In defense of Tomase - almost
 

Many on this board are quick to accuse Tomasse completely made up the story with zero basis and to be vindictive.

Given the totality of the facts, I doubt that is the case. I tend to think he took the available facts and made a reasonable inference. An inference that was totally unprofessional, worthy of him being fired, but nonetheless reasonable.

Assume from a reliable source within the Patriots (Drew Bledsoe, maybe) he had the following facts:

1. Walsh was present at the Rams walk-thru.
2. Walsh was employed at the time at the time to do taping.
3. Walsh often did the covert taping of opposing coaches.
4. The Patriots were aware of at least one of the Rams plays based on observations of the Rams walk-thru.
5. Walsh claimed to have evidence of spying beyond what was already reported.

Humm, a reasonable conclusion might be that he taped the walk-thru.

Reasonable conclusion. But irresponsible journalism, to label the taping as a fact.

Had he simply reported Walsh was a cameraman who was present at the walk-thru, the entire world would have jumped to the same conclusion. What Tomasse did was jump to the conclusion and then report it as a fact, not as an inference.

To be clear, I believe Tomasse should be fired, as should the editor who allowed the story to run. But for shoddy journalism, not for an attempt to deceive.

What the difference you ask. Lack of malice.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

Again no vendictive, just shoddy journalism... But I think its a safe bet he wont be reporting on the pats much longer.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

Whether it's a reasonable conclusion or not doesn't make it a valid inference. Of course, I don't know how that plays into things legally.

The term "malice" is a bit unfortunate, since the meaning of the term actual malice isn't exactly what you'd think. As far as defamation goes, it means "knowledge that the information was false" or that "the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth."

And, of course, if this rumor has been around for years, as has widely been reported, then there are really only two possibilities: (1) somehow the folks at the Herald were completely oblivious of said rumors until late last year, or (2) the Herald was aware of the rumor, felt it wasn't up to par before, but then changed their minds. If (2) is the case, then the Pats might--with the admitted facts in the "apology"--well have an open-and-shut case for libel.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

From those facts I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion at all.

I've been sitting here trying to imagine a guy with a camera taping a walkthrough, and I think that conclusion is very very unreasonable. It seems preposterous unless he's using a hi-tech gadget.

Plus, some of those facts would have to come from Walsh himself, like the report to Daboll. No one who hasn't spoken with Walsh could have come up with that. And the Herald made evident that the source was not someone with access to Walsh.

So, reasonable conclusion? NO.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

Camcorders the size of a pen have existed for years. Granted back in 2001 they would have cost ten thousand dollars. More expensive than my budget. Petty cash for Kraft.

But yes, it is obvious that he would have been spotted using a full size TV crew quality camera.

Drew Bledsoe or Brian Daboll or others associated with the Pats at the time would have had such knowledge.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

When I used the term malice, I was referring to malice as meaning "desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another."

However, if he had a source that told him Walsh was at the walk-thru and published a false conclusion he jumped to, than he didn't have actual malice either.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

Although I do believe Tomase deserves criticism and attacks for poor journalism, I think he get a lionshare of the Patriots fans ire where it should be placed elsewhere. Say what you will about Tomase, but I don't think his intentions are to tear down the Patriots. There are plenty of journalists out there waging a war against the Patriots, in particular Belichick, and don't look to have any desire of stopping the witch hunt until Belichick is suspend.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

http://www.massbar.org/about-the-mba/press-room/journalists'-handbook/19-libel

I hope this helps in the discussion.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

Again, you're missing a key point here: these rumors were not new. Before this, no one had deemed them fit to print, but suddenly, they were; in that case, while Tomase might not have demonstrated actual malice, one could argue his editors did.

Re: In defense of Tomasse - almost
 

I think that Tomase, as a journalist, was looking for the big story that would give him a name in the industry. And if it were any other team that he were reporting on I think it would have been ok with all of us.

The problem is that it was the home team, and not one of the other 31 teams, and on top of it all it was the day before the biggest game of all time for the Patriots.

Being the home team, especially on the verge of a historical moment, he should have taken extra care to ensure what he was reporting on was accurate and he did not and that is what makes the matter as bad as it is.

I am sure that not one Patriot fan would have been concerned had he reported on the Jets, Dolphins, Raiders, etc.

Sometimes a little extra discretion and common sense is necessary when reporting anything on one of the home teams, a team that is responsible for much of the writer's bread and butter.