First point: Observed and confirmable facts versus secret and unconfirmable facts: I never faulted Doh! as a reporter of facts. His recitation of facts was generally as good as anyone’s, or at least it seemed that way to me. Doh! never seemed to me to be content with just reporting. He always felt he had to be getting the great scoop. To do this, he relied heavily (or so it seemed to me) on anoymous sources. In my opinion, the use of an anonymous source is repugnant. My training and experience has taught me to be skeptical of someone who will tell you what someone else told him, but won’t let you go to the source to verify this. “According to what somone told me, …” doesn’t go to far on the witness stand.

ANYBODY can quote an anonymous source. If what the anonymous source says turns out to be true, and turns out to be true quickly, then that source and the reporter of what the source says gains some credibility. SOME credibility. But simply saying that you have a source doesn’t necessarily prove that you have one. Doh! said things attributable to sources which simply were not true, but he was rarely challenged on it for reasons I never could quite understand.

Try this: According to my sources, Doh! just made things up. Sources told me that he had no information as to who was going to get the Defensive Coordinator position, so he said, and my source is quoting now, “I’ll really fool those guys at UCLA – listen to this: ‘I know who will be named as DC, but I can’t say who it is.’ Let them ponder that.” Another source told me that his inside inforamation that Coach Walker was going to be named head coach at Washington came from the guy in the next cubicle.

I have more sources. These sources tell me that if Doh! didn’t like a particular kid, especially someone trying to get into the school, he would do what he could to screw the kid over, with headlines like “My sources tell me that so and so has character issues” or “i learned from a well-placed insider that so and so can’t get in academically.”

I defy you to tell me that my reporting from my sources differs in even the slightest degree from Doh!‘s reporting of his anonymous sources. I would love to reveal my sources, but I simply can’t. And if you press me it shows that you’re just an imperialist lackey running dog stooge who doesn’t understand that freedom in this country means that a reporter has to be able to quote anonymous sources without fear of reprisal or with out fear of criticism from anyone. So stop riding me about anonymous sources. They’re real, I tell you, they’re real. (Wait a second – tin foil hat is slipping a bit.)

I hope you see my point. We could and did challenge Doh! when we disagreed with the facts as observed by us versus the facts as observed and reported by him. If I recall correctly (and I may not – someone will correct me I’m sure), we took Doh! to task because he quoted CTS throwing a particular player under the bus after a loss, then when CTS realized that it made him look bad, he denied he mentioned the kid by name, and Doh! changed his post-game quotes to delete the reference to the kid’s name. Alas, Doh!’s initial reporting did not get pulled down quickly enough and it was saved here.

We could not by definition challenge the accuracy’s quoting of his anonymous sources. We could not determine whether those anonymous sources were in a position to have first hand knowledge of the facts they allegedly related to Doh!. We do not know whether Doh! screened the credibility of the sources he would not name, and of course we did not have the ability to do that sort of screening ourselved. Do you suppose a comment on Obama’s health care proposal would be different depending on if you were a Republican insider or a Democrat insider? But when the source is anonymous, we don’t know if the source has an agenda, and is just trying to use Doh! to get his point publicized.

I think it is a bad sign when the written word is accepted as Gospel without challenge, and I was a little disappointed with my Bruin brothers and sisters for just accepting what Doh! had to say. I guess I assigned the same credibility to Doh! as I do to Cheatie Petie.

That’s my take on Doh! and I will stick by it until someone cn demonstrate that I’m wrong. In that regard, why has not even one of his sources stepped up and said “Hey, remember that story from three years ago? I was the source, and now I’ll tell all.” Funny how in the history of mankind only one anonymous source has been revealed, namely the famous Deep Throat. But equally funny, I don’t think anyone ever doubted the existence of that source (maybe his bias or agenda, but never his existence.) I question the existence of Doh!’s sources.

Second point: I perceive a very un-Bruin-like lowering of standards. The points seem to be that Doh! should not have been the subject of so much criticism (or at least criticism from me) because he was the best of the reporters covering UCLA. Shame on you, if that is indeed what you are saying. The reporters here at the BN are head and shoulders above Doh!. And if they say something, they have to defend it. Doh! never once had to measure up to the standards that exist here.

Perhaps as important, how difficult is it to be the best reporter covering UCLA. I give my disclaimer now – I don’t live in Southern California, and I cancelled my subscription to the fishwrap before most of you were born. I don’t read what the local reporters write about UCLA other than what’s quoted here. I am aware of some of the writers, like Diane Pucin and Bill Plaschke and What’s his name Simers. I have seen what they write, and it’s many cases simply drivel. Saying that Doh! was at the top of this heap reminds me of Gomer Pyle’s compliment to a date: “Fer a big ol’ fat girl, you don’t sweat too much.”

For those Doh! defenders, I ask this question. If you were going to start a sports page for Southern California sports, would you hire Doh!? If so, let me ask you explain using the word that I don’t recall ever seeing Doh! use – because. You would hire Doh! because ….. I would be interested. I wouldn’t hire Doh! But if you did hire him, would you allow him to quote anonymous sources? If so, explain the “because” of that, too.

Or not. You don’t have to explain your position. I recognize that many think Doh! was a great reporter, and his departure will leave a gap. I don’t, but will have to rely on anonymous sources to explain why.

about Plaschke. Nobody bring out the flamethrowers on me.

Nestor, I think I agree with you about Dohn. I just choose to look at it in a different perspective. I can accept mediocrity from the Daily News (or any other mass media) but don’t take it to mean I can accept mediocrity from UCLA athletics (re: Lavin).