Corsi said:Isn't it just as big of a story if King says "I called every GM in the league and none would go on the record with me regarding Michael Sam." But, then of course, King would kind of be biting the hand that feeds him and he would never do that.
Bingo.
Another thing, why go to these sources granting them anonymity up front? Why not, you know, ask them to comment on record first? Wouldn't that be much more interesting for his readers?
Its not just that its interesting, it's how "journalism" works. While anonymity is certainly "in the toolbox," as someone said, it should be a tool of last resort in critical situations. If absolutely none of 32 would talk to him, OK, then its a choice he has to make. But: 1) he didn;t try to tak to 32 of them; and 2) it sure sounds like he offered it to them first before they asked. That's not even Journalism 101; thats Journalism 100.
I think that in all likelihood demanding on-record comments probably just yields a bunch of PC, disingenuous platitudes. The more interesting story here is what do NFL executives really think, not what do they think people want to hear.
Getting them on the record serves another purpose, though. It gets them on the record. And if the story is,"NFL execs dont want to talk about what they think," then that's the story you write. Not the one you want to write.