Mike Reiss brings some sanity to the Brady thing... (ESPN Radio)

[Rob0729]

I listened to the clip twice. Reiss covered himself for any eventuality (while Brady "understands that it's a business" and they aren't "getting together for drinks," Reiss would be "shocked" if Brady held out or wasn't with the Patriots long term). That said, the overall tenor of his remarks is definitely to try to tone down the rhetoric, while leaving himself "outs" in several places in case things go in another direction.

I regard Reiss as probably the best media authority on what's happening with the Patriots, so I'll relax (changed my mood from "Worried" to "Pensive").

As much as I like Mike Reiss, the guy does like to fence sit when it comes to opinions on topics like this.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it is fine to report the facts but why did the others feel the need to jump to a conclusion. A real reporter would let the facts speak for themselves and no speculate on what it might mean as Reiss did.

Reiss offers his opinion, just as the others do. He certainly is speculating on what Brady's anger level will be at camp, for example.

 

[Rob0729]

Reiss offers his opinion, just as the others do. He certainly is speculating on what Brady's anger level will be at camp, for example.

Right you are maverick4... or Deus. Seriously, are you going to resort to these same baiting tactics that maverick used to use?

 

[Deus Irae]

So who exactly is this everyone else? Michael Silver is everyone else?

I will give you credit for trying to find any angle to not admit you are wrong.

Given that I addressed all 3 people you noted, either directly or indirectly, perhaps the problem is your inability to grasp the language?

Ummm... You clearly do not understand journalism. Journalists are not allowed to pick and choose pieces of quotes to change the intent of the quote which Silver clearly did. He removed all the parts of the quote (including part of a sentence he included) that referenced that both sides want to get a deal done and both sides need to find common ground to make everyone happy and left the part that there is a lot of uncertainty and making it sound like the Pats are weary of getting a deal done at least now which clearly not what Kraft said. That is changing Kraft's quote which is a big no-no. Look at the reporter who is deep crap today for misquoting Dwayne Wade about his 9/11 comment by changing Wade's meaning by missing one word.

I understand journalism just fine. You're complaining about something that was fine. When you grow up enough to learn that a reporter/journalist doesn't have to write EXACTLY what you want him to, you'll have begun walking the path to grasping how media, and the world in general, works.

By they way, JMT's version would fail your test. After all, from elsewhere in the Silver article:

“We’re very lucky to have him as our quarterback and we want him to be our quarterback for a long time into the future.”

But that doesn't count, of course, right?

 

[signbabybrady]

Reiss offers his opinion, just as the others do. He certainly is speculating on what Brady's anger level will be at camp, for example.

Not the same thing as Reiss was retorting to someone elses opinion and he did it on the radio or in a blog and not in a news article. although I have to be honest I am not sure if Silver or the other articles would be considered a news story or an editorial and if it was an editorial I guess I am wrong but I am pretty sure they were news stories.

Also Reiss clearly stated his own opinion while the others tried to project an their opinion thru Bradys comments so it seemed like Brady's opinion and not theirs.

 

[Deus Irae]

Right you are maverick4... or Deus. Seriously, are you going to resort to these same baiting tactics that maverick used to use?

Nothing baiting about it. It's a specific response to a charge by the poster.

 

[signbabybrady]

As much as I like Mike Reiss, the guy does like to fence sit when it comes to opinions on topics like this.

IMO it is was one of the big reasons he is so good.

I can form my own opinions I dont writers to do it for me. Give me the facts and news thats all I need.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I twisted absolutely nothing, as you well know. Again:

Actually the quote about not being so naive is a self defense mechanism. Because Mike has been long been painted by some of his peers as a goody two shoes, rump swab for the organization. That's why he wouldn't say they are having dinner together or the relationship is great...he has no way of knowing because his access isn't on that level. He allows others to make of his not being willing to say that to make of it what they will, including assuming conversely they aren't getting together when in fact they may well be...to whatever extent they ever did. After all, there is an age and generation and lifestyle circumstance difference between the QB and his owner and his HC. I don't think they ever hung out on Friday nights playing poker. Although Tom did travel to Israel with Bob one off season. And they do get together occasionally, and Bob characterizes their relationship as special... I bet Bill thinks his relationship with Tom is special too. But those two even moreso have to keep the locker room perception in mind. Bill has to be able to tear Tommy a new one in order to justify tearing everyone one. And Tom wants to be able to communicate the message without being seen as again, an organization rumpswab.

 

[Rob0729]

IMO it is was one of the big reasons he is so good.

I can form my own opinions I dont writers to do it for me. Give me the facts and news thats all I need.

Actually, I wish he would take a stand more. He plays both the analyst and reporter role at ESPN and being an analyst he is getting paid to make opinions. I felt he was positioned as an analyst in that interview. Both Mikes clearly asked for his opinion on things.

It takes nothing away from him as a report and he is still among part of the town's finest, but when he wears that analyst hat I want some real opinions. He doesn't have to be Rodney Harrison and say whatever he thinks no matter how strong those opinions are, but when he is playing analyst he can bring more to the table with some definitive opinions. The guy is bright and knowledgeable with a lot of good sources, sometimes we can get more of the story that isn't written with his opinions.

 

[Rob0729]

Nothing baiting about it. It's a specific response to a charge by the poster.

Well, when you change the "homers can't take any dissent" comment out before you respond, obviously my response doesn't make any sense. You were calling out guys like me and MoLewis and were quick enough to change your comments before I could respond.

 

[signbabybrady]

Actually, I wish he would take a stand more. He plays both the analyst and reporter role at ESPN and being an analyst he is getting paid to make opinions. I felt he was positioned as an analyst in that interview. Both Mikes clearly asked for his opinion on things.

It takes nothing away from him as a report and he is still among part of the town's finest, but when he wears that analyst hat I want some real opinions. He doesn't have to be Rodney Harrison and say whatever he thinks no matter how strong those opinions are, but when he is playing analyst he can bring more to the table with some definitive opinions. The guy is bright and knowledgeable with a lot of good sources, sometimes we can get more of the story that isn't written with his opinions.

A fair point. I guess I just dont care so much for the analyst role in sports reporting.

 

[Kontradiction]

Ummm... You clearly do not understand journalism. Journalists are not allowed to pick and choose pieces of quotes to change the intent of the quote which Silver clearly did. He removed all the parts of the quote (including part of a sentence he included) that referenced that both sides want to get a deal done and both sides need to find common ground to make everyone happy and left the part that there is a lot of uncertainty and making it sound like the Pats are weary of getting a deal done at least now which clearly not what Kraft said. That is changing Kraft's quote which is a big no-no. Look at the reporter who is deep crap today for misquoting Dwayne Wade about his 9/11 comment by changing Wade's meaning by missing one word.

I have a BA in the subject. Journalists these days are pretty much "allowed" to do whatever the hell they want, up to and including cutting out pieces of quotes. The journalist you mention might be in hot water with the public for misquoting Wade, but he's most likely not going to lose his job over it. It happens all the time and the excuse is usually the first amendment. It's one of the reasons why I'm not using my education.

 

[Rob0729]

I have a BA in the subject. Journalists these days are pretty much "allowed" to do whatever the hell they want, up to and including cutting out pieces of quotes. The journalist you mention might be in hot water with the public for misquoting Wade, but he's most likely not going to lose his job over it. It happens all the time and the excuse is usually the first amendment. It's one of the reasons why I'm not using my education.

I have a journalism background in college too and journalists are not "allowed" to take a quote and cut it to change the intent. Do they? Unfortunately, more often than anyone will admit. The journalistic code is that you are supposed to not change the spirit or intent of the initial quote while editing it. You should only edit a quote to remove unrelated or unneccessary parts of the quote to keep the intent allowed.

Silver clearly changed the tone of Kraft's comments to be one that both sides want to get a deal done, but there is work and obstacles to getting the deal done to Kraft hesistant to get a deal done because of the uncertainty. If your journalism professor told you that was ok, then shame on him/her.

Journalism is about getting to the truth, not getting your agenda across (unless it is commentary which Silver's piece is not). Unfortunately, most media sources these days have forgotten that.

 

[Kontradiction]

I have a journalism background in college too and journalists are not "allowed" to take a quote and cut it to change the intent. Do they? Unfortunately, more often than anyone will admit. The journalistic code is that you are supposed to not change the spirit or intent of the initial quote while editing it. You should only edit a quote to remove unrelated or unneccessary parts of the quote to keep the intent allowed.

Silver clearly changed the tone of Kraft's comments to be one that both sides want to get a deal done, but there is work and obstacles to getting the deal done to Kraft hesistant to get a deal done because of the uncertainty. If your journalism professor told you that was ok, then shame on him/her.

Journalism is about getting to the truth, not getting your agenda across (unless it is commentary which Silver's piece is not). Unfortunately, most media sources these days have forgotten that.

Unfortunately the type of journalism you're citing is a very rare occurrance nowadays. By the way, when journalists do things like change quotes and then still find themselves with jobs the next day, they are "allowed" to do it.

 

[Rob0729]

Unfortunately the type of journalism you're citing is a very rare occurrance nowadays. By the way, when journalists do things like change quotes and then still find themselves with jobs the next day, they are "allowed" to do it.

It doesn't make it right. In fact, it is wrong and many times journalists get in trouble for doing it. But we are in the era of Fox News and MSNBC where there are obvious political slants in their reporting. But then again, they aren't taken seriously from large portions of the population because of it.

What Silver did was twist Kraft's quote and it is wrong. That said. I am under no illusion that that type of journalism doesn't happen a lot in all forms of journalism. Still when you can find an example of a journalist doing it, there is no reason why to call them out on it. Bad journalism is still bad journalism even if it is accepted by the mainstream.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, when you change the "homers can't take any dissent" comment out before you respond, obviously my response doesn't make any sense. You were calling out guys like me and MoLewis and were quick enough to change your comments before I could respond.

I was responding to what the poster wrote. The reason I did the edit was because some of my original post didn't fit in the response. However, the reality is that homers like you CAN'T take any dissent. This thread is a perfect example of that, really.

 

[Rob0729]

I was responding to what the poster wrote. The reason I did the edit was because some of my original post didn't fit in the response. However, the reality is that homers like you CAN'T take any dissent. This thread is a perfect example of that, really.

I can take intelligent dissent. I can't take dissent for the sake of being an arse. This thread is a perfect example of that, really.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can take intelligent dissent. I can't take dissent for the sake of being an arse. This thread is a perfect example of that, really.

The irony of it all....

You're claiming I'm twisting things that I'm obviously not. You're deliberately calling me another poster's name as a form of insult. You're arguing against a journalist and calling him a hack because you didn't like the way he used a quote, despite the fact that his article has now been largely backed up by Reiss.

You're right. This has been a perfect example of someone dissenting for the sake of being an arse. Hold a mirror up to your face and you'll find that someone.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Girls! STOP it!

 

[efin98]

Can there ever be a serious thread without Deus Irae hijacking it with his need to be the forum contrarian? This is getting ridiculous...a serious discussion about one of the most important topics regarding the Patriots and Deus Irae has to turn it into a "I am smarter than all of you" event.

I know this will get me an infraction but enough is enough.