posted at 8/30/2013 9:56 AM EDT
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:
But the point, to me I guess, is that Borges' information and sourcing is poor and not verifiable. Of course, with his caveats, Borges goes out of his way to say, in effect, "...hey, I'm only telling you what I heard through the grapevine." He's including something in the article that comes from a third party, a guy who is not even the source of the quote, and using it to advance his anti-BB agenda. Typical Borges.
So yeah, BB and Kraft have everything to lose, but the Hernandez associate, the guy who is probably a punk on the street, has nothing to gain? How about 15 minutes of fame, a quote in Rolling Stone, or being paid for his information? If this guy exists, and if he's telling the truth, why hide?
Again, this is typical Borges. He lets his hatred overtake his credibility.
Why hide? Maybe because the info he's giving is about a guy who is suspected of three murders. 15 minutes of fame usually comes with a name attached. The guy who is quoted isn't garnering any fame.
The article clearly states that it's third party info. It's a "hey, this is what one of his boys said" and it's opened attributed to that. Love, hate or don't care about Borges, it doesn't make the statement any less true.
We'll agree to disagree. But an anonymous quote from a third party source who is not even the source of the quote means no one is accountable for the information and said information is not even verifiable. Journalistic integrity at its best, right? It's a throw away line couched as such so that if confronted Borges can say "...I'm only telling you what some guy said AH told one of his friends." It's included to serve Borges' purposes.