gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
This exposes a wider point around sports journalists and their sources. Historically, when it was a profession which operated under an ethical code of sorts, when a journalist quoted an anonymous source, it was reasonable to conclude that it was bona fide. These sources served a genuine purpose, as it meant people with inside knowledge of a given situation could provide a degree of insight without revealing their identity. The sanctity of a journalist not revealing their sources meant people could whistle-blow without the consequences that would flow from that if their identity was disclosed. This meant information got into the press that would otherwise not. It wasn’t perfect, because people with an agenda could exploit it, but the public could read the article and accept that the source was genuine, even if the motives of the source were not.
These days, given the cesspit that sports journalism has descended into in an unedifying chase for clicks, I think most of these quotes we see are completely made up. My default position is that everything these cunts say is rooted in running a particular click-driven narrative and they will do anything, including making quotes up, to support that narrative.
So now, whenever I see an anonymous quote from a sport journalist, I simply assume it’s made up, and discount it, which is the only sensible and logical approach to follow.
