If you review Bostonsportsmedia.com about that article, you will find that it was factually incorrect on several important details. Furthermore, the slant of the article accepted without criticism Ted Johnson's absurd timeline, where he claimed never to have had a professional concussion prior to the 2002 incident with BB, and then to have had THIRTY afterwards (an obvious lie so as to blame all his supposed "concussion" issues on BB). MacMullen brushed aside the possibility that this confused, addicted individual, recently run afoul of the law, and in the midst of costly divorce proceedings, was lacking in credibility and had reason to pass the blame for his actions; ignored the possibility of steroid abuse to go along with admitted drug addictions, withdrawal from which would have accounted for many of his symptoms; failed to offer an objective view of the "concussion syndrome" claim itself, which is very controversial in medical circles; on and on. MacMullen went for the easy hatchet job against BB instead of aiming for the truth, and slanted the information to the public to fit her "story".
As for the idea that she is a "columnist" and therefore should be granted latitude... That latitude is freely granted by her editors, but must be earned from readers through trust. That trust was broken when she wrote this one-sided garbage.
As for the Globe in general, maybe we should absolve their columnists for producing disingenuous pablum. They have been nurtured in an environment in which a "columnist" is expected to side with the anti-hero, undermine institutions, mock any display of traditional virtue, and despise the public for which they write. This view of the world fits nicely with the "beleaguered" TJ whose on-field toughness "betrayed him" until he was "done wrong" by the "evil" Machiavellian figure BB (who has a mob of ignorant, selfish consumers on his side) and now suffers from a dastardly new "syndrome" from which there is no escape. You could pretty much fill in the blanks for any Globe feature in any section. It's Globe journalism formula 101. There are some who will take solace in the knowledge that like so many of the institutions which they have eagerly undermined, the Globe itself is now crumbling, reaping what it has sewn: the whirlwind.
It's actually kind of funny... there are easily as manny factually incorrect assertions in your post than there were in MacMullen's whole article.
First, nowhere in MacMullen's article does Ted Johnson claim to have never suffered a concussion before 2002. If you think it says that, you've misread it.
2nd, your very assertion that BSMW proved it to be "factually incorrect on several important details" is itself factually incorrect. The article raises three questions. First is the seeming inconsistency in Ted Johnson being angry at being forced to practice in August and then upset at being held out of the starting lineup for the first game of the season. This isn't a question of any factual assertion on either Johnson's or MacMullen's part, it's taking issue with Johnson's apparent ambivalence at the time. 2nd of all, BSMW itself makes a factual assertion when it cites a Borges article to support the idea that Ted Johnson shouldn't have expected to start anyway, because he hadn't been practicing. Turns out it was just Borges being Borges -- a simple perusal of the Globe from August 2002 shows that though Johnson's attendance was sporadic due to his concussion, he was there. The 2nd issue BSMW had with MacMullen's article is that she describes Johnson's 2nd concussion occuring after "mild contact" and Cafardo saying that Johnson gave Redmond "quite a hit." One of them, possibly both, were exaggerating -- neither of them were factually incorrect. The third issue BSMW has is about whether it was necessary for MacMullen to have gone out of her way to point out that Johnson had worn a no-contact jersey at his first practice after the concussion, or whether it was sufficient for her to simply correctly give the number of days between the injury and the day he claims to have been told to wear a blue jersey. I think it's a bit of a fine point for BSMW to be drawing in the first place, and, more importantly -- IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF MACMULLEN BEING FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
So it turns out that all three of BSMW's issues with MacMullen's article were questions about full disclosure, and none of them showed MacMullen to be factually incorrect. So that's now two places where you've been shown to be factually incorrect to her zero.
You next accuse her of being "slanted" in her reporting, of brushing aside details and making faulty leaps for the purpose of performing a hatchet job on BB. This is funny, because you do far worse in your attempt to smear MacMullen + Johnson. First of all, by bringing up Johnson's divorce and prior run-ins with the law, you're acting like a prototypical defense attorney trying to discredit a witness. You accuse MacMullen of brushing these details aside when all the information you give was portrayed much more graphically in MacMullen's article -- she presented the reader with the facts necessary to come to your conclusion, she just didn't happen to be as eager to discredit Johnson as you are.
Next is where you really get rich -- by faulting MacMullen for failing to accuse a man of taking steroids who'd never tested positive for, or been in any way connected to, them during his entire NFL career. I'm sorry MacMullen didn't feel the need to broach potentially libelous territory in order to be more "fair" by accusing a former player of taking steroids out of the blue. Then you suggest that Johnson might be more prone to taking steroids because he developed an addiction to the psychiatric drugs he had been prescribed as part of treatment for his depression. That type of baseless slur on your part is far worse than anything MacMullen did in her article. (I won't even waste too much time with your dismissal of post-concussion syndrome as "controversial," considering that even the NFL is starting to concede the issue, in the face of growing medical consensus.)
Look, man -- I'm sorry if hearing Ted Johnson's take on the issue upsets you. I sympathise -- it's upsetting... but slavishly denying everything and casting aspersion on those who would raise the issue isn't the answer. You have to take a second to realize that Johnson and MacMullen weren't accusing Belichick of doing anything other than partaking in the flaws inherent in the culture of his occupation at his time. The fact is that at that point, nobody took concussions as seriously as we're starting to realize they are, and a number of former players are suffering the consequences. I, too, was angered by the national media's spinning of this article into specifically an attempt to single out BB as culpable, when it's purpose was obviously the exact opposite -- to raise awareness of something that was going on all over the NFL.
