Okay, nice to see that I am not the only one. From this week's mailbag (Reiss):
'Hi Mike, my question is regarding "anonymous" sources being the backbone of articles -- specifically in the backdrop of the Cassel/Vrabel trade. First, why are they anonymous? Are these undercover FBI agents who identity cannot be disclosed? Is national security at stake? I'm specifically talking about Chris Mortensen's report claiming Belichick turned down the No. 12 overall pick for Cassel straight up. What?!? My 2 cents: They asked Vrabel to take a pay cut and he refused. Coupled with Cassel's cap number they found themselves strapped. Pioli knows this, so he offered the No. 34 pick and offered to take Vrabel, which ended up being the best option. If (I reiterate IF) there were any other offers, they must have had contingencies - such as the team and Cassel need to agree to a contract, which could have dragged this out and made the Pats bystanders in free agency. What's your take?'
Reiss answers that apparently anonymous sources can be actual real sources and that the internet is a wild world filled with rumor that can lead a good journalist astray. I still like the idea that national security is at stake though.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment