#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Fuck the whole concept of "integrity" in this context. It's an attempt at a high-falutin' sounding distraction.

Anytime a reporter gets his skill or work as a reporter questioned, the reporter claims its an attack on his "integrity." Its as though, in their minds, the only allowable criticisms are for spelling and grammar. Any other target -- laziness, agendas, maintaining access uber alles, only having JP Ricciardi on the Rolodex -- aren't criticisms of their journalistic skills, they say, but are instead something much more grave.
Real reporters don't. Real reporters stand by their stories and point out the sources they used, and their formula for stories is (typically): "X happened, and it happened because of Y, based on the evidence." "Sports Journalists" usually start with a conclusion and work backwards, selectively filling in the evidence that fits their conclusions.

It works in the same way that pseudo science "works."

"Noah's flood was real!"
"That's bullshit. There's no way to explain the geological makeup of earth if that was the case."
"How dare you! Just look at the bathtub rings in the Grand Canyon! Clearly, this is the work of a giant flood!"

"Bill Belichick is a cheater, he deflated balls!"
"That's bullshit. There's no evidence to suggest he knew about, much less ordered, any supposed ball deflation."
"How dare you! He is an obsessive micro-manager and knows everything that goes on!"

As such, the only way to approach guys like this is to just refuse to credit them with the same respect that actual journalists deserve. They are not journalists in any real sense. They are charlatans.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,240
Real reporters don't. Real reporters stand by their stories and point out the sources they used, and their formula for stories is (typically): "X happened, and it happened because of Y, based on the evidence." "Sports Journalists" usually start with a conclusion and work backwards, selectively filling in the evidence that fits their conclusions.

It works in the same way that pseudo science "works."

"Noah's flood was real!"
"That's bullshit. There's no way to explain the geological makeup of earth if that was the case."
"How dare you! Just look at the bathtub rings in the Grand Canyon! Clearly, this is the work of a giant flood!"

"Bill Belichick is a cheater, he deflated balls!"
"That's bullshit. There's no evidence to suggest he knew about, much less ordered, any supposed ball deflation."
"How dare you! He is an obsessive micro-manager and knows everything that goes on!"

As such, the only way to approach guys like this is to just refuse to credit them with the same respect that actual journalists deserve. They are not journalists in any real sense. They are charlatans.

Fair points about "real" journalists. On the sports scene, however, most would call the questions about the Grand Canyon attacks on their integrity.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
http://www.gq.com/story/tom-brady-chuck-klosterman-gq-man-of-the-year-2015

Klosterman writes an somewhat frustrating article on Brady that includes a long Deflategate section.

"CK:
But what you’re suggesting is that the reality of this is subjective. It’s not. Either you were “generally aware” of this or you weren’t.
TB:
I understand what you’re trying to get at. I think that my point is: I’m not adding any more to this debate. I’ve already said a lot about this—

CK:
Tom, you haven’t. I wouldn’t be asking these questions if you had. There’s still a lack of clarity on this.
TB:
Chuck, go read the transcript from a five-hour appeal hearing. It’s still ongoing.

CK:
I realize it’s still ongoing. But what is your concern? That by answering this question it will somehow—
TB:
I’ve already answered all those questions. I don’t want to keep revisiting what’s happened over the last eight months. Whether it’s you, whether it’s my parents, whether it’s anybody else. If that’s what you want to talk about, then it’s going to be a very short interview."

I find it hard to believe that Klosterman doesn't realize that Brady has been advised to not discuss anything about the case while the appeal is still pending.
 

themuddychicken

New Member
Mar 26, 2014
80
http://www.gq.com/story/tom-brady-chuck-klosterman-gq-man-of-the-year-2015

I find it hard to believe that Klosterman doesn't realize that Brady has been advised to not discuss anything about the case while the appeal is still pending.
Wow, that's really pathetic feigned ignorance there. I counted four times that Brady referred to the situation as ongoing. There's no way Klosterman doesn't know exactly what's going on here and there's no way that his editor doesn't realize it either. Yet rather than print the obvious conclusion, that Brady has been advised by legal counsel to not discuss it, he instead concludes that Brady is a liar who doesn't want to repeat his lies.

So many words keep going through my head, but I keep coming back to 'pathetic' as the only way to describe it. Shame on Klosterman and GQ.

-edit- I walked away and realized that my post may come off a bit as missing the forest for the trees. GQ named Brady their sportsman of the year and Klosterman is calling him the greatest ever and saying that his lying/cheating doesn't really matter. I get that.

That still doesn't make his asinine conclusion ok. Klosterman was seemingly miffed that he didn't get the access to Brady he desired (he made sure to fit that in there) and that what access he was given got derailed by Brady stonewalling for legal reasons and himself not being willing to let it go. And that lead him to draw a really dumb conclusion and his editor didn't tell him to cut the shit. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:

Number45forever

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
1,970
Vermont
That was fucking asinine by Klosterman. What a dumb fucking article and a waste of time to read. The entire premise of the article seemed to be setting an acknowledgement that yes, TB12 is still great, before immediately spiraling into the same tired shit every pseudo-intellectual pundit has been spouting since this started. Curiously, the bright hot-take offered by Klosterman completely glosses over the scientific explanation of the story in place of this ham-handed take general awareness.

Also, nice to get an anecdote about how Brady discussed his rise to prominence and how Moss, Welker and Edelman are great...glad we couldn't have heard more about that or more about what actually makes the Pats great on the field. The whole fucking article had a tone of acknowledgement of greatness due to a tinge of cheating and rule-bending. The fucking fumble rate shit again!

The best part is, I read the whole article in the same condescending voice Klosterman always uses on Simmons' podcast where he phrases answers as questions, implies knowledge where there is none, and basically just gets off on thinking he's the smartest guy in the room.

Fuck him.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
Here's a good one:

The Patriots are the Raiders of now, despite the fact that the Raiders still exist. They push the limits of everything, and that’s how they dominate.
First, how do you push the limits of everything and do the Patriots even do that on a minority of things? And second, pushing the limits is not how they dominate. That's just stupid.
 

One Leg at a Time

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2008
68
I have been reading Klosterman for an embarrassingly long time. Sadly, much like Simmons, his voice hasn't really changed.

This could have been the Rolling Stone(?) article about Britney Spears - complaining about access, expecting the subject to validate his own 'deep thoughts' on their public/private personna and making sure that you know how this interview affected Chuck Klosterman.

It seemed like he is sure that something nefarious happened (damn you pV=nRT!), and wasn't about to let a pesky thing like an ongoing appeal get in the way of his need for answers.

The intro read like he expected to be pulled into Brady's inner circle, and was frustrated at being held at arm's length. I think that is reflected in the question, and Chuck's comments about Brady's responses.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
I haven't read it yet and after reading comments here I'm not sure I want to, but Simmons said Klosterman would be on the podcast today and it makes sense now because they'll probably discuss this. Simmons isn't exactly the person I want defending Brady on this since he's been sketchy on the details.

I was initially excited when I saw Klosterman did this so the result is disappointing. I'm still shocked with as many prominent national writers out there that there still hasn't been a long breakdown that assumes Brady's complete innocence or at least takes his side. Between this and Deadspin and any other place with no ties to ESPN, how isn't the bigger story the NFL and ESPN's actions during this entire joke of a controversy? I'm thankful for some of the local writers and Stradley and Jenkins for trying to keep up
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
All of the questions that Klosterman didn't get to ask have already been answered by Brady, with the possible exception of the fumble question:

• At what point did you become aware that people were accusing you of cheating?

• Do you (or did you) have any non-professional relationship with Jim McNally and John Jastremski, the Patriots employees at the crux of this controversy?

• Do you now concede some of the balls might have been below the legal limit, even if you had no idea this was happening? Or was the whole thing a total fiction?

• Do you believe negligibly deflated footballs would provide a meaningful competitive advantage, to you or to anyone else on the offense?

• How do you explain the Patriots’ fumble rate, which some claim is unrealistically low? Is that simply a bizarre coincidence?

• If you had no general awareness of any of this, do you feel like Bill Belichick pushed you under the bus during his January press conference? Were you hurt by this? Did it impact your relationship with him?
 

kolbitr

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
682
Providence, RI
It should not be forgotten that Klosterman wrote the eerie and tragically prescient article just before the 08 Super Bowl...on how Brady was the perfect quarterback leading the perfect team to the perfect season in the midst of living a perfect life...and therefore it was fitting, nay mandatory, that it all come to a terrible end. He went on to detail other nearly-perfect teams--UCLA, UNLV--before concluding that Brady, stepping out in new York with his model wife and GQ scarf (and without a walking boot) would soon be experiencing what those other teams experienced...Heartbreak....humility... and imperfection.

:(

I say he's a curse, and a jinx, and pox upon his sheepish haircut and upon his evil soul.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).

Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person

His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"

Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).

Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person

His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"

Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
Wow. I knew none of that.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).

Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person

His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"

Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
Yes. It was the same in the LCD Soundsystem documentary and his "I always think bands are remembered for their greatest strengths but DEFINED by their greatest mistakes" nonsense. Klosterman has always defined that space as your smart, stoned friend - he's usually interesting to talk to, but you know half of what he says it complete bullshit.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Klosterman is claiming Brady's people said "everything was on the table" (i.e., he could ask anything he wanted).
Big difference between you can ask whatever you want and you can expect an answer on whatever you want. It's apparently not uncommon for an exclusive interview with some celebrity to be preconditioned on not asking about the divorce, or the break-up, or to only ask an agreed upon question on some other touchy subject. I assume Brady's people said "ask what you want but my guy really can't say more about his ongoing legal case"
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,434
Klosterman's podcast with Simmons makes me want to throw my computer through the window. He says every 5 minutes that he was totally OK with Brady answering questions "no," then spends the rest of the podcast whining about him saying "no." He's mainly upset because (i) Brady didn't do what Klosterman assumed he was going to do and (ii) Brady's people seem to have tricked GQ into making him the cover boy while promising that Brady would agree to a complete in-person interview, and then Brady didn't do it.

P.S. Simmons, as you'd expect, rolls over for Klosterman and doesn't call him out at all.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Klosterman's podcast with Simmons makes me want to throw my computer through the window. He says every 5 minutes that he was totally OK with Brady answering questions "no," then spends the rest of the podcast whining about him saying "no." He's mainly upset because (i) Brady didn't do what Klosterman assumed he was going to do and (ii) Brady's people seem to have tricked GQ into making him the cover boy while promising that Brady would agree to a complete in-person interview, and then Brady didn't do it.

P.S. Simmons, as you'd expect, rolls over for Klosterman and doesn't call him out at all.
From the little I know about magazine printing this seems implausible. It's not like they just slap someone on the cover last second.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,434
From the little I know about magazine printing this seems implausible. It's not like they just slap someone on the cover last second.
It's the opposite -- he's saying (without knowing it for sure) that Brady's people locked up the cover based on a promise to do a thorough in-person interview, then changed the interview plans once the photos had been taken and the cover spot was locked up.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
Klosterman is not an idiot. He knew that Brady saying "I can't answer that" or "I won't answer that again" was not only a possibility, it was the likely scenario going into that interview. He also had to have known that his follow up questions would have received responses that ranged from the empty to the vaguely hostile to the boringly pleasant (I mean, "Do you think Belichick threw you under the bus?" Really?).

Klosterman was going to run with his meta commentary on Brady's "cheating" no matter what Brady said. He was a horrible, horrible, choice for an interviewer, because Klosterman's not interested in the subject of his story, per se. He's more interested in backing up some eye-rollingly obvious "twist" that he's going to present about the person

His recent interviews with Taylor Swift and Jimmy Page have similar overtones; he manufactures a tension that is somehow evidence of an inherent paradox between who the person seems to be and who the person really is. "Swift seems to be overly calculating, which makes her unknowable, and that's what makes her interesting!" "Page is hiding the very things that people want to know; why doesn't he want to answer questions about Alistair Crowley?" "Tom Brady is perfect; even when he's cheating, but he can't admit it, because then he wouldn't be 'perfect'!"

Or, Chuck, it could be that you're just the 50th interview this year and famous people are sick of talking about this stuff, no matter how fascinating it seems to you.
I think this is right after listening to the podcast. Or as themuddychicken said upthread there was a lot of "feigned ignorance". He described how the interview was put together that GQ had a "wrangler" to get Brady for the interview. I wouldn't be surprised if Brady said he could "ask anything but I can't answer x or y because of the appeal" and Chuck intentionally saw it as "ask anything" so he could frame the piece around that.

It would also explain why he didn't really do much research on the details and asked (or wanted to ask) the same lame questions Joe Sixpacks have been asking and have been answered since February. I wonder if he would have answered more abstract questions but it seems like Chuck started on the facts that obviously wouldn't be answered and it went down from there.

I wonder if Brady is pissed. He probably saw it as a chance for a puff piece and was ready to give good answers (and did give some) but instead it was another retread of the same crap from the past 8 months. Feels like a missed opportunity to be able to put this behind him. I thought the answer about politics was great.
 

jmcc5400

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
5,203
It's amazing. Brady spends a year having his name and reputation smeared with mud, literally without a scintilla of evidence supporting the claims against him, and the MEDIA gets hurt feelings that he is guarded? He testified under oath that he did not do what he was accused of doing. Believe him or don't: what more is there for him to say about it?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
It's the opposite -- he's saying (without knowing it for sure) that Brady's people locked up the cover based on a promise to do a thorough in-person interview, then changed the interview plans once the photos had been taken and the cover spot was locked up.
Right, and what I'm saying is that if GQ felt aggrieved of misled, they likely would have had plenty of time and opportunity to change the cover. It's not like anyone outside the magazine and Brady's camp expected him to be on that cover of that issue before it hit the stands.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Listening to the podcast(not reading the interview) and Klosterman had a completely unrealistic vision of what the interview was going to be. He didn't have a couple of questions about Deflategate he wanted to be Frost to Brady's Nixon and walking through his reaction and thoughts to Wells and the transcript. 1) of course he's not answering any of that with it still sitting in court. 2) Has he not seen any of Brady's interviews since Berman's decision ?

Then Klosterman tries to pin Simmons with accusing of being a liar without proof. Instead of Simmons defending himself with the best evidence that he was right, AP saying the League Office got the Ray Rice video, Simmons folds. Next, Klosterman details exactly the impossible burden Brady faces of overcoming a narrative snowball.

Any idiot could have told Klosterman he was getting nothing re Deflategate.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Right, and what I'm saying is that if GQ felt aggrieved of misled, they likely would have had plenty of time and opportunity to change the cover. It's not like anyone outside the magazine and Brady's camp expected him to be on that cover of that issue before it hit the stands.
Even if Brady is more guarded than his folks had led GQ to believe GQ probably doesn't give a fuck. This interview is going to get six bajillion hits.

It would be interesting to know what GQ does if someone really does burn them. The number one thing you can do is make the guy look like a schmuck (which may be what Klosterman is trying to do). Do you throw in a bunch of anti brady rips in random Conde Naste magazines? Do a piece on some 20 year old women being a smarter nicer Gisele--and one who's not married to an old cheater? Disinvite them from the met costume gala?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Even if Brady is more guarded than his folks had led GQ to believe GQ probably doesn't give a fuck. This interview is going to get six bajillion hits.

It would be interesting to know what GQ does if someone really does burn them. The number one thing you can do is make the guy look like a schmuck (which may be what Klosterman is trying to do). Do you throw in a bunch of anti brady rips in random Conde Naste magazines? Do a piece on some 20 year old women being a smarter nicer Gisele--and one who's not married to an old cheater? Disinvite them from the met costume gala?
Think about it, Conde Nast is not going to antagonize Gisele.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Yes. It was the same in the LCD Soundsystem documentary and his "I always think bands are remembered for their greatest strengths but DEFINED by their greatest mistakes" nonsense. Klosterman has always defined that space as your smart, stoned friend - he's usually interesting to talk to, but you know half of what he says it complete bullshit.
Athens had Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle; we got Klosterman, Gladwell, and Simmons.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
The comments are incredible. Even haters support BB on this and recognize how cynical the NFL is.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,247
from the wilds of western ma
Klosterman is a bloviating, self-impressed hack whose writing is grossly overrated. And his whining regarding Brady's lack of forthcoming-ness on the deflate gate questions is laughably contemptible. But I have to say, Brady has brought most of this little soap opera on himself. Why in the fuck would he need to be on yet another magazine cover, including agreeing to a feature article interview, with the appeal still pending? The minimalist approach to press availability he has been mostly employing since all this bullshit hit the fan has been absolutely the right approach. Why deviate from it?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Klosterman is a bloviating, self-impressed hack whose writing is grossly overrated. And his whining regarding Brady's lack of forthcoming-ness on the deflate gate questions is laughably contemptible. But I have to say, Brady has brought most of this little soap opera on himself. Why in the fuck would he need to be on yet another magazine cover, including agreeing to a feature article interview, with the appeal still pending? The minimalist approach to press availability he has been mostly employing since all this bullshit hit the fan has been absolutely the right approach. Why deviate from it?
I don't know from personal experience but all evidence suggests that money, fame, and a lifestyle that involving banging supermodels are all fucking awesome that doing things--like being on the cover go GQ- to get you more money, fame and supermodels is a damn good use of time.
 
Last edited:

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,581
Portland, ME
Any theories on why the Brady camp changed from a face to face interview to an over the phone? Klosterman used the term "weird" to describe their explanation. You'd think if it was a timing issue, he could've just said that.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
Any theories on why the Brady camp changed from a face to face interview to an over the phone? Klosterman used the term "weird" to describe their explanation. You'd think if it was a timing issue, he could've just said that.

They never intended for a face to face interview but had to wait for the photo shoot to be over before imposing their control over the interview.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Florio with an uncouth implicit begging/demand that eventually Brady sit with one of his "impartial" and "knowledgable" brethren and answer any all questions re Deflategate. His stance that this is a future requirement is nuts. Would it be practical or helpful to Brady in some distant future ? Maybe. But there is zero obligation to go under some inquisitor hoping to corner him on some juicy nuance. The NFL had that chance and instead of running a fair process, railroaded him with not a hint of actual curiosity into the "truth" Florio demands.

Further , though Floro eventually came to the light, he and his fellow PFWA were the same writers that couldn't wait/concocted the 4 game penalty standard out of their collective asses when Roger was sticking his finger into the public relations wind to make a decision. No doubt Brady remembers that.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/11/19/brady-faces-deflategate-questions-avoids-them/

Still, when the litigation is finally over, Brady needs to sit down for a frank, candid interview — not with Jim Gray or a co-worker at the Patriots or Bill Simmons or a mainstream, non-football journalist who doesn’t fully appreciate the entire range of facts and nuances of the case but someone who would be able to ask meaningful questions with probing follow-ups in order to get to the one thing that has remained elusive since the AFC title game: The truth.
 

Jettisoned

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2008
1,059
Klosterman is such a wanker. He writes about sports, network TV shows, pop music and guy movies as if they're high culture. Throwing a hissy fit because a football player wouldn't answer his SUPER SERIOUS QUESTIONS about an overblown "controversy" fits perfectly with all the rest of the pseudo-erudite bullshit he cranks out.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
Florio with an uncouth implicit begging/demand that eventually Brady sit with one of his "impartial" and "knowledgable" brethren and answer any all questions re Deflategate.
While Florio would probably be the best person to conduct an no limits interview given his legal background, I seriously doubt that Brady ever gives any sort of in depth interview about DFG ever.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Still, when the litigation is finally over, Brady needs to sit down for a frank, candid interview — not with Jim Gray or a co-worker at the Patriots or Bill Simmons or a mainstream, non-football journalist who doesn’t fully appreciate the entire range of facts and nuances of the case but someone who would be able to ask meaningful questions with probing follow-ups in order to get to the one thing that has remained elusive since the AFC title game: The truth.
And who might this be? The late Dick Schaap would have been great. Who is out there that isn't attached to either ESPN, NFLNetwork, or local media source (whether that be a Boston-area or elsewhere) who has not only the required level of football knowledge but also some sense of gravitas/journalistic bona fides/whatever that would create the tone you are seeking?
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
And who might this be? The late Dick Schaap would have been great. Who is out there that isn't attached to either ESPN, NFLNetwork, or local media source (whether that be a Boston-area or elsewhere) who has not only the required level of football knowledge but also some sense of gravitas/journalistic bona fides/whatever that would create the tone you are seeking?
That was Florio's implicit plea for him to be the choice IMHO.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,247
from the wilds of western ma
I don't know from personal experience but all evidence suggests that money, fame, and a lifestyle that involving banging supermodels are all fucking awesome that doing things--like being on the cover go GQ- to get you more money, fame and supermodels is a damn good use of time.
Meh, think he's got of all those things in abundance. Doubt one more GQ cover is going to matter much. I'd kind of enjoy it if he took the BB approach to the rest of his career: do the league-mandated bare minimum press, and middle finger the rest of the media/publicity/stardom machine.
 

CoolPapaLaSchelle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2015
114
And who might this be? The late Dick Schaap would have been great. Who is out there that isn't attached to either ESPN, NFLNetwork, or local media source (whether that be a Boston-area or elsewhere) who has not only the required level of football knowledge but also some sense of gravitas/journalistic bona fides/whatever that would create the tone you are seeking?
Bryant Gumbel.