Rotoworld is full of it - Awful "Journalism" (1 Viewer)

[Chachi]

This is utterly horrendous journalism, this fake journalism is credited with a "McFadden catching up to Travis Henry" thread where alot of members here take shots at Darren McFadden. Try actually reading the article that Rotoworld credits before getting on your soapboxes. thumbdown.gif to Rotoworld

Darren McFadden-RB- Raiders Feb. 9 - 3:42 pm et

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

Save you some time, here is the content from their own SOURCE

Paternity suit filed against McFadden

BY SCOTT DAVIS Northwest Arkansas Times

Posted on Saturday, February 7, 2009

A judge refused to allow an Oakland, Calif., woman to file an anonymous paternity suit against former Arkansas Razorback standout running back Darren McFadden.

Kevin Hinkley, a Fort Smith attorney, argued in a motion filed Tuesday that McFadden's status as a wellknown public figure will bring undue attention to his client, who is Kerri Lynette Williams, as well as McFadden and the 11-month-old boy.

The motion was denied by 4th Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay in this case, which was originally filed as Jane Doe v. John Doe.

McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support.

McFadden's agent, Ian Greengross, said he has not had an opportunity to ask his client about the paternity case so he had no comment.

Hinkley would not say how the two met or where Williams lived at the time of the alleged conception. He had no comment about the case.

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

The NFL's Oakland Raiders picked McFadden with the fourth overall selection in the 2008 NFL Draft. According to the team's Web site, www.raiders.com, McFadden rushed for 499 yards on 113 attempts and scored four touchdowns with the Raiders for an average of 8.7 yards per carry in 2008. He also caught 29 passes for 285 yards.

McFadden rushed for 4,590 yards on 785 attempts, averaging 5.8 yards, and scored 44 touchdowns during his career at Arkansas.

McFadden caught 46 passes for 365 yards and two touchdowns at Arkansas. He also threw seven touchdown passes and returned a kickoff for a score.

In 2007, he rushed for 1,830 yards on 325 attempts, averaging 5.6 yards, and scored 17 touchdowns.

McFadden is a two-time Heisman Trophy runner-up and a two-time Doak Walker Award winner. He broke numerous school and Southeastern Conference records during his three seasons at Arkansas, establishing himself as one of the league's elite all-time backs.Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I haven't followed Rotoworld during the offseason, so did they say something other than what you posted?

What you have posted by Rotoworld looks correct.... McFadden is being sued in California, and he has admited paternity.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I haven't followed Rotoworld during the offseason, so did they say something other than what you posted?What you have posted by Rotoworld looks correct.... McFadden is being sued in California, and he has admited paternity.

No, the actual story says:

McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support.

So the woman is claiming in her suit that McFadden has admitted (I guess to her) that he is the father. Much diffeent than McFadden actually admitting it. She could be full of #### for all we know.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Well.... McFadden is said to have admitted to two illegitimate kids at the combine last year... then was cleared of a possible 3rd.

1 for 3 so far.

We'll see whether or not this case holds water, but his track record appears bed.

Not so sure this thread "DEBUNKS" the other thread..... also not so sure this needed its own thread, it would fit in rather nicely in the other thread.

ETA: I'm only saying wait and see.... I don't actually care about an athletes personal life. Just seems strange to be defending McFadden so vehemently.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

What's the problem?

 

[Chachi]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ?

 

[thaas]

What's the problem?

Ya whats the problem, he still is behind Travis Henry, he has 9 kids

 

[Fear & Loathing]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ?

Full disclosure: I did not post that article for Rotoworld . . . and I don't know who it was that did.That said, I believe this one falls under the "common knowledge" category where Rotoworld's short paragraph of analysis uses common knowledge from outside of the source article. It's common knowledge that McFadden admitted to having two illegitimate children at the NFL combine last year. Even if it's not common knowledge to you, it can be found with a quick google search.

2 + 1 + 0 = 3

 

[Wadsworth]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ?

Full disclosure: I did not post that article for Rotoworld . . . and I don't know who it was that did.That said, I believe this one falls under the "common knowledge" category where Rotoworld's short paragraph of analysis uses common knowledge from outside of the source article. It's common knowledge that McFadden admitted to having two illegitimate children at the NFL combine last year. Even if it's not common knowledge to you, it can be found with a quick google search.

2 + 1 + 0 = 3

Devil's Advocate, but could one the two admitted be the kid in question with this article and could the other be the kid involved in the case that was dismissed? Which would bring the total to 1 or 2. While you call it common knowledge, it might have been worth the time to confirm that the new case was an addition and the dismissed case was not one of the 2 he admitted earlier.

 

[stp-d]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ?

Full disclosure: I did not post that article for Rotoworld . . . and I don't know who it was that did.That said, I believe this one falls under the "common knowledge" category where Rotoworld's short paragraph of analysis uses common knowledge from outside of the source article. It's common knowledge that McFadden admitted to having two illegitimate children at the NFL combine last year. Even if it's not common knowledge to you, it can be found with a quick google search.

2 + 1 + 0 = 3

Devil's Advocate, but could one the two admitted be the kid in question with this article and could the other be the kid involved in the case that was dismissed? Which would bring the total to 1 or 2. While you call it common knowledge, it might have been worth the time to confirm that the new case was an addition and the dismissed case was not one of the 2 he admitted earlier.

i would wager that most of us folks have 3 potential illegitimate brats running around, and we're not Heisman runner ups... So IMO, who cares!!!

 

[Fear & Loathing]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ?

Full disclosure: I did not post that article for Rotoworld . . . and I don't know who it was that did.That said, I believe this one falls under the "common knowledge" category where Rotoworld's short paragraph of analysis uses common knowledge from outside of the source article. It's common knowledge that McFadden admitted to having two illegitimate children at the NFL combine last year. Even if it's not common knowledge to you, it can be found with a quick google search.

2 + 1 + 0 = 3

Devil's Advocate, but could one the two admitted be the kid in question with this article and could the other be the kid involved in the case that was dismissed? Which would bring the total to 1 or 2. While you call it common knowledge, it might have been worth the time to confirm that the new case was an addition and the dismissed case was not one of the 2 he admitted earlier.

Yeah, that's possible. On the other hand, he didn't admit that he might have two illegitimate children. He admitted that he did have two illegitimate children. In my opinion, that falls under common knowledge and is certainly valid to use in the analysis portion of the news blurb. To your point about confirmation, I'm not sure it's possible to confirm that online. I haven't seen anyone here (Chachi?) trying to confirm that.For the record, I tend to stay away from these types of posts when I do Rotoworld's news. Just a personal preference. I'd rather stick to hard football news, and I don't touch stories like this unless I'm sure they affect the player's value. You could argue that point either way here.

 

[madd futher]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ?

Full disclosure: I did not post that article for Rotoworld . . . and I don't know who it was that did.That said, I believe this one falls under the "common knowledge" category where Rotoworld's short paragraph of analysis uses common knowledge from outside of the source article. It's common knowledge that McFadden admitted to having two illegitimate children at the NFL combine last year. Even if it's not common knowledge to you, it can be found with a quick google search.

2 + 1 + 0 = 3

Devil's Advocate, but could one the two admitted be the kid in question with this article and could the other be the kid involved in the case that was dismissed? Which would bring the total to 1 or 2. While you call it common knowledge, it might have been worth the time to confirm that the new case was an addition and the dismissed case was not one of the 2 he admitted earlier.

I believe that the article said that the new kid on the block was 11 months old. If it is true that he admitted at the combine to having fathered two illigitimate children, this little one would probably not have even been born yet.So i'm guessing (but can't be sure) that 2+1=3. I posted the oringinal thread here based on the rotoworld blurb.......didn't read the entire source article which is admittedly ambiguous to the actual # of illigitimate kids.

Regardless, while I don't think it affects his status as an NFL player in any way as long as he pays his support, it DOES affect our society greatly. Whether he likes it or not he IS a role model. Too many men (especially black men, and this is not being prejudice) in our society father children and do nothing to take responsibility for ACTUALLY BEING A FATHER, regardless of whether they can afford to pay support or not. I work in the black community and it is amazing how many kids are raised by momma or granny with no male input or mentorship in their lives. And we wonder why so many kids grow up just like their 'daddys'.

 

[Bri]

it's a bit confusing chachi and I don't see the henry bit in their text so....I'm lost on this one

 

[Fear & Loathing]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

 

[Couch Potato]

Note to Darren McLovin -- don't go anywhere near Nadya Suleman or you'll soon leave Travis Henry in your dust. HTH.

 

[datonn]

For the record, I tend to stay away from these types of posts when I do Rotoworld's news. Just a personal preference. I'd rather stick to hard football news, and I don't touch stories like this unless I'm sure they affect the player's value. You could argue that point either way here.

I've always been curious how you guys can use content from pay sites like ESPN Insider and Scout.com without their permission. Or maybe you have their permission? At any rate, that's not the question at hand.On that McFadden story though, you gotta admit that some of the guys posting news at Rotoworld take GREAT liberty in interpreting what the article actually said (not to mention what the news actually means). I'll be completely honest and admit that I visit Rotoworld once a night while I am doing the News on the FBGs site. NOT mining for news (I've got 175 real, non-FFL, news sites I check during my shifts as it is)! Just seeing what "the competition" is up to and making sure you haven't got anything worth having that we don't already have in here. Some of the stories you guys post have broken links, no links, links that mention NOTHING about the news being mentioned in your summaries, etc. Makes me wonder sometimes if it's just a situation where someone says "I need a link!"...so they find the closest thing they can find and call it good.

Not saying you! I wouldn't know your specific work from Adam...since poster info isn't published on the site (just like at FBGs). Some of the guys over there though seem awfully loose in determining what is being reported...and I don't know how any legit FFL news site can post content with bad source info or no source at all. I could post tonight in the FBGs News Blogger that I heard a rumor that the Patriots are offering a #3 pick for Terrell Owens, with NO way for anybody to double-check my assertions. I'd be fired tomorrow, of course, but hey! Without citing a source, what's to say I DIDN'T hear it?!

That's a completely fictitious example, BTW...before anybody posts that little rumor as news.

 

[Adebisi]

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. Something about Rotoworld having bad sources, and confusion as to how many illegitimate children Darren McFadden has. But I'm unable to make sense out of any of this.

 

[cstu]

McFadden admits he fathered the 11-month-old child, so he's probably going to have to pay up eventually. McFadden is known to be the father of at least three illegitimate children. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Source: Northwest Arkansas Times

McFadden faced another paternity suit in Pulaski County last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

1 + 0 = 3 ? :X

Full disclosure: I did not post that article for Rotoworld . . . and I don't know who it was that did.That said, I believe this one falls under the "common knowledge" category where Rotoworld's short paragraph of analysis uses common knowledge from outside of the source article. It's common knowledge that McFadden admitted to having two illegitimate children at the NFL combine last year. Even if it's not common knowledge to you, it can be found with a quick google search.

2 + 1 + 0 = 3

Devil's Advocate, but could one the two admitted be the kid in question with this article and could the other be the kid involved in the case that was dismissed? Which would bring the total to 1 or 2. While you call it common knowledge, it might have been worth the time to confirm that the new case was an addition and the dismissed case was not one of the 2 he admitted earlier.

Yeah, that's possible. On the other hand, he didn't admit that he might have two illegitimate children. He admitted that he did have two illegitimate children. In my opinion, that falls under common knowledge and is certainly valid to use in the analysis portion of the news blurb. To your point about confirmation, I'm not sure it's possible to confirm that online. I haven't seen anyone here (Chachi?) trying to confirm that.For the record, I tend to stay away from these types of posts when I do Rotoworld's news. Just a personal preference. I'd rather stick to hard football news, and I don't touch stories like this unless I'm sure they affect the player's value. You could argue that point either way here.

Maybe he thought it was best to say two even if he wasn't sure he was the father? When dealing with the teams it's probably better to err on the side of caution rather than have it come out that he might have more than he admitted to.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

For the record, I tend to stay away from these types of posts when I do Rotoworld's news. Just a personal preference. I'd rather stick to hard football news, and I don't touch stories like this unless I'm sure they affect the player's value. You could argue that point either way here.

I've always been curious how you guys can use content from pay sites like ESPN Insider and Scout.com without their permission. Or maybe you have their permission? At any rate, that's not the question at hand.On that McFadden story though, you gotta admit that some of the guys posting news at Rotoworld take GREAT liberty in interpreting what the article actually said (not to mention what the news actually means). I'll be completely honest and admit that I visit Rotoworld once a night while I am doing the News on the FBGs site. NOT mining for news (I've got 175 real, non-FFL, news sites I check during my shifts as it is)! Just seeing what "the competition" is up to and making sure you haven't got anything worth having that we don't already have in here. Some of the stories you guys post have broken links, no links, links that mention NOTHING about the news being mentioned in your summaries, etc. Makes me wonder sometimes if it's just a situation where someone says "I need a link!"...so they find the closest thing they can find and call it good.

Not saying you! I wouldn't know your specific work from Adam...since poster info isn't published on the site (just like at FBGs). Some of the guys over there though seem awfully loose in determining what is being reported...and I don't know how any legit FFL news site can post content with bad source info or no source at all. I could post tonight in the FBGs News Blogger that I heard a rumor that the Patriots are offering a #3 pick for Terrell Owens, with NO way for anybody to double-check my assertions. I'd be fired tomorrow, of course, but hey! Without citing a source, what's to say I DIDN'T hear it?!

That's a completely fictitious example, BTW...before anybody posts that little rumor as news.

I don't think I've ever used anything from Scout.com. It was explained to me very early on that they frown on us using their service, and let's face it, they rarely have any news before anyone else. If I see that they do have something, I can do a google news search and nine times out of ten find an article from a newspaper that has the same story. We've always been encouraged to use ESPN.com Insider stories, and as thorough and scrupulous as the guys I deal with above me are, I'd be shocked if they haven't been given permission to use that info as a jumping off point for analysis. As far as admitting we take great liberty with stories and interpreting what the article says, I'm not sure you understand what we're trying to do at Rotoworld. You guys on the Footballguys newsbeat post an article (often after Rotoworld finds it for you and posts it first) and summarize. Not much chance of making a mistake or saying something controversial there. And there's nothing wrong with that. I understand why Joe and David want to stay away from the analysis portion and stick to the facts. There's definitely a place for that in the business.

But that's not what we're doing. What we're trying to do is find news and then give a short paragraph of analysis summarizing what that piece of news means to the average fantasy football owner. I am extremely opinionated on fantasy football matters (as a lot of dynasty league owners on this site can attest to), and I'm constantly encouraged by the guys above me at Rotoworld to come out with even stronger opinions on analysis than I typically do. Our goal is not to summarize the news. It's to analyze the news. By definition we're going to take liberty in interpreting what the article says and what it means. And I believe our track record in doing so is outstanding.

Re: a story with no links. I try to link to everything b/c often I want the reader to click the link and find out more. But we are not required to link to any stories that are already on the associated press wire. Morning news, we mine the newspapers and always have links.

Re: broken links or links that mention nothing about the news. I would have to think this is extremely rare with the most common cause being that the source has changed its article or link after we posted.

Re: the McFadden story. I'm sure whoever posted that did so only b/c of McFadden's admission at the combine that he already has 2 illegitimate children. If he didn't already have a history there, then it's not something that would affect McFadden's fantasy football value. But if there's a pattern there, I can see why that would be news. It's germane to the conversation.

One more word on interpretation. Especially in the offseason, one of our main goals is to use a piece of news as a jumping off point for discussing larger issues. For instance, I was doing morning news yesterday, and the Dallas Morning News had a story on the Cowboys RB situation. It was bland and didn't really have anything useful for a news blurb. It did, however, mention that Marion Barber's per carry dropped and hinted that he was overused in 2008. I was looking for a quote or a key sentence to use as news. There was nothing. So I decided the per carry drop was the news, and I used that as a jumping off point for discussing the Cowboys RB situation going into next season, i.e. that Felix Jones and Tashard Choice will be more involved and Barber may be moved back into the "closer"/goal-line back role. The article doesn't say that's what will happen, but I wasn't trying to summarize the article. That's what we're trying to do.

I'll be honest with you, I take great pride in our news feed. I think we're the best in the business at what we do, and during the offseason, it's basically just Evan Silva and I on the news shifts with a couple of other guys thrown in every once in awhile. I think it takes an incredible handle on the world of football to get that news up there as fast as anybody and with cogent, usually accurate analysis ASAP. When you take a stand on something, when you give an opinion as analysis, there are always going to be people who disagree. That's understandable. But I would hope they make their judgments based on the consistency of our work as opposed to finding fault with one news blurb and then questioning our integrity or our football knowledge.

 

[Buckna]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

 

[massraider]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

:( It's amazing how quickly it turns into a Baptist church around here.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

I think we're talking semantics here:"McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support."

That sounds like a leg to stand on.

McFadden openly admits he is the father. The woman wants to establish paternity legally and then collect child support.

Would it be better if the news line read: "A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden."? Probably. But they're going to amount to the same thing since McFadden has admitted he is the father.

 

[Chachi]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

I think we're talking semantics here:"McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support."

That sounds like a leg to stand on.

McFadden openly admits he is the father. The woman wants to establish paternity legally and then collect child support.

Would it be better if the news line read: "A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden."? Probably. But they're going to amount to the same thing since McFadden has admitted he is the father.

Here is the KFFL blurb, using the same exact source:(KFFL) Scott Davis, of the Northwest Arkansas Times, reports a judge refused to allow an Oakland, Calif., woman to file an anonymous paternity suit against Oakland Raiders RB Darren McFadden. Attorney Kevin Hinkley argued that McFadden's status as a well-known public figure will bring undue attention to his client, who is Kerri Lynette Williams, as well as McFadden and the 11-month-old boy. The motion was denied by 4th Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay in this case, which was originally filed as Jane Doe v. John Doe. McFadden openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support. McFadden faced another paternity suit last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

Why you think it's ok to make it sound like he's being a "bum" owing child support and refusing to pay it. The point here is a father who doesn't pay his child support is a bum, and a multimillionaire who doesn't pay his child support is a complete and utter *Bad Word*. The Rotoworld "spin" makes one want to hate D-Mac, it's ridiculous you don't see it.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

I think we're talking semantics here:"McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support."

That sounds like a leg to stand on.

McFadden openly admits he is the father. The woman wants to establish paternity legally and then collect child support.

Would it be better if the news line read: "A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden."? Probably. But they're going to amount to the same thing since McFadden has admitted he is the father.

Here is the KFFL blurb, using the same exact source:(KFFL) Scott Davis, of the Northwest Arkansas Times, reports a judge refused to allow an Oakland, Calif., woman to file an anonymous paternity suit against Oakland Raiders RB Darren McFadden. Attorney Kevin Hinkley argued that McFadden's status as a well-known public figure will bring undue attention to his client, who is Kerri Lynette Williams, as well as McFadden and the 11-month-old boy. The motion was denied by 4th Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay in this case, which was originally filed as Jane Doe v. John Doe. McFadden openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support. McFadden faced another paternity suit last year but was determined not to be the father after he took two paternity tests.

Why you think it's ok to make it sound like he's being a "bum" owing child support and refusing to pay it. The point here is a father who doesn't pay his child support is a bum, and a multimillionaire who doesn't pay his child support is a complete and utter *Bad Word*. The Rotoworld "spin" makes one want to hate D-Mac, it's ridiculous you don't see it.

So now you're arguing a different point? Your whole argument was based on the previous two illegitimate children, and now you want to base it on how the article makes McFadden sound?Aren't we still at 2 + 1 + 0 = 3 here?

I have no interest in making McFadden sound like a bum, and I can assure you that nobody at Rotoworld has any interest in making him sound like a bum. Readers bring their own biases into the equation when they read something like that.

And, again, what KFFL did was simply summarize the article. That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to relate the contents of the article in a way that's usable to the average reader.

McFadden admitted to fathering two illegitimate children last year. According to this petition, he's "openly admitted" to fathering another one. Now the woman is trying to collect child support. By my count that's 3 illegitimate children.

 

[BaBastage]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

I think we're talking semantics here:"McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support."

That sounds like a leg to stand on.

McFadden openly admits he is the father. The woman wants to establish paternity legally and then collect child support.

Would it be better if the news line read: "A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden."? Probably. But they're going to amount to the same thing since McFadden has admitted he is the father.

Actually, if you want to get technical, that's not what the quote says. Let's use the exact words rearranged for a different emphasis."according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support, McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child "

Sort of changes the sentence, doesn't it?

I have no idea if it's true or not, but the article doesn't say that McFadden owns up. It says that the Mother says that McFadden admits... a big difference.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

I think we're talking semantics here:"McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support."

That sounds like a leg to stand on.

McFadden openly admits he is the father. The woman wants to establish paternity legally and then collect child support.

Would it be better if the news line read: "A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden."? Probably. But they're going to amount to the same thing since McFadden has admitted he is the father.

Just because something is put in a complaint/petition does not make it true, just an allegation. I can sue anyone and make any kind of claims I want to, but the legal system will sort it out.

 

[GregR_2]

At the very least, I think Chachi should change the title unless he finds proof that McFadden has only fathered one illegitimate child. IMO, the evidence is against him and favors Rotoworld. It certainly doesn't qualify as "awful journalism" nor does it fall under "false reports" (as a simple google search will reveal).

Darren McFadden is being sued by a woman in California for unpaid child support.Rotoworld has no leg to stand on with that claim. The suit is to establish paternity and IF he is the father, then he will owe child support. Their spin makes it look like he already owes child support and did not pay it. Hence the many other comments in the other thread that McFadden is, and I quote, a "bum."

I think we're talking semantics here:"McFadden, 21, openly admits he is the father of the child, according to the petition to establish paternity and motion for child support."

That sounds like a leg to stand on.

McFadden openly admits he is the father. The woman wants to establish paternity legally and then collect child support.

Would it be better if the news line read: "A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden."? Probably. But they're going to amount to the same thing since McFadden has admitted he is the father.

Going to court to try to get child support is not remotely close to "unpaid child support". The latter implies McFadden didn't pay child support that he had agreed to or been ordered to pay by a court. I don't understand why anyone would be arguing this point instead of just going and fixing the headline.

 

[Couch Potato]

Since the thread title and some of the posts go beyond the McFadden topic and state or imply that Rotoworld's news reporting is generally "awful," I want to go on record here.

I've been a FBG subscriber from the beginning and that won't change for the foreseeable future, but I enjoy Rotoworld's news page. I don't think I've missed a news blurb from them in the years they've been doing it. I think I'm a reasonably balanced and knowledgeable FF guy, so I think I'm qualified to say that in general Rotoworld does a good job with their news bits.

Might there be exceptions, occasional screw ups? Where in life aren't there? There are times once in awhile when their spin or evaluation is too black and white or over the top when it shouldn't be, and I'd like to see Rosenthal have his staff reign in some of that, and sometimes they just mess up (links, interpretation, whatever). But overall I think they do a good job.

Some people on this board seem to love to paint any non-FBG source with a negative broad brush, and regardless of your opinion on the McFadden item, I'd just like reasonable people here to be careful not to do that. Rotoworld is a good site, and their news section is worthwhile. FBG is a good site and their news section is worthwhile. I read both and don't feel the need to trash Rotoworld for an occasional slip simply because I'm a FBG member.

 

[Chachi]

Since the thread title and some of the posts go beyond the McFadden topic and state or imply that Rotoworld's news reporting is generally "awful,"

I enjoy Rotoworld, this is the only time i have ever complained, I am taking issue with this one instance only.

 

[Couch Potato]

Since the thread title and some of the posts go beyond the McFadden topic and state or imply that Rotoworld's news reporting is generally "awful,"

I enjoy Rotoworld, this is the only time i have ever complained, I am taking issue with this one instance only.

Cool, Chachi. I can see the argument on this one on both sides so I'm staying out of it, but I'm glad you aren't meaning to indict all their news like a lot of people love to do with everything put out by, for example, ProFootballTalk. In the case of ProFootballTalk, people need to understand it is meant in large part as a rumor and opinion site rather than a hard news site, so take it for what it is, but they do break a lot of stories and are a worthwhile read in many cases.

 

[BoulderBob]

Why do we still use the phrase "illegitimate children"? It's beyond stupid, and offensive. I usually hate the PC police, but this is a phrase we should bury.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Changed:

A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden.According to the petition, McFadden openly admits he fathered the 11-month-old child. McFadden had previously admitted to fathering two other illegitimate children, so this is becoming a pattern. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

 

[Chachi]

Changed:

A woman in California is seeking to establish paternity and motion for child support against Darren McFadden.According to the petition, McFadden openly admits he fathered the 11-month-old child. McFadden had previously admitted to fathering two other illegitimate children, so this is becoming a pattern. It won't affect his status for the 2009 season.

Fair enough. As far as the other 2 kids from before, it's not verified, there were paternity tests that excluded him and we don't know how many kids he actually has. He made comments before last years combine, came clean, it is possible he isn't the father of either though.

 

[datonn]

As far as admitting we take great liberty with stories and interpreting what the article says, I'm not sure you understand what we're trying to do at Rotoworld. You guys on the Footballguys newsbeat post an article (often after Rotoworld finds it for you and posts it first) and summarize. Not much chance of making a mistake or saying something controversial there. And there's nothing wrong with that. I understand why Joe and David want to stay away from the analysis portion and stick to the facts. There's definitely a place for that in the business.

Yeah, F&L, don't take my previous posting as criticism...I meant it more as constructive criticism, if that makes sense. I've been doing the news long enough now (I think either 3-4 years now...I can't remember which anymore...all I know is THOUSANDS of news summaries), that I think I get where you guys are coming from at Rotoworld. I've told my bosses here for 2+ years that what would make the FBGs.com News Blogger an even better resource would be to add an "Our Take" blurb after at least the major news items we are summarizing. Joe and other staff work on that daily email where they cherry-pick the news and accomplish this. However, having that information actually visible within the news (not just the blogger either...I'm talking the player records page and RSS feed) would probably accomplish two things:

1. Getting the information into more people's hands and/or putting it in a form that quite honestly drives even more traffic to their site (ad/sponsor $$$).

2. Accountability. If we post in March that Housh signs as a free agent with the Eagles, and our take is that Kevin Curtis is going to see a STEEP drop in production...only to have Curtis' numbers plateau while Jackson's numbers dip 20-25%, that helps users of the site "keep tabs" on the advice that is being given MUCH easier than if it is included in a daily email or lost in translation as a part of re-draft/dynasty rankings.

We've also talked for years about BEING ACCURATE vs. BEING FIRST. Obviously, the brass wants BOTH in an ideal world! However, if we had to choose a tie-breaker between those two, I would hope that being accurate is more important.

I wasn't saying that Rotoworld is wrong in taking leaps of judgment in your take of what the news actually means. Rather, I was referring to the fact that some of the news you are reporting (cited from the articles you are linking to) might say something like "Cowboys to Release T.O." when, if you read the article, the source might actually say that one beat writer covering the team thinks the team is likely to release T.O. in the coming weeks.

Might sound like I'm nit-picking, but one reporter's hunch or suspicion is F-A-R different than having a much more concrete or credible source saying it is in the process of happening.

I get it though. Speculation and controversy sells newspapers more than facts a lot of the time. I guess for me though, if FFLers are going to get all excited or get their undies in a bunch over something, I'd rather just as soon make sure that reaction is based upon facts that we are sharing with them...not speculation. "Your Take" though? Go crazy...have fun! All I ask is that the truth isn't stretched or distorted when it comes to the news that "Your Take" is being based upon.

Again, not a personal attack or an attack on Rotoworld! Just some concerns I've seen the past 3-4 years in watching the way business is sometimes done over there. We (FBGs News Blogger) have our warts and shortcomings too! I just tend to get frustrated when I see bad citation, NO citation, and/or potential copyright infringement. I'd love to be first, but I'd MUCH rather be 3-4 hours late, have double-checked the source and be RIGHT...if that makes any sense.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

As far as admitting we take great liberty with stories and interpreting what the article says, I'm not sure you understand what we're trying to do at Rotoworld. You guys on the Footballguys newsbeat post an article (often after Rotoworld finds it for you and posts it first) and summarize. Not much chance of making a mistake or saying something controversial there. And there's nothing wrong with that. I understand why Joe and David want to stay away from the analysis portion and stick to the facts. There's definitely a place for that in the business.

Yeah, F&L, don't take my previous posting as criticism...I meant it more as constructive criticism, if that makes sense. I've been doing the news long enough now (I think either 3-4 years now...I can't remember which anymore...all I know is THOUSANDS of news summaries), that I think I get where you guys are coming from at Rotoworld. I've told my bosses here for 2+ years that what would make the FBGs.com News Blogger an even better resource would be to add an "Our Take" blurb after at least the major news items we are summarizing. Joe and other staff work on that daily email where they cherry-pick the news and accomplish this. However, having that information actually visible within the news (not just the blogger either...I'm talking the player records page and RSS feed) would probably accomplish two things:

1. Getting the information into more people's hands and/or putting it in a form that quite honestly drives even more traffic to their site (ad/sponsor $$$).

2. Accountability. If we post in March that Housh signs as a free agent with the Eagles, and our take is that Kevin Curtis is going to see a STEEP drop in production...only to have Curtis' numbers plateau while Jackson's numbers dip 20-25%, that helps users of the site "keep tabs" on the advice that is being given MUCH easier than if it is included in a daily email or lost in translation as a part of re-draft/dynasty rankings.

We've also talked for years about BEING ACCURATE vs. BEING FIRST. Obviously, the brass wants BOTH in an ideal world! However, if we had to choose a tie-breaker between those two, I would hope that being accurate is more important.

I wasn't saying that Rotoworld is wrong in taking leaps of judgment in your take of what the news actually means. Rather, I was referring to the fact that some of the news you are reporting (cited from the articles you are linking to) might say something like "Cowboys to Release T.O." when, if you read the article, the source might actually say that one beat writer covering the team thinks the team is likely to release T.O. in the coming weeks.

Might sound like I'm nit-picking, but one reporter's hunch or suspicion is F-A-R different than having a much more concrete or credible source saying it is in the process of happening.

I get it though. Speculation and controversy sells newspapers more than facts a lot of the times. I guess for me though, if FFLers are going to get all excited or get their undies in a bunch over something, I'd rather just as soon make sure that reaction is based upon facts that we are sharing with them...not speculation. "Your Take" though? Go crazy...have fun! All I ask is that the truth isn't stretched or distorted when it comes to the news that "Your Take" is being based upon.

Again, not a personal attack or an attack on Rotoworld! Just some concerns I've seen the past 3-4 years in watching the way business is sometimes done over there. We (FBGs News Blogger) have our warts and shortcomings too! I just tend to get frustrated when I see bad citation, NO citation, and/or potential copyright infringement. I'd love to be first, but I'd MUCH rather be 3-4 hours late, have double-checked the source and be RIGHT...if that makes any sense.

Very fair assessment.

Personally, if I'm dealing with beat writer speculation or NFL Insider speculation, I'm always very careful to cite the source in the news portion. For example, "The National Football Post's Michael Lombardi believes . . ." If the writer isn't really standing alone, we might use the word "reportedly" instead of citing the source. Ultimately, it's a judgment call on posting news, and I think my judgment tends to fall in line with yours on most news.