Pacquiao visited Tim Smith's office (email accuser), Smith was nowhere to be found?

[King of Sting]

Doesn't matter if I believe them to be true or not, I don't know enough about the situation to comment either way. What I do know is that I have never seen anything in Tim that would bring his character into question.

I've known Tim for a number of years, and if he believed he was getting good information from a quality source, then he had the journalistic duty to report it.

Oh, so a writer does not necessarily have to be shown hard proof, is that what you're saying ?

Hypothetically speaking. Lets say we've known each other for a number of years and in the past I've given you inside info on something. Now, i have a story about some email floating around that could be significant and I told you about it. It wouldn't really be required that I show you hard evidence for you to write about it , just because my word was good enough in the past. Is that it?

[Kagami Taiga]

Oh, so a writer does not necessarily have to be shown hard proof, is that what you're saying ?

Hypothetically speaking. Lets say we've known each other for a number of years and in the past I've given you inside info on something. Now, i have a story about some email floating around that could be significant and I told you about it. It wouldn't really be required that I show you hard evidence for you to write about it , just because my word was good enough in the past. Is that it?

the dont. secret sources have always always been a major factor in american journalism. uf u dont kno these things then dont comment on them. u expose ur ******ity.

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh, so a writer does not necessarily have to be shown hard proof, is that what you're saying ?

Hypothetically speaking. Lets say we've known each other for a number of years and in the past I've given you inside info on something. Now, i have a story about some email floating around that could be significant and I told you about it. It wouldn't really be required that I show you hard evidence for you to write about it , just because my word was good enough in the past. Is that it?

Take ESPN for example. They've ran stories like "Sources: Player X signs with Team Y".

Then it later comes out as a rumor and nothing is signed, and the story disappears from the website.

[Mr. Ryan]

Oh, so a writer does not necessarily have to be shown hard proof, is that what you're saying ?

Hypothetically speaking. Lets say we've known each other for a number of years and in the past I've given you inside info on something. Now, i have a story about some email floating around that could be significant and I told you about it. It wouldn't really be required that I show you hard evidence for you to write about it , just because my word was good enough in the past. Is that it?

I don't know what I'm doing awake at this hour explaining this, but:

If someone you know and trust has a history of giving you credible information, then yeah, you can sometimes go on their word. Especially if a track record precedes it. That said, who is to say that he wasn't shown "hard proof" as you call it?

I certainly don't reveal all of the information given to me, so as to protect sources.

[JDezi4]

Actually, if you look at him getting out of the elevator in the beginning, Tim is the really tall guy in the elevator with them. Tim has a big spread on the meeting in tomorrow's paper.

Hmm... interesting

Thread Fail?

[mikemurni]

When it was time for Tim to meet the guy he accuses face to face, he cowards off. I guess its different when you accuses someone in his face as compared to through a stroke of a keyboard. hmmmmm.

[V.WEBB]

When it was time for Tim to meet the guy he accuses face to face, he cowards off. I guess its different when you accuses someone in his face as compared to through a stroke of a keyboard. hmmmmm.

Did you read the comments of this thread?
He didn't "coward" off. You fail like the rest of the Manny boys posting in this thread, just jumping to conclusions just to defend the Congressman. The poster "Asian Sensation" works for the same media outlet and give the REAL story. How'd you miss that?

[Ray*]

This thread was debunked quickly, Shame i would have loved for it to run for a while (Like 10 pages) before Asian sensation comes in and end it. And whatever happen to all the pac lawsuits?

[MARKBNLV]

I don't know what I'm doing awake at this hour explaining this, but:

If someone you know and trust has a history of giving you credible information, then yeah, you can sometimes go on their word. Especially if a track record precedes it. That said, who is to say that he wasn't shown "hard proof" as you call it?

I certainly don't reveal all of the information given to me, so as to protect sources.

Haha your owning these kids.

[OpaiSoma]

He should have been fired, its unprofessional behavoir IMO. Maybe its a different enviroment than what I work for, but I always do some research before I make a report, especially sensitive information and allegation that can have serious consequences. It doesnt matter where he get his sources, the point is he didnt do his homework. In the end its up to his boss to decide whether he should keep his job. Theres nothing wrong to question a person (pacquiao) but this just steps out of line. Its reckless reporting IMO


Its one of these "he says she says" bullshiet for small piece of limelight and $$$. Sad to say but this is what the media does nowadays. If it doesnt sell and create controversy then it is shiet to them.