This year's ESPN hit piece
- Thread starter Dr. Gonzo
- Start date
I cannot imagine this is true, and this is irresponsibly sourced especially given that it's an ESPN piece essentially providing substance to an earlier, irresponsible and incorrect ESPN piece.
Maybe the plan wasn't necessarily to tag and trade Jimmy.
The most likely scenario, given everything we know about the last year and everything we know more generally about BB, is that the plan was to keep Jimmy, tag him, and make a decision after the season when he had as much information as possible about TB's health and playing level over the course of a full year, JG's willingness to sign an extension, and other aspects of the team. Then something changed, although we don't know what it was.
It's not complete BS, no. The truth of any story either exists or doesn't exist, and it's independent of whether the sources are named or not - so you're right about that. But from the point of view of a reader's confidence in the story, it's much less believable if you have a bunch of stuff in there that isn't even sourced, and then what stuff IS sourced comes from unnamed sources. Consider these two made-up sentences:
"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," a source familiar with the Patriots told me.
"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," said the Patriots' director of player personnel Nick Caserio in a phone interview last week.
Which of these sentences would you believe more?
You name a source, and you can immediately see where that person is in relation to the story, how likely it is to be true. You don't name a source, and you can literally make stuff up. And when other reporters write things that contradict you, you can just fall back on, well my sources told me.... And there's no way to check.
So again, from a believability standpoint, it's much, much harder to buy a story that doesn't name a single source, especially when the organization running the story has already put out several stories on your team that have turned out to be crap.
This sentence from the 1st graph of that story is such lazy-ass journalism I can't even comprehend trying to read further.
How does it break down? One New England staffer (disgruntled intern), and over a dozen jealous league executives, players, and media types? That is shady as shit sentencing, and when lumping stuff together like that it is entirely done to draw people in. Here's my fictional example.
"In the past decade, this small town has seen two hundred crimes reported. Among them are; murder, disturbing the peace, jay walking, and littering."
So that could be one murder and 199 of the other crimes, or one hundred murders and one hundred of the latter ones etc. It's just a nebulous cloud of shit making statements like that.
This was a water cooler hit piece. I have already been approached by several co-workers out here in the Chicago area about this article. So, ESPN has done its job in that regard.
All this is true but the reality is that journalism often depends on unnamed sources and rejecting the veracity of a story on that basis alone is stupid. Every single story about the Trump White House is based on unnamed sources.
There may be other reasons for rejecting the veracity of this particular story, but the simple fact that the sources are unnamed shouldn't be a major factor.
Absolutely agree here. It's cowardice and poor journalistic integrity to publish an article that claims to be damaging to a party without a single, credible, named source. I think most rational people understand this. Patriot fans are being baited by the biggest sports network troll there is. Even Barstool and Deadspin need to be ranked above this rag.
Right, but isn't there usually something clearer than "many staffers in the building?" What's that mean - could be 2 concessionaires.
It’s not all laughable that they had to. It’s the reality of dealing with an irresponsible, non-sourced article. Shit happens, responses are necessary.
If anything, it’s sad that hacks like Wickersham have a forum, and a national one at that, for their crap.
I suspect, however, that we are talking past each other and we actually agree.
The joint response from Kraft, Belichick, and Brady should just be a tweet of this:
Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks
Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks
Last edited:
It's really unbelievable. ESPN is Fox News (or CNN, not trying to make a political point).
I agree. Also, the piece does a poor job of attributing specific pieces of information to specific kinds of sources. He says at the beginning that sources include both people inside and outside the organization. But then when making key claims, he doesn't say whether that comes from somebody inside or outside. So its possible that all the Guerrero stuff is backed up by people inside the organization but all the stuff about BB, Kraft, and Brady is just third-hand rumor passed on by some people outside the organization who claim to have heard some shit.
Its a badly crafted piece of journalism, possibly intentional deceptive in the way it describes its sourcing. But the mere fact of unnamed sources are utilized shouldn't be a reason for dismissing it.
Having unnamed sources, as I said in my previous post, does not impact the veracity of the story. It impacts the BELIEVABILITY of the story. So I'm going to want a lot more corroboration of a story with no sources or only unnamed sources than I would if the story was filled with key, named sources.
Aren't there a ton of people (players, executives and other employees) formerly with the Patriots who would be willing and able to comment on the record with first hand knowledge about much of the story here?
The story itself isn't as irritating as the positioning of it. The ESPN Sportscenter intro of the story last night breathlessly hyped rampant dysfunction in the organization, the likelihood of this being the last year of the Belichick/Brady/Kraft troika, dogs and cats sleeping together, and 40 years of darkness followed by 40 years of light.
The story itself isn't as irritating as the positioning of it. The ESPN Sportscenter intro of the story last night breathlessly hyped rampant dysfunction in the organization, the likelihood of this being the last year of the Belichick/Brady/Kraft troika, dogs and cats sleeping together, and 40 years of darkness followed by 40 years of light.
There is no way in hell anyone in the Patriots organization would agree to be a named source on a story touching these topics.
In fairness, the first public thing BB said after that clip was "We're on to off-season workouts."
I have no problem with anonymous sources. Its a risk for the reporter and his reputation. He doesnt have to tell us; he does have to tell his editors.
It shouldn't impact the BELIEVABILITY of the story. That's the point. Because we don't live in a world where Nick Caserio is ever going to go on record in the way you seem to want. That is 100% not a possibility. Given that we live in the real world, all the stories we'll ever get on this kind of subject, true or false, will be based on unnamed sources.
Its exactly the same situation as when pieces are written about sensitive national intelligence matters. To say that you don't believe a story unless people are going on record is equivalent to saying that you'll never believe any story on the subject.
Exactly. And on the important points of the story, the editors typically insists on more than just one source.
Really? I thought Wolff named and quoted Bannon pretty prominently, which has given his book substantially greater play and credibility, imo.
I agree with others that the sourcing cited in the article is pretty sketchy, and undermines its credibility. Doesn't automatically destroy it, but certainly influences me as a reader.
Who are these people within the organization that are expressing these views of Brady?
I agree with your last point, and perhaps I'm cynical or biased considering the source, but I think there's a real sleight of hand with the sources. As you recognize, it's hard to figure what's being attributed to whom, and I think that's purposeful so that he can use the veneer of having gotten some relevant information from credible sources and then backdoor the wilder claims from other sources.
If he'd said, "A member of the coaching staff confirmed that Brady and Belichick spoke for an hour on Thursday. A groundskeeper confessed to believing that Brady deflated the balls," we'd scoff. This method at least lets him write in such an ambiguous way we can't judge the credibility of any assertion.
I have obviously read it, as is demonstrated rather clearly by my pulling a speicfic quote from the article and posting it here. I suggest you read it as well.
Mike ReissVerified account @MikeReiss 3m3 minutes ago
In addition to Rob Gronkowski, quarterback Tom Brady was named first-team AP All-Pro. It is Brady's third career All-Pro honor.
In addition to Rob Gronkowski, quarterback Tom Brady was named first-team AP All-Pro. It is Brady's third career All-Pro honor.
I don't. The point was that among all the other junk, the article says ballghazi was real, and, according to multiple unnamed organization insiders, the allegations against Brady were true. The whole thing is a hack job, but it's one more bit of evidence that the real villain of the piece was Brady.
This.
This is what goes through my head every time someone complains about unnamed sources. Who's going to risk losing their job to satisfy some internet message board poster's demands for "named" sources?
Come back down to earth for a second, please.
That's not what I said. I said it makes it less believable, and I'd want more corroboration. Especially if the story runs contrary to what I understood to be true.
And no it's not remotely "exactly the same situation" as sensitive national intelligence matters. We see stories in the NFL all the time where sources are named.
Of COURSE it impacts the believability of a story to have sources named. I'll go back to my earlier example:
"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," a source familiar with the Patriots told me.
"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," said the Patriots' director of player personnel Nick Caserio in a phone interview last week.
Which of these comes off as more believable to you, especially if the quote seems to run contrary to what you thought you knew about Tom Brady? You're naturally going to believe a story more where there is a named source, especially one who is in a position to know. Look at that last quote versus this one:
"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," said Tim Schwartz, the team's assistant equipment manager.
I mean you'd believe a quote from Caserio much more than this last one, but you might believe Schwartz more than an unnamed source.
It's human nature.
I turned on NFLN at about 7:45 am Pacific and no mention of this. All playoffs talk. Over to ESPN and they had Stephen A Smif, Max Kellerman and Tedy Bruschi. The former two were interrogating Tedy on the thing like he was an accused murderer. Kellerman especially looked like he had veins standing out on his forehead that could cause a stroke if he had such an inclination. Bruschi conducted himself well. ESPN acting like a desperate company. I did record about 1 1/2 hours worth of NFLN to scan later and see if they talked about this at all. But ESPN, what a disgrace.
This would be true, if sportswriters were journalists.
Thanks, took your advice. Appreciate the distillation.
It's usually helpful when you read one of these stories that rely on unnamed sources to consider "which party comes out of this version of the story looking good?"
In other words, who would have benefited from having the story come out the way it did. That party is often the source of the reporter's information.
In this case, it's hard to say who looks good. It just feels like Wickersham got a lot of little kernels of incomplete information and then filled in the blanks himself with conjecture and inference. Thus the sense that there are probably a whole bunch of individual truths in the piece, but that the big conclusions being drawn (or implied) are flawed.
In other words, who would have benefited from having the story come out the way it did. That party is often the source of the reporter's information.
In this case, it's hard to say who looks good. It just feels like Wickersham got a lot of little kernels of incomplete information and then filled in the blanks himself with conjecture and inference. Thus the sense that there are probably a whole bunch of individual truths in the piece, but that the big conclusions being drawn (or implied) are flawed.
I don't understand what people are complaining about - this isn't nearly the "hit" piece that I thought it'd be. There are enough specific nuggets of information regarding meeting/incident times, places, and participants to think there's some merit to the article.
The only thing I really took away from it was BB wants to set the franchise up for long-term success while Brady's becoming increasingly defensive of his position as the team's QB, despite some signs of aging that are becoming apparent to some members of the organization.
None of that is a surprise to me at all.
The only thing I really took away from it was BB wants to set the franchise up for long-term success while Brady's becoming increasingly defensive of his position as the team's QB, despite some signs of aging that are becoming apparent to some members of the organization.
None of that is a surprise to me at all.
Did Woodward and Bernstein work for an organization that had previously allowed it's employees (Mortenson, et al) to make headline grabbing proclamations in error and then not immediately correct them when they knew them to be false? That routinely allows its employees to make broad unsubstantiated claims (Jackson) under the guise that "it is entertainment, not journalism"?
Because if they had, and then wanted their work for that employer to be viewed with any credibility, they would be tighter with the anonymous claims. "Many staffers in the building"? Yes, it matters who those staffers are when referencing what is widely accepted as unfounded charges of deflategate. Was it 2 guys in the sales department or was it 4 people who know football operations. Yes it matters, if you want credibility. An organization doesn't get to break all journalism rules with their standard practices in the rush to clicks and eyeballs, and then expect that a completely unsupported article will be accepted as a quality piece of journalism. ESPN the organization threw that credibility away long ago, forcing ESPN writers in these type of pieces to go the extra mile to assure the reader of their own credibility. This piece hasn't done that at all.
Many of us understand jounalism and are not saying that any article without a direct quote from a named source is unreliable. That is certainly not the case.
The question, and the reason it is important to read the article and look at the sourcing of the specific conclusions that get headlines in my view for this particular piece, is that it is much more common to provide specific sourcing of key items, even if anonymous or generalized as to title, role, etc. This is for a couple reasons, which include allowing the reader to assess the biases and knowledge of the source; differentiating what the author heard and concluded from what the sources actually said or claimed; and insulating the author from bias claims.
There are a few places there is somewhat normal sourcing, and a bunch where there is not, in my opinion. Others I guess can have their own take for sure on where that line should be. There certainlky exist articles that have up-front identification of sourcing and nothing else.
Having read Wickersham in the past, and having read a lot of analyses of ESPN writers including dozens of posts from their ombudsman/public edtiors over time that illuminate their editorial review practices (and lack thereof) I noted before the article was published that this was an area to consider, and the article fell below the expectations I had in that regard. But if others want to believe that's irrelevant or an unrealistc expectation that's their prerogative.
100% agreed. The only one that looked kind-of, sort-of bad is Brady, in a petulant child kind of way. But that doesn't surprise me about TB12 at all, and I love him to death. He's batshit crazy about being the best and playing for another half-decade.
True, but based on the last Wickersham hit piece, some of the sources were of this type: "One AFC coach scours the locker room in Foxboro for listening devices."
Implication - Patriots cheat.
Regardless of how much one believes about the actual facts asserted in this story, the way it is framed and some of the descriptive language is what really annoys me.
For example, Wickersham ends the intro to the piece with this:
Edit:
The last sentence is possibly even more absurd:
For example, Wickersham ends the intro to the piece with this:
But regardless of whether there is some tension between Belichick, Brady and Kraft, there is simply no factual support for this statement. There is no indication that Brady has demanded a trade or is going to retire and there is only pure speculation that Belichick could choose to retire rather than deal with all of this. The only even supposedly-factually-based support for that is this ridiculous paragraph:
So Wickersham is admitting that no one has any clue what Belichick is going to do. To paint this as any kind of "evidence" that the Patriots are about to "come undone" is absurd.
Edit:
The last sentence is possibly even more absurd:
What does this even mean? It's like frantically telling someone, "My mother is dying!" and when the person asks what is wrong with her, you say, "Well, she's had a few minor medical issues and she'll probably die sometime in the next 30 years because she's 65 right now." The facts just don't warrant the framing.
Last edited:
I'll say this, I was just at the gym and one of the TVs had ESPN on. This story was the chyron on the channel for the entire 100 minutes I was there. That is utterly unbelievable.
This story is just grist for the masses. Because it involves the Patriots.
This story is just grist for the masses. Because it involves the Patriots.