OT: NYT admitting that they were basically going after the Pats...

[Pats726]

Just heard this on Dale and Holley...quoted Stacy James as asking the NYT about a number of instances like the Fins getting the signals before etc etc...and after the NYT admitting that NO they were not investigating CHEATING in those instances..basically said they were ONLY going against the Pats....interesting...

 

[JoeSixPat]

Just heard this on Dale and Holley...quoted Stacy James as asking the NYT about a number of instances like the Fins getting the signals before etc etc...and after the NYT admitting that NO they were not investigating CHEATING in those instances..basically said they were ONLY going against the Pats....interesting...

If I were them - and I'm doing my best to do the same thing on national boards like PFT - I'd do my best to have the NFL and media outlets make clear that stealing signals, and taping signals is ALLOWED and that most if not all teams engage in the practice.

(Why wouldn't they? It's legal, and as the Dolphins proved, it can be beneficial)

That's the vital information that fans and the media conveniently ignore.

If it's understood that taping signals is deemed fair and legal by the NFL, it becomes impossible to demonize a team that simply took their video from the wrong location.

By the way, Mr. Kraft - if you're looking for a PR consultant you know where to find me!

 

[Rob0729]

Yeah, I heard it too. Apparently it is clearer in NYT's print edition, but they edited the information in the online edition.

Oh, how the greats have fallen. I consider yesterday as a sad day in journalism history. I would expect a blatantly one-sided witch hunt from one of the tabliods in NY, not the Times (well at least a year ago I would have said that). The Times used to stand for the most comprehensive and unbiased reporting. Yes, they always had a liberal slant to things especially politics, but they tended to at least try to see both sides of an issue.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think I am missing something what did the NY times actually admit too???

is there any source to this story???

 

[Rob0729]

If I were them - and I'm doing my best to do the same thing on national boards like PFT - I'd do my best to have the NFL and media outlets make clear that stealing signals, and taping signals is ALLOWED and that most if not all teams engage in the practice.

(Why wouldn't they? It's legal, and as the Dolphins proved, it can be beneficial)

That's the vital information that fans and the media conveniently ignore.

If it's understood that taping signals is deemed fair and legal by the NFL, it becomes impossible to demonize a team that simply took their video from the wrong location.

By the way, Mr. Kraft - if you're looking for a PR consultant you know where to find me!

Joe,

I do enjoy your posts on the PFT site, but as you well know it is like beating your head against the wall. Most of the responses to your posts refer to Belichick as Belicheat and the Patriots as Cheatriots or reference 18-1* or just the asterick in general. You can't reason with those people. Even when you tone your posts down to acknowledge some of the validities of the other side of the argument, they still call you a homer.

My guess is that Kraft feels the same way. When they do come out and say things, all the haters in the media and around the country accuse the Pats of making BS excuses or deflecting blame. I have a feeling a PR campaign may best work when this whole issue has calmed down and people aren't ready to lynch the Patriots with every single new development.

Look at how the news of the tapes ended up turning out. For months people said that if there was no video of the walkthrough or anything else other more taping of signals, the Pats would not be punished. Now that there was one tape of offensive signals, people are splitting hairs calling this groundbreaking new evidence against the Patriots. It just may not be the right time to add fuel to the fire.

 

[BradyManny]

I just don't get how paid professionals actually would care that much about football teams to be this biased. It's truly pathetic.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think I am missing something what did the NY times actually admit too???

is there any source to this story???

I'd suspect that James will at least be quoted in print somewhere.

The thing for him to do would be to go to the NYT ombudsman to have them determine whether it was a fair and balanced report that was "fit to print"

The interesting backdrop to this issue is that the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times, and while the Globe reporters have facts on their side, it seems like the Times is ignoring the facts in an effort to pander to NY fans.

I'm seriously beginning to think I need to send Mr. Kraft a copy of my resume as a PR and Media consultant. Initially I think they were willing to take a bullet for the "good of the game" and get this behind them but now they should realize they need to fight back with the facts to ensure that the marketability of the Patriots brand doesn't suffer from ignorance and unfair reporting.

 

[Rob0729]

I think I am missing something what did the NY times actually admit too???

is there any source to this story???

According to Holey, they admitted to James that they were only looking at the Patriots. He did say that the story in the print edition makes it clearer of this, but I am not sure that it was spelled out like Holley described it on the air.

Personally, I think if this is the case, the Patriots should shut out the Globe from access. Although I love Mike Reiss' reporting, the Patriots shouldn't give the Globe exclusive access since the Herald is not getting access when their sister publication is on a witch hunt against them. The Globe getting exclusive access to the Patriots gives a benefit to their parent company, the New York Times.

 

[BradyManny]

Personally, I think if this is the case, the Patriots should shut out the Globe from access. Although I love Mike Reiss' reporting, the Patriots shouldn't give the Globe exclusive access since the Herald is not getting access when their sister publication is on a witch hunt against them. The Globe getting exclusive access to the Patriots gives a benefit to their parent company, the New York Times.

I disagree, Reiss is too valuable to the Patriots. He's objective, respected and intelligent.

 

[signbabybrady]

I'd suspect that James will at least be quoted in print somewhere.

The thing for him to do would be to go to the NYT ombudsman to have them determine whether it was a fair and balanced report that was "fit to print"

The interesting backdrop to this issue is that the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times, and while the Globe reporters have facts on their side, it seems like the Times is ignoring the facts in an effort to pander to NY fans.

I'm seriously beginning to think I need to send Mr. Kraft a copy of my resume as a PR and Media consultant. Initially I think they were willing to take a bullet for the "good of the game" and get this behind them but now they should realize they need to fight back with the facts to ensure that the marketability of the Patriots brand doesn't suffer from ignorance and unfair reporting.

So you are saying that Stacie was quoted as saying that the New York Times admitted to calling what the pats did cheating and what the dolphins did as not???

I am still missing what was actually said and by whom?????

 

[Rob0729]

I disagree, Reiss is too valuable to the Patriots. He's objective, respected and intelligent.

Yeah, but there are people at the Providence Journal who are as objective.

The problem is the NYTs is having the best of both worlds. They are slamming the Patriots in the Times which is getting pick up nationally all the time. This slamming is severly hurting the Patriots brand. The Times is directly responsible for both Specter's involvement and outing Matt Walsh. They single handily started the second act of spygate.

Locally, they are benefitting because Reiss is so respected and they take a fair and balanced and sometimes pro-Patriots stance. The only problem is nationally, a lot of the media outlets want to pick up anything positive about the Patriots. So Reiss and the Globe's affect is minimal.

Sorry, but the NYT is hurting the Patriots brand far more than the Globe is helping it. By shutting out the Globe all together, it may be the only way to put pressure on the NYTs to stop this biased witchhunt.

What good is Reiss' reporting if the NYT continues to constantly dig for anything to bury the Patriots and Belichick and help to be a bully pulpit for Specter? What if through their reporting they get enough public sentiment to allow Specter to force Senate hearings (which is probably their objective)? Will you be happy that the Patriots could have stopped this by shutting down the Globe and Reiss so we can get some great articles?

Sorry, it is time for the Patriots to bite the bullet and shut down access to the NYT and their subsidiaries including the Globe.

 

[BradyManny]

What good is Reiss' reporting if the NYT continues to constantly dig for anything to bury the Patriots and Belichick and help to be a bully pulpit for Specter?

The Patriots need somebody on their side and Reiss, being objective, sees the spygate stuff in the proper perspective. If the Pats shut out the Globe, and therefore Reiss by extension, its one less voice of reason, and that's never a good thing in this instance.

The ProJo is great, too, but they do not reach a fraction of the audience the Globe does.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

On its webpage, the NYT makes public the e-mail address and telephone number of its "Public Editor," who is responsible for monitoring the paper's news and editiorial content for fairness.

As far as I know, providing an address that is published for the specific purpose of making contact with an organization is not a violation of this board's rule against posting contact information.

The e-mail is "[email protected]"

The phone is 212 556 7652

The editor's name is clark hoyt.

I sent him an e-mail about one of Araton's columns to the effect that Araton failed to disclose his bias as a reporter from the Jets/Giants media market and that I regarded this as an unfair use of the NYT's platform to support a specific agenda, when the article would no doubt be read by Senator Spector or his staff.

If he gets a couple of dozen reasonably worded and polite calls or e-mails about this, it might actually get a response.

 

[signbabybrady]

Yeah, but there are people at the Providence Journal who are as objective.

The problem is the NYTs is having the best of both worlds. They are slamming the Patriots in the Times which is getting pick up nationally all the time. This slamming is severly hurting the Patriots brand. The Times is directly responsible for both Specter's involvement and outing Matt Walsh. They single handily started the second act of spygate.

Locally, they are benefitting because Reiss is so respected and they take a fair and balanced and sometimes pro-Patriots stance. The only problem is nationally, a lot of the media outlets want to pick up anything positive about the Patriots. So Reiss and the Globe's affect is minimal.

Sorry, but the NYT is hurting the Patriots brand far more than the Globe is helping it. By shutting out the Globe all together, it may be the only way to put pressure on the NYTs to stop this biased witchhunt.

What good is Reiss' reporting if the NYT continues to constantly dig for anything to bury the Patriots and Belichick and help to be a bully pulpit for Specter? What if through their reporting they get enough public sentiment to allow Specter to force Senate hearings (which is probably their objective)? Will you be happy that the Patriots could have stopped this by shutting down the Globe and Reiss so we can get some great articles?

Sorry, it is time for the Patriots to bite the bullet and shut down access to the NYT and their subsidiaries including the Globe.

Is it really news if the same orginization reports the same story thru two of their outlets in two completely differing views.

News in thoery should be unbiased yet here is the same story with two different bias' from the same orginization.

 

[signbabybrady]

On its webpage, the NYT makes public the e-mail address and telephone number of its "Public Editor," who is responsible for monitoring the paper's news and editiorial content for fairness.

As far as I know, providing an address that is published for the specific purpose of making contact with an organization is not a violation of this board's rule against posting contact information.

The e-mail is "[email protected]"

The phone is 212 556 7652

The editor's name is clark hoyt.

I sent him an e-mail about one of Araton's columns to the effect that Araton failed to disclose his bias as a reporter from the Jets/Giants media market and that I regarded this as an unfair use of the NYT's platform to support a specific agenda, when the article would no doubt be read by Senator Spector or his staff.

If he gets a couple of dozen reasonably worded and polite calls or e-mails about this, it might actually get a response.

I just sent him the link to the Frame site....for what it is worth....It's probably as productive as pounding your head against the wall but......

 

[signbabybrady]

I just sent him the link to the Frame site....for what it is worth....It's probably as productive as pounding your head against the wall but......

Her is the auto response from the Times to my email....one line really stood out to me and I made it bold.

Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. An associate or I read every
message. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally to every message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroom staffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages are treated with serious consideration. If a further reply is warranted, you will be hearing from us shortly.

Some messages to the Public Editor may be published in his column or online. Please let us know if you do not want your message published.

Requests for corrections should be submitted to [email protected]. If you are dissatisfied with the response, please let us know.

When referring to a specific article, please include its date, section and headline.

I think we should all make some requests for corrections.

I am now going to send the fram here is well.

 

[signbabybrady]

another funny auto response when I forwarded this onto the adress the other auto response provided. [email protected].
again I will bold the part I find funny.

Thanks for your message to our Reader Comment mailbox. Your e-mail will reach the appropriate editor promptly. We are grateful to readers who take the time to help us report thoroughly and accurately.

Ordinarily a comment about news coverage will receive a further reply. And we do pay respectful attention to all messages, even those that are part of organized letter-writing campaigns, for which we are not staffed to reply individually. A correction generally takes two or three days to appear on Page A2, after fact checking.
News and opinion departments operate separately at The Times. For comments on an editorial or an Op-Ed column or article, the address is [email protected]. (If your message was for those departments, it will be forwarded there.)

Questions about the availability or delivery of the newspaper may be telephoned to 1-800-NYTIMES, e-mailed to [email protected] or posted at www.homedelivery.nytimes.com.

Do you think they will do any fact checking or just ignore....(rehtorical question)




PS my bad for hijacking the page.

 

[Rob0729]

The Patriots need somebody on their side and Reiss, being objective, sees the spygate stuff in the proper perspective. If the Pats shut out the Globe, and therefore Reiss by extension, its one less voice of reason, and that's never a good thing in this instance.

The ProJo is great, too, but they do not reach a fraction of the audience the Globe does.

Again what good is it to have a reporter on their side when their sister organization is not only benefitting from that reporter's access, but also doing a better job burying the organization in the rest of the countries eyes. The NYT have done far more damage than Reiss has done to help the Patriots' cause. The NYT will not stop unless it hurts them finacially or they turn this into the Watergate of the NFL and bury Belichick, Kraft, and Patriots completely.

Rewarding the NYT by giving access to Reiss is like going to war armed only with Nerf balls. Specter is looking to do long term serious damage to the Patriots through the NYT. And the NYT looks to be happy to do it themselves. There is nothing Reiss can write to stop that.

 

[Rob0729]

Is it really news if the same orginization reports the same story thru two of their outlets in two completely differing views.

News in thoery should be unbiased yet here is the same story with two different bias' from the same orginization.

That's why they need to be shut off. The Globe is preaching to the choir in a small segment of the country. The NYT is informing the rest of the country the exact opposite. When the NYT publish an interview with Specter in a puff piece that he reveals nothing, it gets picked up by ESPN and becomes big news because Mike Fish is their resident Spygate guy. When Mike Reiss does an interview with Belichick and Pioli that Matt Walsh didn't have immunity, it barely gets notice by ESPN and John Clayton even reports it as new news a month later because Belichick reiterates it at the owners' meeting.

 

[SoCal Pmen]

The Patriots are not going to shut out Reiss. That's just plain stupid and would be more detrimental from a PR standpoint. They will or should do everything possible to limit or shut out the media outlets that continue to publish erroneous or bogus reports and this list will include NYT, the Herald and to some form, ESPN. This alone will send a message to these groups that agenda driven articles with no sources will not be tolerated. It wont affect ESPN or NYT as they have other news to report and deep pockets. It will affect the Herald where they're competing with the Globe and are likely to lose local advertisers as a result of this irresponsible reporting.