limited to standard quality adjustments applied by imaging technicians.

Photo illustrations. The combination of photography and illustration to create a "photo illustration" is acceptable in cases in which the subject matter is complex, abstract or difficult to convey through documentary photography. However, all photo illustrations must contain an element of the absurd so exaggerated that the image could not be confused with a documentary photo. These pieces must be labeled as photo illustrations, and their use must be approved by a supervising design or photo editor.

Datelines. A dateline should be used only when the bylined reporter has gathered information at that location. It must never be used in a way that misleads the reader about where the reporter has traveled for the story.

Excerpts. With proper attribution, we may excerpt brief passages of books, articles and other published works in reviews and in news stories about the work being excerpted. But when using excerpts of more than a few lines from copyrighted works, we must first obtain permission from the publisher.

Opinion. Expressing opinion is the privilege of columnists, critics and editorial writers. Other Orlando Sentinel journalists must strive to avoid injecting opinion into their news reports. The same principle applies to community speeches, blogs and broadcast appearances. A practical guideline: If you wouldn't write it in your news story, don't say it in these other venues.

Correction of errors. When we publish information that is inaccurate or misleading, we will make every effort to publish the correct information as quickly as possible and to prevent the publication of similarly erroneous information in the future. The procedures and format for correcting errors are detailed in the Corrections and Clarifications Policy.

4. Anonymous Sources

"On the record" is the rule. We attribute information we publish in the Sentinel so that readers can judge for themselves the worth of what they read. We avoid attributing information to people we cannot identify in print because doing so can undermine our credibility. Sometimes, however, vital information cannot be attributed to identified sources. When we withhold a source's identity, responsibility for the reliability of that information falls to the Sentinel rather than to the person providing it.

To limit the use of anonymous sources, we should begin all interviews with the presumption that they are on the record. No statements made on the record can be taken off the record retroactively. We should not grant anonymity merely because someone asks for it, nor should we offer anonymity unless it is a condition of receiving information we regard as vital.

Reporters and sources do not always agree on the definitions of terms used in source negotiations, so we should use this common vocabulary and strive to ensure that sources understand it:

On the record: Information can be published and attributed to identified individuals.

Background/not for attribution: Information can be published but not attributed to identified individuals.

Deep background: Information can be published but not attributed to anyone. It also can be used as the basis for further reporting if the source is not identified.

Off the record: Information cannot be published and cannot be used as the basis for further reporting other than to guide the reporter.

Five considerations. Before publishing anonymous information, we should consider these questions:

Does the importance of the article outweigh any potential damage to the newspaper's credibility?

Is the information to be attributed to an anonymous source necessary?

Have all efforts to obtain the information from someone we can identify been exhausted?

Does the person providing the information have a legitimate reason for remaining anonymous, and can we explain that reason in the story?

Are we certain that the person providing the information does not have an ulterior motive?

Even when we can answer "yes" to all of these questions, we should follow these additional guidelines in using anonymous sources:

We should resort to the use of anonymous sources only for vital ? never innocuous ? information, and only to provide information of which they have firsthand knowledge. We should help the reader to evaluate the worth of the information by providing as much description of the source as possible without revealing his or her identity; ensure that by shielding the identity of one person we are not putting anyone else in jeopardy; make every effort to find additional sources who are independent of one another to corroborate the information; and avoid making an anonymous source the sole basis of a story.

Conversely, we should not allow someone whose identity we are protecting to level a personal attack; allow the description of an anonymous source to be altered without consulting the reporter who gathered the information and agreed to the anonymity; or refer anonymously to other journalists unless they are the subjects of a news report.

Approval of editors. Reporters should obtain the approval of supervising editors before granting anonymity. In cases where that is impractical, reporters should discuss the agreement with their editors before writing the story. In any case, they must disclose the source's identity to their editors, and sources who are granted anonymity must be informed of that requirement. Associate Managing Editors are responsible for knowing the identity of anyone referred to anonymously in a section for which they are responsible or in the reporting of anyone they oversee. The approving editor's initials should appear in the copy in notes next to any reference to an anonymous source, but the name of the source should not be entered into the computer system. The Editor, Managing Editor or Editorial Page Editor must also approve the use of any anonymous source.

Protection of anonymous sources. Any journalist promising a source anonymity should be aware that he or she may face contempt-of-court penalties imposed by a judge if the journalist refuses to comply with a court order to identify the source. It is the reporter's responsibility to ensure that all parties involved in an agreement to protect someone's identity understand the level of anonymity being granted and the conditions under which that agreement will not be honored.

Wire reports. We have less control over the use of anonymous sources in wire stories, but these pieces should meet the same basic standards as staff-written stories. Any wire story relying on anonymous sources must be of overriding importance to our readers. Information attributed to anonymous sources must be necessary to the article, must not be available on the record and must not contain personal attacks. Reports from other news organizations that rely on anonymous sources should be limited to information that is plausible and to subjects on which those organizations have access and expertise.

"Phantom" attribution. We should avoid attributing information to vague groups such as "experts," "informed sources," "key officials," "knowledgeable sources," "observers" or "onlookers." We should not refer to anonymous "sources" when, in fact, there is just one. We should not refer anonymously to someone identified elsewhere in an article as if he or she is more than one person. And we should avoid seeming to attribute information through use of nebulous phrases such as "it is believed that" or "it is expected that."

[bulldad10]

And nowhere in there is anything that says they can't use anonymous sources.  As a matter of fact it gives the guidelines on using them.