"Sources" ruin it for everyone

Earlier today, I read on ESPN that Hedo Turkoglu had agreed to a free agent contract with the Portland Trail Blazers. The ESPN article reportedly got the information from "sources."

After reading this news, which had supposedly been confirmed, I wrote a column about what Turkoglu brings to the Blazers, and what the gamble will mean for the Blazers future.

The time spent on that column, apparently, was all for nothing.

ESPN is now reporting that Turkoglu has ended negotiations with the Blazers. Again, the article cites "sources." The sources aren't named, nor are they identified as being close to the team, the league, or the planet earth. They are simply "sources."

That sort of lazy reporting, spreading false information by not confirming the reports, is an insult to readers and the profession of journalism.

Now, I understand that, in the grand scheme of things, the mis-reporting of a basketball free agent signing is not the end of the world (and I admit to being mad about writing a whole column that is now worthless), but this does bring to light some of the problems with reporting using unnamed sources. I fully understand that journalism is a deadline-driven business where timing is everything and the pressure to break a story is high. But that doesn't excuse reporting something false.

They teach you in journalism classes that all stories need to be confirmed by two sources close to the story. The "closeness" factor is extremely important. If an NBA team signs a free agent, the people who can confirm a story are people high up in the organization who had or saw direct contact with the decision. The receptionist, or an intern cannot confirm the story, because they might not know all the facts. IN the case of the Turkoglu/Blazers story, the "sources" cited didn't know what they were talking about.

I know that journalists will always need unnamed sources if they want to report certain stories. People and organizations are always so desperate to control the flow of information that they will reject comment on a story and instruct other employees to do the same. Sometimes, it is necessary to have someone confirm a story off the record, simply to get the truth out.

But a level of professionalism must be kept, and that means that the use of unnamed sources must not run so rampant that the wrong facts are reported. I understand employees don't want to lose their jobs, so if they must go off the record, the journalist must give the readers something in order to save face: the areas or departments the sources work in, or how high up in the organization they serve. That way, if something wrong does come out, we know where the misinformation is coming from.

It's either that, or wait until you can confirm the story with 100 percent certainty. That might help.

When I was working for the Gonzaga Bulletin newspaper, a breaking story arose right before a deadline. Apparently, a student had been hiding explosive materials in his dorm room, and may have been responsible for a Molotov cocktail found in a parking lot. The Bulletin reporters called anyone close to the investigation, went to a press conference, and even went to the dorm hall in question. The reporters wrote their story based on the information given to them by authorities, specifically citing where they had received their information.

But much of that information turned out to be false. Rather than dismiss this, the Bulletin acknowledged its mistakes, and continued to report the story as it unfolded, citing the sources of new information and explicitly explaining where the incorrect information came from.

That experience proved to be a lesson for all of us on staff - that if we were clear with the readers in our reporting, we remain truthful and credible in the eyes of our readers and the subject of our stories.

But when reporters get lazy, the publishing of mis-information spirals out of control to the point that everyone else follows your lead.

Just because you cite new "sources" after learning of your blunder or re-write your lede after following the blunders of others doesn't make up for bad reporting. If you break the story, you're responsible for what happens if you get it wrong.

Readers deserve better. Fans deserve better. Journalism deserves better.

(And you made me waste a whole afternoon writing that column. Damn it.)

Blazers hope Turkoglu brings a payoff

ESPN is reporting that the Blazers and Hedo Turkoglu have agreed on a deal that will bring the 30-year-old forward to Portland. Turkoglu was looking for a five year deal worth roughly $50 million, and all accounts are saying that the deal with the Blazers will probably be for that amount.

The Blazers had been looking for a veteran. They got one. They were looking for experience. They got it. They were looking for someone to take the scoring load off Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. Check.

The Blazers got their big-name free agent. Now they need to hope for a payout.

Throughout the entire courtship process the Blazers have had with Turkoglu, I've been surprised at how polarizing of a figure he has been. Not necessarily because of his play on the court, but because of the proposed contract, and whether Turkoglu is worth it.

It's reportedly a five year deal. That's betting a lot on him staying effective for five years. Is a 32-34-year old Turkoglu worth more to the Blazers than developing players like Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw, or Nicolas Batum? If that's the case, the Blazers need to win soon, or else it will all be for nothing.

Patience had been thrown out the window. The Blazers no longer want to sit and wait for the team to get better on it's own anymore. This move was designed to help the Blazers now.

It's a gamble. The Blazers had grown accustomed to beating the odds in recent years with the continued progress of a young team. But this is the first time in recent memory that they're taking such a risk. Kevin Pritchard, Nate McMillan, and company have won with small wagers the past few years, now they're pushing their chips to the center of the table and betting big.

Some call it gutsy. Some gasp. Some call it stupid. And some are thinking "let it ride."

Like all good bets, it's being made after carefully considering the odds and the opponents. The West is still getting tougher, with the Spurs landing Richard Jefferson and the Lakers adding Ron Artest. The Blazers knew they needed to get better, and finally took at look at their roster and their needs in order to decide what necessary steps needed to be taken. Ultimately, Turkoglu was the pick.

General consensus among fans and media is that the Blazers are paying too much, and I happen to agree. Five years and $50 million seems too high for a 30-year-old player with career averages of 12 points, 3 assists, and 4 rebounds per game. It's a huge risk, but the Blazers knew they needed to do something to stay in the game, and weighed the pros and cons.

He averaged nearly 17 points per game, but what about that 41 percent shooting? At 6-10 and 220, he's hard to match up against, but can he tell the difference now between a good opportunity and a forced shot? Can Roy and Aldridge coexist with him?

In the end, Portland knew what they were getting: another piece to the championship puzzle. Let's look at Turkoglu for what he is: a shooter/scorer who can also post up and put the ball on the floor. His 6-10 frame means he can play 3 positions, and he just helped the Magic get to the NBA finals. He's not a superstar, or a dynamic point forward who will facilitate the offense (Point forward? He's not Scottie Pippen. Pip looked graceful and smooth when he handled the ball. Turkoglu's main strategy when handling the ball is to use his size and back it down the court before handing off to someone else in the halfcourt).

Yes they're overpaying for just a piece, but a team on the rise like the Blazers is only a piece away from serious contention. This isn't like the Blazers are going to the roulette table and betting it all on 15, instead, it's like a single hand of blackjack. The Lakers have been winning big all all night, and have a 7 showing. The Blazers have been slowly accumulating chips and now hold a 16. If the Blazers want to play it safe, they should stay, because the odds are against them that the card they'll get is a card they need. But there's a chance the Lakers could be holding a 17, and be in prime position to win. The Blazers need to hit, and take the big risk.

Turkoglu is the Blazers hitting on 16.

The bet may pay off, it may not. That's the chance you take on a gamble like this. The only thing left is to see how it all plays out.

And even if it doesn't work, the Blazers can always go back to the ATM with Paul Allen's PIN number.