The Problem with Twitter Newsbreakers

Professional journalists have incentives to be truthful and diligent. Unfortunately, not everyone on Twitter is a professional journalist.

Three days before Christmas, Steve Franklin, who tweets at the handle @MyGuySteve, had news that he wanted to share.

“Same buddy just texted me,” he said, referring to a source he claims to have within the Mets front office. “BREAKING NEWS: #Mets about to finalize George Springer deal. 5 years $125M ish. #LGM.”

Franklin followed up on his tweet a few days later, at 7:54 a.m. on Christmas morning.

“Deal is done. Announcement coming today,” he wrote. “George Springer is signing with the #Mets. Merry Christmas Mets fans.”

Now here we are, ten days later, and George Springer, at press time, isn’t a Met yet. So what happened?

Well, we don’t know, exactly. Either Steve Franklin is sourced, and his source was misinformed or malintentioned, or he’s not sourced, and the whole thing was made up. I’ll tell the story and let you decide. But either way, the whole messy saga is a cautionary tale about who to trust in a world where anyone can attach “BREAKING” and “SOURCE” to a tweet any time they want.

How do reporters earn credibility? Basically, there are two ways. The first is to work for an established journalistic organization. A sports reporter with the New York Times, for instance, has some measure of built-in credibility because of what would happen if they lied. If that reporter was inventing sources and tweeting out falsehoods, or even failing to double-check their work, it would be a career-ending, reputation-tarnishing scandal for the reporter, and a major problem for the outlet. So when a reporter for a legitimate, recognized news organization tweets something like “Source: Mets to sign Trevor May,” you can pretty much trust that they’re accurately conveying the truth. Their incentives to be accurate far outweigh their incentives to lie.

The second way a reporter can gain credibility is by building up a reputation. Someone who doesn’t work for an established news organization might still somehow be well-sourced. So if they break a few stories and establish that they’re truthful and diligent, readers can start to trust them. Credibility, basically, comes from the reputation of either the reporter or the publication. Ideally, it comes from both.

Unfortunately, Twitter is suffused with people who have neither. Franklin, for instance, claims to have a source within the Mets organization. When I reached out to him for comment, he claimed that his source was “a friend from college who works in the Mets’ front office. He broke the news of the Jacob deGrom extension and James McCann signing so I felt comfortable trusting the source.”

I searched Twitter, and couldn’t find any mention from Franklin of Jacob deGrom’s contract extension. Franklin did tweet that the Mets were signing James McCann, but contract talks between McCann and the Mets were already public, as were rumors about the length of a potential contract. Is he sourced? Like I said, I’ll let you decide.

The Springer rumors were amplified by another account, “MLBExecutiveBurner,” who on December 23rd, tweeted, “RUMOR: Steve Cohen will give Mets fans a BIG Christmas present tomorrow.” The account followed this up with two more tweets announcing that a deal was done, and that the Mets were planning the announcement to generate maximum media coverage. Obviously, since the deal still hasn’t happened, both tweets were wrong.

I reached out to the account with a few questions. Who are you? Who are your sources? Are they legitimate? If you can’t name them, why not?

MLBExecutiveBurner responded. “Sports Journalism is broken,” the account wrote. “All top writers ascend by reporting information largely given by Agents. Front Offices are more secretive than ever. The Fans legitimately have no clue what’s going on or being discussed. Contrast that to the NBA. All league business is out there practically and that creates fan engagement. We’ve got an issue with fan engagement, and that’s why I created this account.”

I’m not exactly sure how tweeting out false rumors helps change the fact that Sports Journalism is broken. When I followed up asking for specific answers to my questions, the only response I got was a “thumbs down” reaction to my message.

“In general, I would advise fans to ensure that person has some sort of credibility before they go believing anything tweeted out by that account,” Justin Toscano, who covers the Mets for The Record and North Jersey, told me. 

It’s not all lies: Toscano cautioned me that twitter accounts without any known media affiliation can break genuine news. “It’s not super likely, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen,” he said. “Usually, reporters hear of those developments from agents or team officials — to whom they have more access than the casual fan or someone without a credential. But if someone, say, hears the news through a friend who has this other friend who’s an agent, then a more ‘random account’ can break news.”

So, the question is: how can a reader tell at a glance whether a tweet that starts with “SOURCE” or “BREAKING” is legitimate? One way, strangely enough, is to look at the non-breaking reporting that the author of the tweet has done. Have they demonstrated that they have access to people with inside information? What sources have they talked to in the past? Have they done a non-breaking profile of a player or an agent, for instance, such that they might be in position to call that person back to ask about breaking news? Are they routinely in contact with people who know what they’re talking about?

Of course, it’s also valuable to look at any similar breaking news reporting the author has done previously. Have they broken stories from anonymous sources? Did those stories prove to be true? Were they genuine reports, and not just gambling that speculation would come true later? If someone has any kind of track record of getting stories right, maybe they’ve earned some level of credibility. If they’ve gotten stories wrong, they probably haven’t.

It’s also worth looking into whether an account follows basic principles of journalistic integrity. Most journalists, for instance, issue clarifications when they delete tweets, the same way news outlets issue corrections when they edit published writing. Michael Marino, who tweets from the handle @MichaelMarino37, calls himself a “news reporter” in his Twitter bio, and often posts tweets claiming to be sourced. 

On January 23rd, 2020, for instance, he wrote: “Update to #Mets and Marte: Quote I was given was, ‘Mets are all-in on Starling.’ This is the big addition they want. One went as far as to say that it could be done by Monday, but other source stuck to the 20-25 day timeline.”

The next day, January 24th, he followed up: “SOURCE: #Mets have made tremendous progress on a potential deal. Still no guarantee that a deal gets done, but they are close to closing. Quote, ‘We are 75% there. Looking more and more likely everyday.’ Odds I was given days ago of 80/20 he told me have advanced to 90/10.”

On the face of it, there’s no problem with these tweets. Let’s give Marino the benefit of the doubt and say that he’s well-sourced, and was relaying genuine information he’d gotten from someone close to the Mets organization. He didn’t necessarily say anything factually wrong. The Mets never ended up trading for Marte, of course, but Marino never said the deal fully was done. For what it’s worth, his tweets conflicts with subsequent reporting that the Mets and Pirates were never particularly close to a trade, but let’s just say that between the two of them, Marino is right.

Here’s the problem: neither of those tweets are up anymore. Both seem to have been deleted. I had to find archived versions to read them. Other tweets from around the same time are still up, but the two that most strongly stake a bold claim — that the reporter has reliable information that something big is probably going to happen, a thing that subsequently didn’t happen — have disappeared.

In the interest of transparency, journalists shouldn’t just delete tweets. Readers deserve access to a journalist’s entire record of reporting, blemishes and all, so that they can evaluate the credibility of what they’re reading. News outlets make public corrections based on exactly the same principle.

I searched for a clarification from Marino as to why he’d deleted the tweets; I couldn’t find one. I reached out to him for comment, but he didn’t respond to my request. 

Still, though, Marino has given at least some indication that he’s at least somewhat sourced. He’s never gone as far as Franklin, who on January 24th, 2020, tweeted “I know I’m usually breaking NFL news, but I just got a text from a buddy who broke the Jacob DeGrom new (sic) last year. I’m told #Pirates Starling Marte has been traded to the #Mets. The deal is done. #LGM.” Obviously, the deal didn’t happen. Franklin didn’t issue a retraction.

“The Marte deal fell through,” Franklin told me. “My source (same guy) said they thought they had the deal done. Just never happened. Not many people picked up on it on twitter so I never felt the need to give an update.”

So when you see a rumor on Twitter that doesn’t come from an account you recognize and trust, it’s worth digging into it. Is this person in a position to know? Have they gotten stories like this right before? Have they gotten stories like this wrong before? Do they follow basic procedures of journalistic integrity? Do they have a professional incentive to tell the truth?

And finally, don’t trust evidence that could easily be fabricated. Twitter newsbreakers are always sharing screenshots of text conversations purporting to prove that their news is legitimate, as if a few text messages from an unknown contact can substitute for years of building up journalistic credibility. The obvious problem is that anyone can do that. Like this:

BREAKING NEWS: a source close to the Mets tells me the team is on the verge of a MAJOR TRADE.

I blacked out my source’s contact information and everything, so you know it’s legit!

Did this trade happen? Of course not. This is me texting prearranged dialogue to a friend. It took two minutes. But doesn’t it look convincing?

Franklin used this same kind of “proof” as he tweeted the news that the Mets had signed George Springer. “Got another scoop for you,” someone texts him. “Lmk if you want it. Same kid who told me about McCann just texted me.”

“Let’s hear it,” Franklin responds in the text conversation.

“Mets about to finalize George Springer deal,” the source responds. “5 years $125M ish.”

“Are you sure about the George Springer news?” Franklin asks, at least a day later.

“Yes,” the source responds. “It’s happening.”

It didn’t happen. I wish it had. Franklin subsequently tweeted that the deal had fallen apart, his source had been fired, and he was looking for a new one. Whether or not Franklin is sourced, I’ll let you decide. But the more important point remains: unfortunately, on Twitter, it’s hard to tell what news is real.

Some of it might come down to misunderstanding. As Mark Healey, founder and Executive Editor of Gotham Baseball, told me, “there’s a difference between sharing a sports rumor I’ve heard from a reliable source of information as opposed to writing, working a rumor mill story and publishing it on one of my media platforms.” Posting on Twitter or offering some throwaway speculation on the radio isn’t the same as publishing what’s supposed to be a news story.

Healey, for instance, recently tweeted that “FWIW I'm hearing that #Mets may be signing a free agent ‘in a day or two.’ I have no idea who, but person who told me 1) would know 2) had a smile on their face. I am hoping it's Springer, but person wouldn't say.” That’s clearly just a rumor, albeit a sourced one, and not speculation masquerading as settled fact. It’s qualified with “I’m hearing” and “may be.” Sure, I was still excited to see it: I thought it was probably true. But reading it, qualifiers and all, it’s clear that it’s merely a rumor, not set-in-stone fact.

Healey also offered clarification days later. “A few days ago, a source shared with me that #Mets would be signing a free agent ‘in a day or two,’” he wrote. “Based on the individual, whom I trust, I shared it with all of you. Fans are understandably frustrated that nothing has been announced. I share your frustration.” There it is: a journalist tweets a rumor, it turns out to be wrong, so the journalist publicly owns it: “Unfortunately, I got this one wrong.”

Journalists should still cautious and factual: that’s why it was irresponsible when Buster Olney, in December, said of the Mets that "I'm just about ready to bet the family farm in Vermont that they're going to wind up with Springer." Olney is a proven insider; when he makes a pronouncement like this, without qualifying it at all, it’s presumed to be well-sourced. This turned out to be mere speculation.

But some Twitter users take things a step farther: they claim insider status and privileged information, while not following any of the basic tenets of journalism. So before you believe anything, make sure the person saying it is worth believing. If the Mets really sign George Springer, you’ll hear it from someone you trust. And if the Mets trade for Carlos Correa — well, maybe my friend knows something that I don’t.