As per being opinion or news, at this point this story can only be opinion because even if that is the plan, the Bucs can’t pull the trigger on cutting him yet and would never publicly confirm or deny the decision at this stage anyway. My point in saying I don’t sign my name to this one was never to throw Josh under the bus but rather to say I haven’t heard or read anything which would confirm that point to me with a great enough level of credibility that I would post it, personally. But clearly Josh, whom I also trust, does feel strongly enough based on his information. He also does present the point as speculatory within the post, it’s really just the headline which was misleading. In the future, that will be something that is addressed with the staff, not blurring the line between news and opinion but that sort of discussion is always had in-house.

Lastly, I will just say regarding sources that while it’s a little easier for newspapers to have sourcing policies which attempt to safeguard accountability as well as their sources, as a sports blog we are precariously positioned within the sporting world. Most athletes, agents and team personnel are already wary of talking with us at any level, especially on sensitive matters. We really have to work hard and be persistent to get any sort of access (though that should hopefully change before next season, something we’ll announce later this summer). In honesty, the only reason a lot of them even talk to the media is it’s required by the NFL. That’s why any time one of us gains that sort of access we go as far out of our way as possible to protect that relationship. I talk to several people associated with the Buccaneers, but even to indicate their level and the roles they have with the team could endanger their jobs or put them in an unenviable position. It would also do little to engender good will from any of them.

Again, thanks for reading and I hope you will find over time that we do work extremely hard to be credible and provide great Bucs coverage.

Thanks for your measured response. I don’t agree with all of your points, but you delivered them in a measured tone that’s often lacking on the Internet. So, at least we’re being civil.

A couple of things, if I may: Your response, polite though it was, really raised some red flags for me.

First you say, “Oftentimes writers will go with the catchiest headlines they can use, even at the expense of the actual subject matter and aim of the story.”

Well, that’s not good. The headline is part of the story package. It’s the headline. Sure, they can twisted into contorted puns, but they should never, ever be purposefully misleading.

If readers can’t trust reporters and writers on the headline, why would they trust them in the lede, the nutgraph and even the boilerplate?

And why, why, why would they trust a writer who overcooks the headline and then makes really bold claims backed up only by “sources?” (More on those in a sec.)

As for not changing the headline immediately, I mean, people get busy. I understand that. You can’t do everything at once. I do believe afterward that you should have at least noted the change, perhaps at the end of the story, to clear up any confusion. (And put a sock in Sarah. Haha. I kid.)

Then there’s this: “I’m not signing my name to this one personally, as I think the Bucs will probably look at keeping Talib, or at the very least hold off on that decision until things are decided in the courts. However, Josh clearly does feel confident enough to put that point out there and as the editor I respect his opinions (and the previous credibility he has built writing here).”

In the first sentence, you sort of throw Josh under the bus and make it seem like you’re not on board with his story. (But as editor, you do sign off on everything that runs. That’s comes with being on top of the masthead.)

Anyway, you come around (but not before basically saying you’re not totally convinced by the story), and conclude that you’re OK with it because Josh was, “confident enough to put that point out there and as the editor I respect his opinions.”

Now, I have a question. (And this may well clear up everything we have going on.) Do you see this piece as an opinion column/commentary or as actual reporting?

If it’s the former, your writer has a great deal of leeway to, you know, give his opinion. If it’s the latter, then this story is a mess on many, many levels.

As for sources, I realize that it’s necessary sometimes to withhold names. All the big guns do it. (Mort and Schefter have their fancy “league sources.”) But anonymity should be granted as a last resort.

Every reputable news organization has a sourcing policy that is usually pretty strict. It makes people accountable — and builds the trust that you spoke about fashioning.

Anyway, I’m a huge Bucs fan who is always looking for the latest team news. Hopefully your site will become one of my regular stops.

Whether or not you choose to believe our report is completely up to you. I’m not signing my name to this one personally, as I think the Bucs will probably look at keeping Talib, or at the very least hold off on that decision until things are decided in the courts. However, Josh clearly does feel confident enough to put that point out there and as the editor I respect his opinions (and the previous credibility he has built writing here). But part of our goal as a Buccaneers site is to build the sort of reputation where you will believe us to be accurate. Clearly the onus is on us there, it’s a gradual thing but over the course of the past year I do feel we’ve made strides and certainly do report with a great degree of credibility.

Finally, a point on sources in general. Oftentimes, a writer doesn’t name sources because most people involved with an organization will only speak anonymously. Sensitive information leaking can cost lower-level front office employees their jobs so it is in no one’s best interest to alienate a potential source by imperiling their employment. Your skepticism is well-merited, and probably smart considering how much misinformation is generated on the internet. But I do ask you to give us an open-mind as we do feel quite confident in our coverage of this team.