Re: Peter King
posted at 8/19/2010 6:50 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Peter King
[QUOTE]Apparently the world forgot that Bostonians require sourcing when anyone writes the slightest criticism about their beloved pats. Who that writes for the NFL provides sources regarding sensitive situations? I am gullible. You are just another pats fan.
Posted by underdoggggg[/QUOTE]
Hey man, all I was doing in my original response to you was pointing out that you
were full of sh*t, not Peter King (although he was, too). When you originally sourced the article from June 2 in one of your responses, you broke out the phrase "exclusive interview." That was your fundamental mistake, as far as I'm concerned. For reasons you likely would not find important, I have a very irritating hair on my tongue about the use of the word "exclusive" and you dropping it in this forum caught my attention. That's all.
There wasn't any interview, exclusive or otherwise, the only direct attribution in the entire piece consists of four words: "Brady declined to comment." When I pointed out that the whole piece was "widely dismissed," you countered with links to some further gibberish where Silver purportedly answeres "questions just like the ones I ask." If you could see beyond the end of Peyton Manning's junk, it might occur to you that the very fact that Silver is answering these questions (and that they exist in the first place) is proof, in and of itself, that his initial premise was, in fact, widely dismissed. Why else would he feel the need to defend his (admittedly not unique) Secret Squirrel style of "journalism?." I was fine with your original "Silver appears to have a line on Brady" perspective. Personally, I don't think he does, but that's a matter of opinion. I think the entire piece was speculative and he was taking advantage of the new mantra in sports journalism. To whit: I can pretend I actually have "sources" by masking their identities under the guise of protecting my information stream . . . essentially supporting one fiction with another. In any case, if I were editing such a piece (by him, or any of these fly-by-night hacks stealing paychecks in our fine internet age) I would introduce him to the wonderful world of "qualifiers." These are terms that are designed to substitute for actual attribution when you don't really have any, or when your attribution is woefully weak. Phrases like "it would appear" or "it seems reasonable" or "there are indications." When I see speculative stories with weak (or no) attribution I recognize them as editorials. You, as just another Colts fan looking for any excuse to lob brickbats at the Pats, break out the old standby Woodward and Bernsteirn defense and accept as "fact" any wild suppostion that supports your perspective . . . never mind the fact that Brady himself has been very clear that there is and has been no "disconnect."
Of course, we don't really have much journalism anymore. It's all "Infotainment" nowadays, and not just in sports. Being first has become more important than being informative or accurate. But even so, claiming to "know" things that are merely his own suppositions simply makes Silver look like a deusche . . . and defending him with an empty weapon makes you look a lot like him.
Will McDonough would be rolling over in his grave if he could read the nonsense being "reported" these days.