Seth Stokes lost his privileges to attend?

#26
#26
ajvol01 said:
Never asked for his sources.

I asked what does "really good authority" mean.

If the people Swain knows were not eyewitnesses then the story is a rumor.

If the people told Swain, not Seth then it's also a rumor.

Real journalists confirm with multiple sources before running with a story.
Click to expand...

I will add to this. He ran with a story before he even knew what his source considered a "physical altercation." Both De1Conley and DeerPark have corroborated stories from eyewitness accounts about what truly happened and it would appear that Stokes has created a s***storm over a nonstory that the purported victim didn't even want to push. It wasn't even an unknown or new issue. It had already been investigated by several other news outlet and was dismissed. It would appear that Stoked was duped by a third party source with an ax to grind and he unfortunately dragged Swain down with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#27
#27
Well he has it on good authority then. You don't know his source. He believes his source who told him. Get over it. There's people you trust and people you don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
UTK said:
Well he has it on good authority then. You don't know his source. He believes his source who told him. Get over it. There's people you trust and people you don't.
Click to expand...

You might want to look up the meaning of slander and libel.

Defamation of character is very serious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#29
#29
nagle said:
unless u publish rumors instead of facts..:unsure:
Click to expand...

Just because you don't know the source doesn't mean there isn't a source. I don't know SS from Adam, but it took balls to do what he did. He is playing Russian roulette with his career, in theory. No matter what u think of him or the story, that's ballsy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#30
#30
wildnkrazykat said:
Just because you don't know the source doesn't mean there isn't a source. I don't know SS from Adam, but it took balls to do what he did. He is playing Russian roulette with his career, in theory. No matter what u think of him or the story, that's ballsy.
Click to expand...
Or stupid. I call it stupid because he put it out there without corroborating it first. If I couldn't get someone to go on the record or provide concrete evidence, I would sit on it. Because now he looks foolish and petty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#31
#31
ToineMac said:
Or stupid. I call it stupid because he put it out there without corroborating it first. If I couldn't get someone to go on the record or provide concrete evidence, I would sit on it. Because now he looks foolish and petty.
Click to expand...

Where has it ever been said the story wasn't cooroborated? Just cause you dont know the leg work that was done doesn't mean anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
ajvol01 said:
You might want to look up the meaning of slander and libel.

Defamation of character is very serious.
Click to expand...

Stokes has not said that the incident occurred. He asked a question. His actions are neither libel or slanderous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#35
#35
wildnkrazykat said:
Just because you don't know the source doesn't mean there isn't a source. I don't know SS from Adam, but it took balls to do what he did. He is playing Russian roulette with his career, in theory. No matter what u think of him or the story, that's ballsy.
Click to expand...

As said above, there is a difference between ballsy and stupidity and he was on the wrong side of that line.

mdrew27 said:
Stokes has not said that the incident occurred. He asked a question. His actions are neither libel or slanderous.
Click to expand...

He did not ask a question. He made an accusation based on unnamed sources and asked for a comment. That's piss poor journalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#36
#36
mdrew27 said:
Stokes has not said that the incident occurred. He asked a question. His actions are neither libel or slanderous.
Click to expand...

"Uh, coach I have it on really good authority that there was a physical altercation at some point between you and a player. Is there anything you can comment on that?"

1) Accusation
2) Request for comment
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#37
#37
mdrew27 said:
Stokes has not said that the incident occurred. He asked a question. His actions are neither libel or slanderous.
Click to expand...

He did much more than that by loading the question with "I have it on good authority". While he is not required to name the source, he has changed the line of questioning by personally assigning the source a status grade. For his sake, there better be something to the rumor of a physical altercation because it could be very damaging to him in this market to have brought such public attention to a malicious rumor, if that's all it turns out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#38
#38
northknoxvol said:
You cannot ban people for asking hard questions.........heck everyone throws softball questions to him are on the UT payroll......gotta have accountability.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I'm not a big Stokes fan to be sure, but he shouldn't go anywhere...he's a member of the media that asked a legitimate question based on word of a lot of people. He didn't say anything about Jones "abusing" a player, has asked about an altercation....and there was definitely a situation, just no one knew exactly how serious the situation was. Glad it appears to have not risen to anything substantial and hope it's now been put to bed so everyone can move forward and try to win some games and at least get bowl eligible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
ajvol01 said:
"Uh, coach I have it on really good authority that there was a physical altercation at some point between you and a player. Is there anything you can comment on that?"

1) Accusation
2) Request for comment
Click to expand...

You're exactly right. By personally assigning his source with the status grade of "good authority", Stokes wasn't so much asking a question as he was making an accusation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#40
#40
Fwiw, I only took one journalism class in my life (and it just covered the basic principles) but one of the few things I do remember is that you never assign a status grade (such as 'really good authority') to a source unless you are prepared and willing to reveal the source. Seth Stokes seems like a typical rank amateur, sports talk radio hack, not an actual journalist at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#41
#41
KBVol said:
I agree with this. I'm not a big Stokes fan to be sure, but he shouldn't go anywhere...he's a member of the media that asked a legitimate question based on word of a lot of people. He didn't say anything about Jones "abusing" a player, has asked about an altercation....and there was definitely a situation, just no one knew exactly how serious the situation was. Glad it appears to have not risen to anything substantial and hope it's now been put to bed so everyone can move forward and try to win some games and at least get bowl eligible.
Click to expand...

"When are you going to stop beating your wife?" is not a question. It's an accusation with a request for a response building from the foundation that abuse has been established. By assigning a status grade of beyond reproach ('really good authority') to his source without naming it, Stokes basically did the same thing. That's unprofessional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#42
#42
Actually there was nothing professional about what Seth Stokes did. I realize that those of you that are supporting him don't understand journalism, but I will break this down for you.

1) His "strong source" was none other than Alan Posey, a disgruntled player that is years removed from playing and was not even at the event. In other words, a secondary source. A journalist can not run a story on a secondary source without corroborating that story first.

2) His one source has biases that Stokes did not care to look into. Journalists must remain unbiased and provide stories through said lens. When you take info from potentially biased sources you must filter out the biased aspects and double check it.

3) He was not initially transparent in accrediting his source.

4) He did not ask Butch about the rumor, but rather firstly asserted the rumor to be true and then asked Butch to provide a comment. That is EXTREMELY bad form and is something you only find with sensationalists.

5) He actually did run an article saying that "punch-gate" happened. It came out two days ago. At best he should be cut off, at worst he could be sued for libel.

Hope this clears it up for any that still think he was doing good or "ballsy" journalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#45
#45
BowlBrother85 said:
"When are you going to stop beating your wife?" is not a question. It's an accusation with a request for a response building from the foundation that abuse has been established. By assigning a status grade of beyond reproach ('really good authority') to his source without naming it, Stokes basically did the same thing. That's unprofessional.
Click to expand...

Agree that he didn't ask the question in the most professional manner...but the "incident" between Butch and Crowder had evidently been known about for awhile according to Swain and some very credible posters in here (SteelerVol & LWS). While I don't think he asked the question in the right way, I had no problem with him asking a question about it. Also, Butch's response was poor. Could've addressed it with a 100% denial and taken most of it not all of the steam out of it.

I personally didn't care one way or the other...felt comfortable that Butch didn't punch Mack or anything like that. Just did something stupid with a demonstration or something and got put on his ass.
 
Last edited:
#47
#47
KBVol said:
Won't be doing that personally. Gotta put up with Seth if you wanna listen to Swain....which I do.
Click to expand...

Have no idea why people listen to Swain. He was part of the slop that ushered in this era of mediocrity we are suffering through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
KBVol said:
Agree that he didn't ask the question in the most professional manner...but the "incident" between Butch and Crowder had evidently been known about for awhile according to Swain and some very credible posters in here (SteelerVol & LWS). While I don't think he asked the question in the right way, I had no problem with him asking a question about it. Also, Butch's response was poor. Could've addressed it with a 100% denial and taken most of it not all of the steam out of it.

I personally didn't care one way or the other...felt comfortable that Butch didn't punch Mack or anything like that. Just did something stupid with a demonstration or something and got put on his ass.
Click to expand...

He is probably from the school of thought that it's best to not dignify such accusations with a response. It's recruiting fodder no matter what you do.
 
#49
#49
mackievol said:
I suggest everyone do what I did and just stop listening to the clown. End of story.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did. Tried to listen to them this morning and really just didn't want to hear him anymore. It stinks because I really appreciate Swain's outlooks and opinions. If he ever gets another producer, I'll listen again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top