Heard back from Jackie MacMullan re., "Tattoogate" - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***shmessy*** · 10-12-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tunescribe

I made that point in my original post, that she precipitated the very thing she's blaming Samuel for. But, I had no idea the interview occurred two weeks before it was printed. Is there reference to that in her story? I'll re-read it but if not, where did you hear that?

There's NO reference to that in her original story - - if there was, I'd have at least some respect for the article (and only be disappointed at the "Get Paid" fabrication). It was pointed out in the aftermath (once the story was printed) that she had interviewed him weeks before and that the Globe decided to publish it the day of the first playoff game.

I'll try to get a link on it.

kriskanos · 10-12-2007, 10:32 PM

Greasy headed Jackie sat on the story for 2 months and reported it on the morning of a big playoff game....despicable

spacecrime · 10-12-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borg

I get you point...Media bad, Patriots players good

No, it's about printing what is true as opposed to what is not, about printing something with a negative connotation when in actuality there really is a positive connotation, and then not coming out and saying, "I was wrong."

Get Paid vs. Get Rich to This. Not the same, now is it?

If she did an article on you, and said you have some boys you play with that cost you a lot of money, it's not the same as saying you have some expensive toys, now is it.

And having said in the newspaper that you like boys, the paper ought to print the truth when they found it out.

***shmessy*** · 10-12-2007, 10:38 PM

Regarding the manipulative timing of that article:

Here ya go. From the Boston Globe itself.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...uel_big_again/

***Tunescribe*** · 10-12-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

It was pointed out in the aftermath (once the story was printed) that she had interviewed him weeks before and that the Globe decided to publish it the day of the first playoff game.

Amazing how stupid they think the readers are. If that isn't an anti-Patriots agenda, I don't know what is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Regarding the manipulative timing of that article:

Here ya go. From the Boston Globe itself.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...uel_big_again/

Thanks, Shmess. OK, direct from the horse's mouth. Assuming Asante wasn't "lying again," this makes MacMullan look quite pathetic.

JJDChE · 10-12-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

This answers absolutely none of my question. You assumed she was correct/truthful before, when she wasn't. Why assume she's correct/truthful now? This is ridiculous. The screwed the pooch on a story and should go public with a fact-based explanation.

Yeah, nowhere in that piece did it say Asante told her anything about the tattoo. For all we know he told her exactly what it said and she interpreted it how she saw fit. Considering her defensive reply, I'd tend to lean towards that explanation.

***shmessy*** · 10-12-2007, 10:46 PM

However, Jackie Mac may have something on Asante for ALSO being manipulative as to the timing of the publishing of the article:

From Bostonsportsmedia.com's excellent David Scott:

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/arc...ts/2007_01.php

Just a quick follow-up on the Asante Samuel/Jackie MacMullan ‘saga’, as it were.

It appears that Samuel was not entirely truthful when he told Julian Benbow the JMack interview took place “three or four weeks ago” ( as he did in Benbow’s Globe story from Monday).

Shots has been told by separate Pats' beat insiders that the first sit-down took place closer to 10 days ago (around the run-up to the Titans game). There was also, we have been informed, two follow-ups to the original sit-down.

Further, it seems the Patriots had a PR staff member sit in on the initial interview. It is doubtful, however, that the follow-ups between Samuel and MacMullan were “supervised.” (Don’t even get us started on the disdain we have for organizations that insist – or even ask – for permission to sit in on a one-on-one interview. By definition, it would no longer be a one-on-one.)

So, to summarize, this was, in near certainty, a calculated move by Samuel to get his message out on the day he could be guaranteed the most eyeballs. Both Samuel and the Globe got what they wanted out of it and in the end, both The Player and The Paper did exactly what they are supposed to do: create buzz.

Samuel's faulty recollection on when the interview(s) took place only brings into question his modus operandi in his effort to Get Paid.

. . . One reader reminded us of a similar circumstance involving MacMullan from earlier this season when, in August, she went to interview Adam Vinatieri for a takeout piece, but wound up getting some next-day news when Vinatieri made comments like this one: “I understand the business. I'm not naive. But [2004] was a good time to get a long-term deal done. I wish they had.”

MacMullan didn’t hold those comments for the feature she was working on, but she did hold Samuel’s, which may suggest there were parameters in place before Samuel would talk “exclusively” with JMack. Happens all the time, of course, but again gets into the transparency issue we referenced earlier today. Inform the reader of when the interviews took place and under what conditions, if any.

***shmessy*** · 10-12-2007, 10:53 PM

Here is Bruce Allen's take on it from the day before Scott's Shots:

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/arc..._left_from.php

Jackie MacMullan's piece on Asante Samuel was a good read, but I've got to question the Globe on their timing on running the feature. As you probably know, the story contains a number of pretty inflammatory comments from Samuel on his frustration about the lack of progress being made on getting him a new contract. Samuel is quoted as follows in the piece:

"What they offered isn't even worth discussing. It's disappointing. You want to believe they know what you've done. So you hope for the best, but you end up feeling underappreciated. You feel disrespected, especially how they come at you with so much negative stuff. They show you such a low regard."

In this morning's Globe, Julian Benbow has Samuel quoted as saying that he gave those quotes in MacMullan's piece "three or four weeks ago."

Three or four weeks ago? Let me get this straight. MacMullan and the Globe have had these quotes in their hip pocket for up to a month now, and they choose to hold it, and run the feature as their main story on the day of the Patriots first playoff game?

Now, I'm can already hear someone misinterpreting this criticism and accusing me of saying that they shouldn't have run the quotes from a guy that is unhappy with his contract. That's not the issue. I don't have a problem with the questions, or the running of the answers in the piece. What I have an issue with is saving them up to run on the day of the first playoff game.

They couldn't have just wanted to stir things up, could they? Create a controversy? Nah.

JJDChE · 10-12-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Shots has been told by separate Pats' beat insiders that the first sit-down took place closer to 10 days ago (around the run-up to the Titans game). There was also, we have been informed, two follow-ups to the original sit-down.

So, she was actually in the room with him and she STILL didn't get the tattoo right?

borg · 10-12-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJDChE

So, she was actually in the room with him and she STILL didn't get the tattoo right?

"Excuse me Mr. Samuel, can you drop your pants and shoe me your right ass cheek....... Oh never mind, I'll just make something up even though the 52 other players that you shower with will know what your ass cheek really says."