Curran kind of rephrases his earlier statements on Brady

[Rob0729]

In fairness to Curran, we don't know the tone of SoCal Bong's e-mail or whether even if there was no accusator or sarcastic tone in his/her e-mail that Curran inferred any. If SoCal was being a jerk in his/her e-mail to Curran, then his response was justified. Not saying he/she was, but based on his response I am thinking it could be the case.

As for Curran, he was very defensive after he wrote the story and other writers contradicted what he wrote. Personally, I was disapointed in his response. But I guess he has accepted the fact that his source might have fed him false information and it is time to move on in my eyes.

 

[hyperpat]

Oh, well. Looks like we can put all that to bed now.

Giselle is going to put me bed now? Excellent!

 

[hyperpat]

What Curran meant to write is that Brady is day-to-day with a leg, that it tightened up on him, but that BB isn't a doctor and can't be expected to make medical judgments and that Brady will be looked at by the medical staff and then BB will announce that Brady is day-to-day with a leg and that it "is what it is" and that Tom is expected to return (in September) but might see action in mini-camp or training camp if he isn't day-to-day with a leg and if it doesn't tighten up or BB doesn't get a medical degree before that time in which case we'll have a more complete report about Brady's shoulder in the post season of 2018.

 

[patsox23]

Seriously ? Wow, that is totally out of character for him. Crazy.

Yes, that IS totally out of character for him, and I know for a fact that he DIDN'T say that. I know Tom a little bit and have talked with him about this, and his credibility is something you can bank on.

I understand that some people exaggerate on messageboards because, well...because they can. They see it as harmless. But SoCal crossed a line. That is a really lame accusation.

 

[patsox23]

Nice.

I love it when reporters totally eff up a story, get it dead wrong, and then turn around and get all pissy when you call 'em out on it.

Except that's not what happened.

I don't understand why people here are going off on something that Curran never quite said. You guys should really read more carefully. And you certainly shouldn't take SoCal's word for what transpired in the e-mails. I have now seen the e-mails and the "FU" thing is nonsense.

 

[BradyManny]

Except that's not what happened.

I don't understand why people here are going off on something that Curran never quite said. You guys should really read more carefully.

Yes and again in Curran's defense, based on the times SoCal posted, he was on air on the Big Show during the time in which he responded to SoCal's email, so I would expect any reply made during that time to be succinct to say the least.

 

[patsox23]

In fairness to Curran, we don't know the tone of SoCal Bong's e-mail or whether even if there was no accusator or sarcastic tone in his/her e-mail that Curran inferred any. If SoCal was being a jerk in his/her e-mail to Curran, then his response was justified. Not saying he/she was, but based on his response I am thinking it could be the case.

Here are the e-mails in question, leaving out private contact information:

From: SoCal
To: Curran, Thomas (NBC Universal)
Sent: Wed Feb 18 16:20:51 2009
Subject: Just admit you were wrong

“In late December, NBCSports.com reported that the slowness of Brady's rehab, the looseness in the ligaments and possible further surgery to remove the scar tissue buildup would muddy the waters on how the team would proceed with Brady's backup…”

B.S.

You said outright that Brady would not and could not start the season and now you have the gall to pretend you never said it? You were on the Dan Patrick Show and stated it as if it were fact as well as in many other media venues. Just come out and say that your source was wrong. Do you really want to be labeled and categorized as the next Tomase or Borges? Those guys have reputations as hacks that they will never be able to shed and you are likely to get the same treatment if this how you are going to handle this matter and not own up to it.

I sincerely hope that you do clear your name but timing is critical. Do it today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Curran, Thomas (NBC Universal)
To: SoCal

I respond "fu" to you?

Did you "ask if I regretted exaggerating brady's situation?"

Did I say EVER, as you alleged in your initial email to me, that Brady would miss 2009?

nope, nope and nope.

I've been on that message board off and on for at least six years and have had plenty of back and forth there with people who I've gotten to like. So, even though most in the media would laugh at me for giving a ****, I do. I treat people who email me with respect provided they come to me in that way.

Don't make stuff up. If you had any conscience, you'd cut and paste the email exchange and this. But you won't.

Tom Curran

 

[ctpatsfan77]

think about what you just said.

OK--that didn't come out right.

What I meant was that, based on the various threads (linked below, many of which contain links to his own words), the characterization didn't seem like a valid one.

 

[DefenseRules]

I don't care what tone Curran used to respond to SoCal. He WAS WRONG...PERIOD. He wrote a story that put Brady's 2009 season in doubt. A story that no other MEDIA outlet has backed up. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, he gets defensive when people call him out. What the hell did he expect us to do? After that DEBACLE by John Tomase, I have no patience for this type of reporting. If you got it wrong, admit it and move on. There would be no need for this thread or criticism of Curran if he had admitted that what he reported was wrong in the first place.
The media is quick to tell the subjects of their articles to own up to their actions when they are wrong. Why shouldn't the media be held to the same standard? I am sick and tired of this holier than thou attitude of the media in general. They are not GODS to be worshipped. They are people just like us. They make mistakes too.

 

[Pats67]

I don't care what tone Curran used to respond to SoCal. He WAS WRONG...PERIOD. He wrote a story that put Brady's 2009 season in doubt. A story that no other MEDIA outlet has backed up. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, he gets defensive when people call him out. What the hell did he expect us to do? After that DEBACLE by John Tomase, I have no patience for this type of reporting. If you got it wrong, admit it and move on. There would be no need for this thread or criticism of Curran if he had admitted that what he reported was wrong in the first place.
The media is quick to tell the subjects of their articles to own up to their actions when they are wrong. Why shouldn't the media be held to the same standard? I am sick and tired of this holier than thou attitude of the media in general. They are not GODS to be worshipped. They are people just like us. They make mistakes too.

Perfect. Exactly right.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Whatever was in the emails isn't necessarily germaine to the point about holding the media ACCOUNTABLE for what they write and what they claim to be "news".

No email changes the fact a reporter claimed a dire outlook on TFB's progress, said it several times, and continued to defend that position despite reports to the contrary. As I already posted, you can't put something out there as earth-shattering as Brady's health news,and not expect consequences and reaction. ESPECIALLY when you're later proven wrong.

Why Curran didn't learn from Mazz and Tom-asse isn't our problem or our dilemna to solve, it's his.

And any media person who hasn't yet figured out the mindset of Pats fans,especially after Spygate, is leaving themselves wide open. And when you print something as huge as what these guys have printed in the past, you'd better be able to back up your fries.Or at least learn from the mistakes of others (Borges,Tomase,Mazz among others). And if you can't take the heat of the backlash in at least a semi-professional way,consider just staying out of the kitchen.

Admit your mistake and move on. :confused2:

 

[patsox23]

I don't care what tone Curran used to respond to SoCal. He WAS WRONG...PERIOD. He wrote a story that put Brady's 2009 season in doubt. A story that no other MEDIA outlet has backed up. Instead of admitting that he was wrong, he gets defensive when people call him out. What the hell did he expect us to do? After that DEBACLE by John Tomase, I have no patience for this type of reporting. If you got it wrong, admit it and move on. There would be no need for this thread or criticism of Curran if he had admitted that what he reported was wrong in the first place.
The media is quick to tell the subjects of their articles to own up to their actions when they are wrong. Why shouldn't the media be held to the same standard? I am sick and tired of this holier than thou attitude of the media in general. They are not GODS to be worshipped. They are people just like us. They make mistakes too.

I disagree. I think a lot of this comes from a hysterical misreading of his initial reporting.

 

[Patjew]

I have always like Curran. I love his accent and he seems like a smaht guy and witty writah. This whole thing is just... weird.

 

[Patjew]

I disagree. I think a lot of this comes from a hysterical misreading of his initial reporting.

patsox23, I am just curious about something and no offense is intended by this: are you in the media? You've defended Tomase and now Curran more so than anyone. Actually, I think you were the only Tomase defender.

 

[Deus Irae]

patsox23, I am just curious about something and no offense is intended by this: are you in the media? You've defended Tomase and now Curran more so than anyone. Actually, I think you were the only Tomase defender.

Well, probably Tomase's mom....

 

[Patjew]

Well, probably Tomase's mom....

LOL, right. I guess I should have said the only Tomase defender on patsfans.com

Anyhoo, I'm just wondering. Not saying it's good or bad.

 

[DGameguy]

This isn't really a sudden change in what Curran has been saying. If you go here: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/214567-did-curran-just-back-away-his-brady-story.html I started a thread about this a couple of weeks ago.

I like Curran as a reporter. His columns are informative and entertaining, and even make me laugh every once and a while. That's all you can hope for from a sports column nowadays. I do, however, find this sort of backing away from an earlier story a little disingenuous. The 12/28 stories were genuinely alarming. I don't think the "panic" was exclusively reader-driven. The caveat that even if Brady did not have a second surgery, (a procedure which Curran's sources indicated was a strong possibility) he would still be limited in play because of a lack of full mobility in the knee and/or loose ligaments. He has made no mention of this in his more recent appraisals of Brady's status, and his ignoring of that is a problem.

On a side note, I have to say that reports of athletes' medical issues is always troublesome. I understand Curran cited the source as a "league" source, but, as someone with experience in the medical field, the details the source was able to convey make me think that he had some type of medical background and supposed knowledge of Brady's medical condition. We're all entitled to privacy on matters of health, and that could have been a major violation of HIPAA. No matter how much the public roots or cares or hates for an athlete, they don't need to know the details of their medical records. I had a problem when Steve Burton pulled this crap with Phil Kessel, I have a problem with the way the media handled the Brady situation, and I'll continue to have a problem with it. I guess that's not really a rant against Curran, so much as sports journalism in general.

 

[patsox23]

patsox23, I am just curious about something and no offense is intended by this: are you in the media? You've defended Tomase and now Curran more so than anyone. Actually, I think you were the only Tomase defender.

Nope, I'm not. I just think a lot of people here get their haunches up and misread, and then mischaracterize, what was ACTUALLY reported.

 

[Rob0729]

To defend Curran a bit. He has never changed his story. Curran did say he HE BELIEVED Brady wouldn't be ready for the start of the season, but it was his opinion based on the information he had. It wasn't that his source told him Brady wouldn't be ready.

 

[patsox23]

To defend Curran a bit. He has never changed his story. Curran did say he HE BELIEVED Brady wouldn't be ready for the start of the season, but it was his opinion based on the information he had. It wasn't that his source told him Brady wouldn't be ready.

I agree, and this is part of a larger point. I think sometimes we, as fans, panic and read into reports information that isn't explicitly there - and I say this while genuinely including myself in this group of periodic hyperventilaters.

My understanding of Curran's reporting is that there was/is "laxity" in Brady's injured knee. THERE IS. This is not in dispute. Further, the point I got from his stories was/IS that, if the laxity forces the issue of further treatment, said further treatment would jeopardize Brady's 2009 season. It was never said it WOULD, just that, if treatment was deemed necessary, the procedures would risk a longer and fuller delay.

The fact that Brady and the team and the medical staff have clearly decided that the laxity is NOT something that merits Tom undergoing more procedures - that he can play with that looseness - is beside the actual point of the article. This is not really that subtle a point, but I think any ambiguity is compounded by panic-driven messenger-shooting.

I'm not saying that guys like Curran or Tomase or anyone else are perfect, infallible, and that they don't deserve to be called on the carpet for sloppy reporting or for not sourcing stories with sufficient vigor. What I AM saying is that sometimes it gets pretty ironic when fans, again including myself, go off the deep end due to their own insufficient "work" in reading and interpreting the reporting they're complaining about.