I feel like our expectations for any reporter sharing news have become unfairly high.
Depending on the situation, they either get criticized for stating the obvious, not stating the obvious, getting lucky by hitting the nail on the head, or not hitting the nail on the head.
We crave any insight into what's being talked about, but then crucify them over every single detail. Then we wonder why reporters sometimes avoid delving into specifics and give vague reports.
And at the end of the day they have zero control over what teams are doing, what said teams are sharing, and/or whether it comes to fruition.
We want them to share what they hear, and then we resent them for it.
Sounds like you are speaking from own experience!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/10d90/10d9034f00ff93d62711ca9ed1272c292dc0dd91" alt="Wink ;) ;)"
I definitely agree with you 100%. I just get annoyed when the reporters pretend to know more than what they do or exaggerate their sources. There are many big mouths out there, and they can create a big mess. Every year there are so many crazy reports. From a journalistic POV I respect Bob McKenzie in that regard. It’s always a very clear report underlying the uncertainty, specifying his source’s position as much as it is possible etc. It’s just dumb to lie and exaggerate as much as so many reporters do. What do they gain from it?