ITK Credit

[Aleksz]

Just now, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Pre match PL press conferences have a general section and an embargoed section (usually 2230).

So you'll find lots of journalists posting similar stories online at 2230 on social media.

Thought so, Thanks Geoff. 

[HankMarvin]

36 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Alexa, what is the standard Foxes Talk reply to tweets like that.

 

"Can't be true because there's no direct quotes from Rudkin or Top or Susan or from Celtic or Brendan or..." 

Snob

you have your own PA 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Aleksz said:

Wrong. Herald tweeted at 10:20 they "Had an update on Rodgers future" and then tweeted the article after half past. 

 

Its common knowledge big stuff like that has time embargoes. 

Well, its sister paper the Evening Times tweeted a link to the full story, which it has claimed as an exclusive, at least two hours before your supposed embargo.

 

 

[Aleksz]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

Well, its sister paper the Evening Times tweeted a link to the full story, which it has claimed as an exclusive, at least two hours before your supposed embargo.

 

 

I meant 10:30pm last night. When they first tweeted their article about our approach. And the rest of them did too. 

[brucey]

I've been following that account for 3 years. That account posted about 10 transfer stories in the summer/Jan, some of which were clearly untrue (like us wanting to get Drinky back). Whoever runs that account, to their credit, monitors various journos and forums and is quick to post anything that is likely reliable. Most of the time their breaking news gets posted seconds after Percy et al. His source could have been Celtic forum ITKs from last night, I think they mentioned him being at our game.

[Izzy]

I don't get the fascination with all this ITK stuff. It's all just gossip and rumor really isn't it?

 

It just seems like some big soap opera with people desperate to break the news first or be seen to be right.

 

I get that it's journalists jobs to report on stuff but for everyone else isn't it all a big waste of time and effort? What's the point?

 

I'm happy just to wait until things are announced officially but maybe I'm just old fashioned 

 

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I don't get the fascination with all this ITK stuff. It's all just gossip and rumor really isn't it?

 

It just seems like some big soap opera with people desperate to break the news first or be seen to be right.

 

I get that it's journalists jobs to report on stuff but for everyone else isn't it all a big waste of time and effort? What's the point?

 

I'm happy just to wait until things are announced officially but maybe I'm just old fashioned 

 

 

 

ITK’s need wheelbarrows just to manage everyday life, just like Buster 

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Aleksz said:

I meant 10:30pm last night. When they first tweeted their article about our approach. And the rest of them did too. 

Ah, apologies for getting my wires crossed. It still doesn't make it any more likely that this anonymous Twitter account was in on it though. As others have said, it's not exactly known as a consistent source of information. Just seems some people are desperate to put their faith in anything other than the journalists who do actually accurately and faithfully report these stories.

[urban.spaceman]

Thanks to @themightyfin I’m now £100 richer. 

 

I intend to spend it all on drugs and women.

[MPH]

58 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

"Faceless". 

 

Their names literally appear with their stories.

that gives you no indication as to who the person is though does it? it doesn’t mean anything.

[turtmcfly]

27 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Thanks to @themightyfin I’m now £100 richer. 

 

I intend to spend it all on drugs and women.

 

Given the available funds, your use of the plural is an eye opener. 

[urban.spaceman]

5 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

Given the available funds, your use of the plural is an eye opener. 

I am open to recommendations.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

Given the available funds, your use of the plural is an eye opener. 

200 50-p-Lill's  

[turtmcfly]

Just now, urban.spaceman said:

I am open to recommendations.

 

I recommend 3 at the back

[Permafrost]

49 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Thanks to @themightyfin I’m now £100 richer. 

 

I intend to spend it all on drugs and women.

And squander the rest?

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

that gives you no indication as to who the person is though does it? it doesn’t mean anything.

What are you on about? You think John Percy and Rob Tanner are made-up names? 

[MPH]

 

22 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

What are you on about? You think John Percy and Rob Tanner are made-up names? 

What i am on about is that Just because a newspaper article has a name next to it doesnt guarantee its accuracy. If that was the case then everything the Sun or NOTW has posted over the last 50 years should be considered 100% accurate, because they have all had names next to them. What you just did was mention some TRUSTED names- we follow that name and recognize that what they have posted in the past has been accurate.. my point - a twitter feed or an ITK in general can be believed if they have a track record of being accurate. Just because no  single person's name name is attached to something doesn't necessarily mean its inaccurate. It's 'name' is the name of the twitter account.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

What i am on about is that Just because a newspaper article has a name next to it doesnt guarantee its accuracy. If that was the case then everything the Sun or NOTW has posted over the last 50 years should be considered 100% accurate, because they have all had names next to them. What you just did was mention some TRUSTED names- we follow that name and recognize that what they have posted in the past has been accurate.. my point - a twitter feed or an ITK in general can be believed if they have a track record of being accurate. Just because no  single person's name name is attached to something doesn't necessarily mean its inaccurate. It's 'name' is the name of the twitter account.

But, on the balance of probability, a named individual working for a reputable news organisation is *more likely* to be a good source of information than an anonymous Twitter account.

 

Journalists are accountable for the stories they write because they have to stake their reputation on getting stuff right. If they don't, supporters, readers, contacts and ultimately their bosses will lose trust in them and get rid of them. An anonymous Twitter account doesn't have that problem - as long as it gets the odd guess right once in a while, people will latch on to it and happily give it undue credit as they have in this thread.

[MPH]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

But, on the balance of probability, a named individual working for a reputable news organisation is *more likely* to be a good source of information than an anonymous Twitter account.

 

Journalists are accountable for the stories they write because they have to stake their reputation on getting stuff right. If they don't, supporters, readers, contacts and ultimately their bosses will lose trust in them and get rid of them. An anonymous Twitter account doesn't have that problem - as long as it gets the odd guess right once in a while, people will latch on to it and happily give it undue credit as they have in this thread.

 

 

reputable journalists are. Some just want to make money and will print what they have to, to do it.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

 

reputable journalists are. Some just want to make money and will print what they have to, to do it.

I don't disagree, and it's sad that they do that. But the vast, vast majority don't. People just tend to remember the bad ones, like you would in any walk of life.