Keep in mind that they didn't add a line that said sources DID see money changing hands. They only removed a line that said they DIDN'T. This is not a sign of new evidence, as the story could technically be true either way. It's not a lie either way, but the new version could be an omission of a key fact.

And journos don't update old articles when they get new evidence. They write new articles. Editing that old article doesn't make sense.

[This message has been edited by Worm01 (edited 8/20/2013 10:54p).]

quote:

---

And journos don't update old articles when they get new evidence. They write new articles. Editing that old article doesn't make sense.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

If Markup has confused two different articles, that changes this entire thread. Markup may want dig a little deeper too.

---

It's the same article. I found a cached copy before it changed. That's where the screenshot came from.

I don't know what Internet sites you guys get your news from but on developing stories, articles are changed frequently, rarely with "editor's notes."

For example, the West explosion. CNN had an initial article about it, time it took place, facts know at that time, etc. Next day as more facts came in, the story changed but still kept parts of the previous story that were accurate. This went on for a week.

This isn't newspaper journalism. They don't constantly write and rewrite stories every day.

Unmade bed may be correct.

There could be one article by Rovell, the first one that did not include "no money changed hands".

Choed later looked into it further and wrote his story which included the report stating nobody saw money change hands.

Markup reads the idiot Norvell's article and thinks its the second article with the last line removed.

quote:

---

It may be a little bit of a stretch but if the article originally said there was no evidence that money changed hands and then was later updated and that sentence was removed then it could be argued that ESPN is now saying there is evidence that money changed hands.

If they do not have evidence of this, then they are publishing something they know is false.

---

This is not like the West story in which they were adding information as it came in. This is a story that was published and then later changed with absolutely no new evidence (unless Rovell and everyone else decided not to tweet the new evidence - which is very unlikely).

Fooz

quote:

---

lulz, someone sent him the screenshots I took.



His reply:

darren rovell þ@darrenrovell 5m
@TarpRivals @themarkup @wee_ag story is accurate as it presently exists.

---

It seems to me it is the same article with the last sentence removed. IN response to Passwaters' questioning, Rovell says that the story is accurate "as it presently exists" which can be taken to mean it is accurate WITHOUT the last sentence. Thus Rovell is implying that he now has a source that saw money change hands. Maybe he is waiting til an opportune time (Sept 13?) to reveal.

[This message has been edited by RandyAg98 (edited 8/20/2013 11:15p).]

ESPN is losing its last shred journalistic integrity so quickly it's unreal. There are so many fans who have changed their opinions of them recently.

Citizen:
the article they are referring to isn't one written by Rovell or Schadd.

Its just a generic ESPN "report" article, like the one linked below on Von Miller's drug suspension (sorry not trying to rub salt in wound its just top link on espn.com and Aggie FB related):
http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/story/_/id/9586206/von-miller-denver-broncos-serve-6-game-suspension

That Von Miller article isn't written by anyone in particular. Tomorrow if it comes out that Von dropped a deuce in his urine cup, handed it to the screener, and did his chopping dance out the door, this information will be added to that report, probably near the top, but much of the other information would remain the same.

The article is likely to be amended several times over the next few days until it is no longer on the front of ESPN.

quote:

---

I don't know what Internet sites you guys get your news from but on developing stories, articles are changed frequently, rarely with "editor's notes."

For example, the West explosion. CNN had an initial article about it, time it took place, facts know at that time, etc. Next day as more facts came in, the story changed but still kept parts of the previous story that were accurate. This went on for a week.

This isn't newspaper journalism. They don't constantly write and rewrite stories every day.

---

I liked your first post better. If your above post is now your stance, I think you're wrong. Internet news outlets should not take out important facts that support give an unbiased viewpoint.

It's important that the reader understands no money was seen changing hands.

Comparing this to West? Really?

You are right, it's not print journalism. That's why they don't have to wait till Tuesday to print a retraction of an error on Monday. They can put it on the same link, or at the very least acknowledge it in the comments.

Alright, so I'll put it to you: why the change?

quote:

---

It seems to me it is the same article with the last sentence removed. IN response to Passwaters' questioning, Rovell says that the story is accurate "as it presently exists" which can be taken to mean it is accurate WITHOUT the last sentence. Thus Rovell is implying that he now has a source that saw money change hands. Maybe he is waiting til an opportune time (Sept 13?) to reveal.

---

Rovell doesn't have a source that saw money change hands. The last sentence was referring to Rovell's witnesses. It is the same sentence that was in the ESPN story that was put on ESPN.com when Rovell's sotry first came out.

Schadd DOES have a source that saw money change hands because schadds source(s) claim to have been paid. When Schadd's report was added to the story, that last sentence was no longer accurate. It was erroneously left in (left over from the story when it was only related to Rovell's sources). ESPN appears to have realized this and edited it.

I really don't understand the fuss, but I may be missing something.

quote:

---

Comparing this to West? Really?

---

Only because that was a recent non-Johnny related story that I followed on the internet.

Probably should have just gone straight with the Von Miller story to avoid the thread derail.

That Von Miller story has changed several times today and I bet will change by the end of the day tomorrow. There are no editor's notes denoting the changes.

quote:

---

Schadd DOES have a source that saw money change hands because schadds source(s) claim to have been paid.

---

No. Stop right now, you are VERY wrong.

link

quote:

---

The broker played two cell phone videos for ESPN showing Manziel signing white Texas A&M helmets and footballs laid out on a bed in a hotel room. The video does not show Manziel accepting any money.

---

everyone is claiming to have paid, but no one has evidence, and that aint ****

[This message has been edited by reb, (edited 8/20/2013 11:26p).]

quote:

---

That Von Miller story has changed several times today and I bet will change by the end of the day tomorrow. There are no editor's notes denoting the changes.

---

You avoided the question: why the change in the johnny story?

And that does not change at all the fact that this is NOT journalism, it'd be just an example of that.

Do not ever rule out sip involvement when A&M is starting to supplant them as the top program in Texas. It has happened every time in my life starting when coach Bryant came to A&M. Add the fact that ESPN has gambled about 1/3 of a billion dollars on the sips and they are laying an egg, and there is plenty of reason for ESPN and tu to want to bring A&M down. Call it paranoia if you want, but I call it reality that some want to deny.

quote:

---

No. Stop right now, you are VERY wrong.

---

Yeah that says the VIDEO shows no money changing hands. The Broker told Schadd he was paid $7,500 and that the money was for rims, so Schad's source did report money changing hands.

reb:

I answered your question on why the change in the Johnny story.

Here is the answer:

quote:

---

Schadd DOES have a source that saw money change hands because schadds source(s) claim to have been paid. When Schadd's report was added to the story, that last sentence was no longer accurate. It was erroneously left in (left over from the story when it was only related to Rovell's sources). ESPN appears to have realized this and edited it.

---

**** you 3rd coast. Not cool.

quote:

---

It may be a little bit of a stretch but if the article originally said there was no evidence that money changed hands and then was later updated and that sentence was removed then it could be argued that ESPN is now saying there is evidence that money changed hands.

If they do not have evidence of this, then they are publishing something they know is false.

---

I swear to Sumlin that if they release something late next week that they have today I am going to punch someone in the face.

Unmade bed, If you are right, I appreciate the clarification. At this point I'm so confused its time to crawl into my made bed. (No ghey)

Also, if you're correct, that Markup dude needs to stop starting--and then losing twitter wars to known idiots.

You are making a leap of logic here:

quote:

---

Schadd DOES have a source that saw money change hands because schadds source(s) claim to have been paid.

---

That does not at all mean that the source saw it change hands.

reb,

the source says he was paid. I don't understand how that would not imply that money changed hands.

If you were to tell me that you were paid $100 to post on texags, I don't think I would be accurate if I were to go tell someone else that you told me "no money changed hands."


Look, I'm not sayin ESPN has evidence that money changed hands. They don't. The broker won't cooperate with the investigation, and who the hell even knows if the broker is reliable or just trying to scam ESPN for money, but the bottom line is the reason for the change in the article seems very simple to me, and it doesn't involve some big conspiracy.

Correct me if im wrong.

But I think what reb is saying is that someone videotaped manziel and said he got paid for signing. However, the person who videotaped him was not necessarily the one who paid him. Like in florida, the people who saw manziel sign where not the ones paying him

quote:

---

Correct me if im wrong.

But I think what reb is saying is that someone videotaped manziel and said he got paid for signing. However, the person who videotaped him was not necessarily the one who paid him. Like in florida, the people who saw manziel sign where not the ones paying him

---

My understanding, which could be wrong because ESPNs reporting on this has bed shoddy at best, is that Schad's talked to a broker that (a) said he paid Johnny $7500 (b) said Johnny wanted the money for rims, (c) had a video of Johnny signing stuff (unsure who shot the video), (d) tried to sell the video to schad.

From what I understand from articles and from hearing joe schad talk about it, the broker he talked to told him that he paid Johnny.

nai is correct.

Just a hypothetical to show how its not necessarily implied, lets say there was a payment. But Nate took it elsewhere because he wasn't there from someone else and took it from someone else. That possibility breaks down the leap from saying it necessitates the person who filmed it, or whoever they talked to, seeing it take place.

[This message has been edited by reb, (edited 8/20/2013 11:52p).]

quote:

---

From what I understand from articles and from hearing joe schad talk about it, the broker he talked to told him that he paid Johnny.

---

The reader of the article is misled into thinking that, but once you put this under a microscope, there are a lot of implicit assumptions to make Johnny appear guilty when in reality its smoke.

quote:

---

(d) tried to sell the video to schad.

---

I have a problem with this. The person, who has no interest in cooperating with the NCAA, wouldn't actually do this. Asking Schad what such a video would be worth to ESPN out of curiousity can be misconstrued as an attempt to sell.

The ncaa does not use unnamed sources or second hand reports, i.e., hearsay. So, unless the source talks to the ncaa, nothing happens.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9544137/broker-says-johnny-manziel-took-7500-autographing-helmets

reb,

click that link. Don't read the article. Watch the video and listen to what Joe Schad says.

he makes it clear that the broker told him that he (the Broker) paid for the autographs.

sorry fixed link

[This message has been edited by unmade bed (edited 8/21/2013 12:01a).]

you are correct, schad does say that the broker claims to have paid him cash. I was wrong on that.

Whatever the reason, justified or not, they should tell the reader why the last part was removed.

Schad says the broker claims to have paid Johnny cash...that doesn't necessarily mean he handed him the cash. If I send my brother to pick up a to go order at Chili's and pay for the food, can I not say "I paid for the food". So if he indeed pay Johnny, it is not definite that the money exchanged between their hands.

Johnny said "you never did this signing with me.."

I'm not getting into everything that could mean but having heard only that segment from Schad, I wonder why Johnny didn't say; "you never gave me money for this signing", or " no money was ever exchanged for this singing"?

"You never did a signing with me.."[JFF], "that it could cause problems for him and them"[Schad]. This leads me to a lot of other questions. If Johnny "was never there" as he allegedly alluded to, then how would these brokers explain the volume of autographs? Why would Johnny signing lead to problems for him and the brokers?


I know watching the film is the only way to understand the context of what was said and what exactly happened, but the fragments they elected to "share" are very curious.

"Schad says the broker claims to have paid Johnny cash..."

He's been dead for a decade now