Hardknocks Journalism 101

lol forreal? yea i commented on his article saying lebron is villoria and he deleted it :lol1:

dsource edits his comments on his articles so it only shows people agreeing with him lol forreal?

dsource edits his comments on his articles so it only shows people agreeing with him

man, man and i thought floyd's camp had some turmoil... ????????????

man, man and i thought floyd's camp had some turmoil...

Therefore: Braveheart vs. D Source Braveheart wins by KO (twice- Donaire+Koncz issues). Referee/judge: Timothy James http://www.mp8.ph/blog/official-michael-koncz-replaced/ Arum and TopRank- wrong spokesmen

The BraveHeart Manny Pinol Strikes Again By Timothy James July 19, 2011 This article I am about to post is a MUST READ. I take my hat off to Mr Manny Pinol (Braveheart) who has been around the game for a lot longer than I have. Who knows more about journalism in is little finger than I do in my whole body. He has paved the way for the truth to be revealed time and time again. Early this week I had to rebuke that Michael Koncz has been fired, because this is an Official Site for Manny Pacquiao and I can not release information until legally I am given those rights. Sometimes stories leak and you can get first hand information from others. When your sources come from non “Official Sources” you have to take the source under consideration for what you are reading. Take for instance the wannabe journalist that tries to latch on to his Filipino Heritage so much that he needs to bash others in order to do so. Of course I am not speaking about the credited Mr Manny Pinol. I am speaking about the crumb that tries to make him self sound hip by giving himself the name D’Source. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have the reliable, professional, and investigative writers such as “Braveheart” that validate their statements to the utmost level, before making their press release. I have read this article by Mr. Braveheart and I can say “Unofficially” this man knows what he is talking about- Braveheart is good at what he does- and I step aside to a man of this quality and character- Thank you Manny Pinol for having the courage to report what you know to be the facts, even if they happen to be circumstantial at this time. Circumstantial evidence holds as much weight in a court of law as direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence that when presented leads you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt what the truth is. For instance, If I were to take a pencil and drop it from my hands and you hear it hit the floor, but there was desk in the way, so you did not actually see the pencil hit the floor. You can make a reasonable determination that based on you seeing the pencil in my hand, you watched it leave my hand, you saw it falling to the floor, you heard what appeared to be the sound of that pencil hitting the floor well than….. you can make the reasonable determination that the pencil hit the floor without seeing it. That is called circumstantial evidence. That is what the Braveheart is going off of right now and all I can say is he does a very good job building his case. Please read this article that the BraveHeart has written.

'According to a reliable source': Of Koncz, Atlas and amazing stories http://64.19.142.12/cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_small/hash/0b/0a/0b0a2b0fe9c6edffa448713badac22aa.JPG Dennis 'D Source' Guillermo Filipino Sports Examiner July 20, 2011 There's a popular saying in the Philippines that goes, "Bato bato sa langit, and tamaan, wag magalit." It has something to do with putting out blind items or expose', without really revealing who it is directed to, and how funny it is when guilty parties that you weren't even referring to, come out of nowhere acting like it was meant for them. Comedy. Such is the case lately, when an older writer who sent me an e-mail not too long ago, lecturing me about "journalistic ethics" because I did not share his opinion regarding one of his fighters getting the short end of the stick in another "controversy" in Mexico. According to the old-timer "it is unethical to refute another writer's views expressed in his article. That is an unwritten rule," and that "because then it would appear that you are trying to present yourself as more correct or credible than the other writer," and even warned me that "older writers like Recah Trinidad or Al Mendoza will chew you if you do that to them." First of all, I highly respect Mr. Recah Trinidad. I grew up reading his articles as I did Quinito Henson and Ed Picson's, and listened to a lot of his boxing commentary. I consider his son Chino a good friend and respect his work ethic and 'down to earth' personality. Although honestly, I am not familiar with Al Mendoza's work. You can't read them all right? I don't know how much "older" these writers are, but I figure that if they want to "chew me", then they better have good dentures, because with facts by my side, I'm pretty "tough" to chew. Second, I have my own unwritten rule: Tell the truth. I felt that it was wrong to conjure up another controversy again out of the Pinoy's loss in Mexico, so I wrote it. Truth be told, Mexican boxing fans who read my articles were joking with me and asked me why Filipinos are crybabies when their fighters lose in Mexico. I wrote that piece, because there are cases really that there is controversy. Let's save our protests when there truly is something worthy to protest. In my opinion, only reliable sources, have the right to use the term "according to a reliable source". And if something is not confirmed, one should not write it in that manner- feel free to put a question mark in your headline if your story isn't fact yet. I, myself, pull out the "according to a reliable source card" when a true reliable source doesn't want to be named. That, however, should be a one strike policy. Once you mess up on a story, you should never be allowed to use that card again and should treat that as a lesson and learn how to eat some humble pie. So far, I have been accurate every time I used that card, even when I broke the story on Mayweather vs. Ortiz announcing they will fight. Had I shared false info, I would apologize and make sure to expose my faulty source. That's just how I roll. But I realize some people would rather turn the world upside down before admitting they made a mistake. As far as Teddy Atlas' story on a Team Pacquiao insider inquiring about "what if Pacquiao tests positive?" I've heard rumors on who sent that e-mail, since I first heard of Atlas' claim. But until Atlas comes clean with his source, and/or name specifically who sent that alleged e-mail, then that story in itself holds no true bearing. Proof is the mother of all fact. So now, this older scribe decided to add me to his "damage control" article after announcing something that's not even confirmed and was refuted by no less than Bob Arum himself. For some reason, I was added to that story when I did not even touch or write about the unconfirmed rumor he spread on the internet. He wrote that I had put my foot in my mouth when I refuted his story on Donaire being close to returning with Top Rank as a point of reference on his lecture about Journalism 101, because the following week, I ended up reporting that Donaire signed with Top Rank. (check my article: Fake hype: Bradley denies Top Rank signing; Donaire not close to Top Rank deal) Ironically, the "lecture" I wrote that the old man is crying about, wasn't even directed at him. In the commentary, I wrote: "Rumors, hype, gossip.. There's plenty of it in boxing. That is why you have to make sure your sources are trustworthy in this industry and do your job right and the diligence to crosscheck your information. That's why I post actual audios of my interviews and prefer sources like Elie Seckbach of ***************.com who provides visuals and irrefutable proof of his content. Just because someone on the inside leaks a rumor, doesn't mean it's truth." It was more of a shared advice for my readers on how I choose my sources for news, and a dig at the site that reported that Timothy Bradley signed with Top Rank, when the fighter himself denied it not too long after. Paranoid? Guilty? Whatever his reason is, I guess the man felt the need to take responsibility for my statement. So anyway, let's break down what really happened in that Donaire story where I supposedly "ate my foot". Old writer was candidly conversing with a Top Rank employee that he names as his 'Top Rank insider' and is the sole basis of his report. I know who it is, but we don't have to involve him. This employee is older. He's a trusty one, but doesn't know everything that goes on in the fighters' camp and promotions all the time. All he has is company chatter. So the older writer announced to the world that Donaire is close to returning to Top Rank. For some reason, he aslo felt the need to rehash Donaire's old drama with his father and even took a shot at Donaire's wife Rachel as he has done so in his past articles, to get to his story on the rumor he had stumbled upon. Because of my ties with the Donaire camp from covering them way back, and despite some harsh criticisms I had for them when their contractual dispute came about, I've been allowed to follow that story daily and constantly. I was talking to both Top Rank and Team Donaire at the time the older scribe ran his 'scoop'. Truth is, at that specific time, Donaire was not sure which way to go yet. They weren't sold on Top Rank's offer, and that they were still uncertain on their move. Truth be told, they were keen on waiting it out until the courts decide, which would've been around two weeks from today. So I wrote that Donaire wasn't really close to going back to Top Rank, but it was more a response to a story on a different web site that quoted his trainer Robert Garcia saying Donaire was close to signing with Top Rank. I wrote about the Donaires' hesitations with what Top Rank had offered them on the table. I posted a video link on my story with Garcia categorically denying those statements and I also have the Donaires on tape saying how they were far from re-joining Top Rank. What happened after, and as I reported where the Donaires told me this themselves, is that when Top Rank officials read my story about their reluctance to sign, they met with the Donaires again and asked them why they were still hesitant in signing. Both camps talked and discussed things further and the result was Team Donaire getting a better offer from Top Rank after the Rios-Antillon fight. The Donaires were thankful for my article refuting rumors on them being close to signing with Top Rank, because they never really were close yet at the time, and it actually aided in them ultimately signing. Again, I have that on tape and on record. http://64.19.142.10/cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/e9/36/Michael-Koncz-300x231_0.jpg So now, this older scribe pretty much does the same thing and jumps the gun on the story involving Pacquiao's advisor Michael Koncz, writing it in a manner as if it is already done. For the record, it's a false story because Koncz has not been fired. Now if you ask me, are there talks behind the scenes in the Pacquiao camp to get rid of Koncz? I'll tell you this, those talks have been there for years. Is Koncz for sure going to be fired? That, I will discuss further tomorrow in the continuation of this piece, which you won't dare miss if you seek to get closer to the real story. Journalism 101? Spare me your lectures old man. As they say, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

You know you don't know , don't you ? I don't see anything "frantic" about it. Just part of the hyperbole he was talking about. Koncz was the major figure in the story and it's natural, that when he heard about it he would go to his friend and boss MannyP. to tell him, and find out more. I'm sure Arum has a thousand things more important to do than contacting a reporter to defend Koncz. Since it was he who got Koncz the job in the first place, it's almost 100% that a "smart" reporter asked him about it, and, as he plainly says, he had heard nothing about it until he spoke with Ronnie N who said he'd had dinner with MannyP. "last night", asked him about it and was told it wasn't true. He also implied that Koncz had made himself invaluable to MannyP. and as he had introduced them himself, and was an involved party, pointed outa few of Koncz's good points. The facts as we know them are...that MannyP. said it's all nonsense, that Koncz said the same, and Arum followed suit. If that's true, what the hell else should they have said. After all, hasn't this self proclaimed wonderful journalist just shown us how he can make a mountain out of a molehill by simply twisting a few words, like "did Koncz get fired and is MannyP trying to hide the truth from his wife's boyfriend,"...or some other suggestive piece of crap. If Koncz goes anytime in the next 2 or 3 years, when MannyP. retires, this genius will trumpet..."THERE, I TOLD YOU..DIDN'T I?? I understand they are also partners in a business as well and don't know what sort of buy-out clauses there might be in their agreement, and neither does anyone else, least of all this journalist.

... I find it strange that the frantic denial of the firing would come from both Bob Arum and Top Rank publicist Lee Samuels. Whose guy is Koncz' anyway, Pacquiao's or Top Rank's? ... You know you don't know , don't you ?

http://64.19.142.11/philboxing.com/news/images/gov.pinol.jpg Braveheart By Manny Piñol At age 57 and having been a journalist since 17, I can safely claim that I have grown my spurs as a newsman. Not counting the 15 years as an accidental politician, I would dare say that the 25 years I spent in journalism have honed my news senses to the point of being able to keenly discern what is newsworthy, what is not; what story would interest the reader, what would not; which sources to rely on, which sources to doubt. I played the reporter's game of "scoop" and "koryente" (false alarm) long before many of the current crop of younger journalists learned how to lick their pacifiers. In my younger days, reporters would proudly crow in the morning when they were able to print a story that the other reporters failed to get. In journalism that is called a "scoop." But there were days too, when these same guys would prefer to be like chameleon and adapt to the color of their typewriters when they became victims of a "koryente" or electrocution, which was basically writing a story based on false or made up information. I had my fair share of both. A scoop was exhilirating while a "koryente" made one feel sick like there was a bagful of marbles stuck in the gut. Three weeks ago, I wrote a story about Nonito Donaire Jr.'s return to Top Rank which appeared in The Manila Times and also posted on www.philboxing.com. It was titled "Return of the Prodigal Son: Donaire Back to Top Rank." A young writer immediately came up with a story denying that report and even obliquely lectured me on how to gather information correctly by using a videocam and a tape recorder. He went on to suggest that for reliable information, readers would be safer by getting it from him. Four days ago, he virtually stuffed his feet into his mouth when he came up with an "official" announcement from Donaire himself that indeed he was returning to Top Rank. There were several lessons in news gathering and reporting that I learned as a young scribe. First, if you want to get a first hand story, get it from the subject himself. If you want to get the other side of his story, go to his detractors. Second, never report a story when you are not sure of its accuracy but then again, when somebody beats you to a story, never come up with a denial unless you are also very sure of your version. Which brings us now to the brewing storm caused by a column I wrote about the fall from grace of Michael Koncz, Manny Pacquiao's erstwhile business advisor and spokesman, who also served as the go-between for the Pacman and his promoter, Bob Arum. http://64.19.142.13/philboxing.com/news/pix/koncz.with.ariza.300w.jpg After a lull of about 10 hours, Koncz denied the firing in an interview with another boxing website saying he had talked to Manny and even joked with him while Arum was quoted by the Ring Magazine in an interview saying he talked to journalist Ronnie Nathanielsz who said Manny laughed loud when asked about the "firing" of Koncz. Bob Arum was even quoted as saying that Koncz is very reliable when it comes to financial dealings because he reports to Manny Pacquiao every penny earned by the Filipino boxing icon. I find it strange that the frantic denial of the firing would come from both Bob Arum and Top Rank publicist Lee Samuels. Whose guy is Koncz' anyway, Pacquiao's or Top Rank's? Strange too is the fact that while Manny Pacquiao seems to be taking everything in stride, Koncz and Top Rank are the ones issuing statements on behalf of the Pacman. Ronnie Nathanielsz' story about Manny Pacquiao saying in jest that it was his lawyer, Jeng Gacal, who made up the story and then later adding that he was just joking was very revealing. I have not seen or talked to Manny for sometime now, but if I know him, his light-hearted reaction to Ronnie's probing question of whether he really fired Koncz or not, implied a more profound message. What was funny too was Bob Arum's belabored explanation on how Koncz made sure that every penny that Manny Pacquiao earned was given to the boxing icon. Is Bob giving us an idea of what this issue is all about? I never mentioned "money problems" in my column. Was my story just a product of my imagination? Did I just make it up because that is what all the denials seem to suggest? Or was I a victim of a "koryente?" Well, I cannot claim to be infallible or even immune from the old game of "koryente" but I can assure the readers that the story came from a very reliable source who gave me accurate stories in the past and there is no reason for me to even doubt its veracity. The details and the account were so vivid and there was no way I could ignore the story. In fact, if I were to believe the source, this is just the tip of the iceberg of what could be a development of cataclysmic proportions. In the days, or perhaps weeks, to come, more developments are expected to unfold which will radically change the landscape of the mythical Pacland. But let me warn the readers, this story could take twists and turns given the magnitude of its repercussions. They could talk and come up with a compromise. As fellow philboxing.com columnist Homer Sayson suggested, I may have jumped the gun on an unfolding drama. I will not be surprised if along the way, powerful and unseen hands will be able to iron out the kinks and make it appear as though nothing really happened. Oh, I have witnessed many of these dramas in my lifetime. I try to decipher the meaning of your sig