Heard back from Jackie MacMullan re., "Tattoogate"

[shmessy]

Can't argue with you there, Sebman, I've certainly lowered my expectations.

Already was addressed:
__________
Rude is calling people names like "Man Hands".

Jackie MacMullan happens to be a fine writer who has done wrong in this matter. No reason to disrespect her unfairly with that kind of nomenclature.
That has nothing to do with the point.

My post merely pointed out that you either weren't paying attention to important facts that were already made clear, or you chose to ignore them.

Writing "wake up" or "do you need any more detail" is relevant to your post and doesn't unfairly bring up "man hands" as your posts have.
___________

I am a poster here also. Ian assured me that being a Mod would not limit me anymore than anyone else in my freedom to post.

If you believe writing "wake up" or "do you need anymore detail" is too rude and personal, then I can't help you. Both were written completely focused on the issue being discussed.

I DO know, however, that a sure sign of someone who feels they don't have a legitimate argument but wants to throw an irrelevant-to-the-argument cheapshot will usually fall back on playing the "you're a Mod" card. Ironically, your "good friend" Keegs is the master of that.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Yes, he had an agenda. He did NOT have a tattoo that said "Get Paid." Two different things. Believing he had such a crass message engraved on his arm that supposedly reflected his primary motivation in life made me think differently of him.

Well said. Quite agree.

Glad that you took so many efforts. Hopefully this leads to at least the local journalists double-check their report and realize that their message - whether written clearly or implied - does influence the fans of how they view the team/players.

 

[Pats726]

Well said. Quite agree.

Glad that you took so many efforts. Hopefully this leads to at least the local journalists double-check their report and realize that their message - whether written clearly or implied - does influence the fans of how they view the team/players.

It is amazing that this has NOT gotten more publicity..it's really sad...how these things happen. And I am not at all happy with the Globe and how it was timed as it was....how about the Ted Johnson story? Was that not her again..with a timed story about Ted's concussions?? Look at the agenda of the Globe....as well as the shoddy journalism...after this do you not think MANY stories by her need to be looked at?? I had a lot of respect for her for a long time..but in the past years, it's been more on the road to a female Borges....this piece of trash she wrote is just a LARGE example.. I think a BIG aplogy is needed...

 

[JJDChE]

I don't see a tattoo on his tricep...

 

[Tunescribe]

Well said. Quite agree.

Glad that you took so many efforts. Hopefully this leads to at least the local journalists double-check their report and realize that their message - whether written clearly or implied - does influence the fans of how they view the team/players.

We can make a difference, look at what happened with Borges. Like I said, many of the established "celebrity" Globe writers have an arrogant, ivory tower mentality that makes them feel they're above it all to the point where fairness and facts become secondary to good writing and spinning a good yarn. Barnicle, Borges, and that female news columnist from a few years ago who was fired are three of the more blatant examples.

 

[Ring 6]

You right, she made it all up, reputation be damned. Probably alot short sleeves being worn in January,too...and probably alot of female reporters asking players to remove articles of clothing. Come on.

What is your point?
It sounds like you are saying Asante sat across from her (One of the articles pasted here says there were sitdowns..plural, more than one) and said "I have a tatoo on my arm that says GET PAID".
Then she either didn't care to ask to see it (very curious if she now says she knows he had an agenda) or he refused to show it so she said OK, I'll take you word that what you say is tatooed on your arm is there and wont be at all suspicious that you wont let me see it.

If she didn't ask to see it, REPORTER should never be placed in the same sentence with her name.
If she did ask to see it, and he refuse, someone must be helping her with the big words, because she is a moron.

Samuel was very clear in the interview about his feelings and opinions. There was no hidden message to be sent. He basically said pay me, lying that his tatoo said it to serves no purpose.

Why don't we accept reality here.
McMullen heard a rumor about the tatoo. Someone who knew of it, could have gotten the words wrong. Why McMullen is soooo wrong here, is the tatoo was used SOLELY FOR SENSATIONALISM. It began the article, and was never brought up. If she interviewed him for an article that she intended to start with a comment about the tattoo, then goes on to include MANY QUOTES, she is obligated to either see the tattoo to know its correct, or why not just ask him to explian the tattoo?
She did not do that because she only needed the tattoo for sensationalism.
I came away from that article in January with the impression is was a NEW TATTOO. If she asked him about it and he told her what is was, she couldnt have created that.

 

[Pats726]

We can make a difference, look at what happened with Borges. Like I said, many of the established "celebrity" Globe writers have an arrogant, ivory tower mentality that makes them feel they're above it all to the point where fairness and facts become secondary to good writing and spinning a good yarn. Barnicle, Borges, and that female news columnist from a few years ago who was fired are three of the more blatant examples.

I agree...and I really feel that she owes the fans an apology..clear simple..a MUST!! As far as I am concerned, I will look at her stories with skeptical eyes..THAT IS IF I read them..for trash like that in many cases should be avoided.
They can be an arrogant bunch!! I know many people do not like Ryan...amd I think his writing is not as great now, but he may be the best out of that group...I have bumped into him on a few times..and found him to be civil and funny.
Great job in writing to her...yes an apology IS needed BY HER!! and I think the fans should demand it!! I wonder how many of us used those words about Asante in posts??? A dime for every one of them..would be a million plus. AND it was all based upon a reporter's untruth in a story?? Sorry..she's nothing to me now...NO credibility at all!!!

 

[sebman2112]

Rude is calling people names like "Man Hands".

Jackie MacMullan happens to be a fine writer who has done wrong in this matter. No reason to disrespect her unfairly with that kind of nomenclature.
That has nothing to do with the point.

My post merely pointed out that you either weren't paying attention to important facts that were already made clear, or you chose to ignore them.

Writing "wake up" or "do you need any more detail" is relevant to your post and doesn't unfairly bring up "man hands" as your posts have.

My comments concerning Jackie "Man Hands" MacMullan aren't direct rudeness or insults leveled toward board members during conversations. Incidently Jackie is known as "man hands" by a great number of posters on these boards and it's actually a quite common nickname for her (as if you didn't already know). It's like the many threads created on this very board calling Ron Borges "Wrong Borges". Question, considering you characterized my response an example of someone without arguement taking the easy way out, why did you fail to realize what your own response was an example of?

My direct response to you just above the post you considered worthy of response actually had points/arguements and the fallowing post was an add-on.

Seems maybe your characterization was a more fitting description of your own post.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

We can make a difference, look at what happened with Borges. Like I said, many of the established "celebrity" Globe writers have an arrogant, ivory tower mentality that makes them feel they're above it all to the point where fairness and facts become secondary to good writing and spinning a good yarn. Barnicle, Borges, and that female news columnist from a few years ago who was fired are three of the more blatant examples.

Can we do something about the 'cheating' scandal and provide a clear picture that will hopefully clarify the many misunderstandings of the general public?

I am not a fan of just 'moving on' when our long term reputation is smeared and watching helplessly as everyone wanting to take a potshot at us happily fire away labeling us 'cheaters'. Hate to see BB and TB going into the HOF with *s against their achivements...

 

[Tunescribe]

Can we do something about the 'cheating' scandal and provide a clear picture that will hopefully clarify the many misunderstandings of the general public?

The thing is, a lot of people want to remain ignorant of the facts because they are envious of the Patriots. I think we can continue to point out to detractors that:

* BB was not penalized by the league for "cheating" but for breaking a procedural league rule governing use of video cameras on the sideline.

* Commissioner Goodell CLEARED the Patriots of gaining any unfair competitive advantage in the game against the Jets during which the videotape was confiscated.

* BB told the league that tape shot from the sideline in previous games was NEVER used for the game that day, but for advance scouting.

* All teams attempt to decipher competitors' defensive signals, some by taping and some by other means.

* It's practically impossible to break down film of opposing teams' signals for use in the game it's shot. The allegation of "cheating" as applied to this entire episode is flimsy, at best, when you consider why the taping occurred and how it ultimately was used by BB.

I'm sure there's a lot more, but this is a start. The bottom line is you can't force people to see the logic of the FACT that the Patriots were not penalized for "cheating" but simply for BREAKING A PROCEDURAL RULE. And, it's a rule that was open to interpretation, according to BB.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

The thing is, a lot of people want to remain ignorant of the facts because they are envious of the Patriots. I think we can continue to point out to detractors that:

* BB was not penalized by the league for "cheating" but for breaking a procedural league rule governing use of video cameras on the sideline.

* Commissioner Goodell CLEARED the Patriots of gaining any unfair competitive advantage in the game against the Jets during which the videotape was confiscated.

* BB told the league that tape shot from the sideline in previous games was NEVER used for the game that day, but for advance scouting.

* All teams attempt to decipher competitors' defensive signals, some by taping and some by other means.

* It's practically impossible to break down film of opposing teams' signals for use in the game it's shot. The allegation of "cheating" as applied to this entire episode is flimsy, at best, when you consider why the taping occurred and how it ultimately was used by BB.

I'm sure there's a lot more, but this is a start. The bottom line is you can't force people to see the logic of the FACT that the Patriots were not penalized for "cheating" but simply for BREAKING A PROCEDURAL RULE. And, it's a rule that was open to interpretation, according to BB.

Like it! Thanks for taking a stab. And agree with you that we cannot force people to see logic.

But it is when these columnists/analysts/ex-players chime in giving their slanted opinion that my BP rises. Hence the query if we, as fans, can try to set the record straight (as a website or a thread in this forum maybe) so that we can always refer to it when the same thing is spinned in many ways.

Wish we could persuade someone reputed like Reiss or Young or someone impartial in ESPN/SI to write a specific column addressing this.

Let me be the devil's advocate (maybe we should write a Q&A on this): If it is merely a procedural rule break, does it warrant such a big penalty? Doesn't taking away the 1st round pick - instead of say a latter pick - signal (pun intended) that there is something more?

 

[Tunescribe]

Like it! Thanks for taking a stab. And agree with you that we cannot force people to see logic.

But it is when these columnists/analysts/ex-players chime in giving their slanted opinion that my BP rises. Hence the query if we, as fans, can try to set the record straight (as a website or a thread in this forum maybe) so that we can always refer to it when the same thing is spinned in many ways.

Wish we could persuade someone reputed like Reiss or Young or someone impartial in ESPN/SI to write a specific column addressing this.

Let me be the devil's advocate (maybe we should write a Q&A on this): If it is merely a procedural rule break, does it warrant such a big penalty? Doesn't taking away the 1st round pick - instead of say a latter pick - signal (pun intended) that there is something more?

A Q & A sticky about this in this forum would be a good idea. It should include (1). the league rule/bylaw verbatim, highlighting the passage open to interpretation, (2). the commissioner's ruling verbatim, (3). BB's response verbatim, (4). the logical perspectives offered by people such as Sean Salisbury, Jimmy Johnson, etc., and (5). the fact that the Patriots complied with everything the league asked for when the ruling came down. A timeline would help too, including when the rule was established. I may be mistaken, but I believe the rule was instituted after the Patriots had already been taping as a matter of routine, and BB (perhaps intentionally choosing to) misinterpreted its application.

I don't have time to dig into all this right now because of a work deadline, but the information is out there if you or someone else wants to bring it together. I'd be happy to offer input in how it's organized.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

A Q & A sticky about this in this forum would be a good idea. It should include (1). the league rule/bylaw verbatim, highlighting the passage open to interpretation, (2). the commissioner's ruling verbatim, (3). BB's response verbatim, (4). the logical perspectives offered by people such as Sean Salisbury, Jimmy Johnson, etc., and (5). the fact that the Patriots complied with everything the league asked for when the ruling came down. A timeline would help too, including when the rule was established. I may be mistaken, but I believe the rule was instituted after the Patriots had already been taping as a matter of routine, and BB (perhaps intentionally choosing to) misinterpreted its application.

I don't have time to dig into all this right now because of a work deadline, but the information is out there if you or someone else wants to bring it together. I'd be happy to offer input in how it's organized.

I will take a shot at it later today or next week. Thanks for your help, appreciate it. Maybe once we have a draft ready, we could request the Ian/Mods to put it up as a sticky.

Edit: Anyone else care to join?

 

[Tunescribe]

I will take a shot at it later today or next week. Thanks for your help, appreciate it. Maybe once we have a draft ready, we could request the Ian/Mods to put it up as a sticky.

Sounds like a plan. Feel free to PM me with what you come up with along the way.

 

[Hoodie]

This is the big mystery. It just doesn't make sense to me that she would lead her column with reference to the tattoo unless (A). she actually saw it or, (B). Samuel really told her he has a tattoo on his arm that says, "Get Paid," which is a lot different from "Get Rich To This." Another possibility is that a colleague told her Samuel has a tattoo on his arm and paraphrased what they thought it referred to. I simply have a hard time believing that Samuel intentionally misled her and she just ran with it. I'd want verification before putting that in print, it's just a tad preposterous considering Samuel's contract impasse with management.

Is it possible that Asante told Jackie exactly what it said and Jackie, not knowing the song, misinterpreted what he had told her? Clearly both the Jackie and Asante had agendas here.

Tune -- thanks for not letting her get away shoddy journalism. Jackie used to be a great writer. Someone who could really bring humanity to sports and I greatly admired her for that but in the past few years she seems to have joined Ryan and Shaughnessy in the tradition of the late Will McDonough, in taking the easy way out, interpreting things in ways that just aren't true. Perhaps Globe sports jounalists are doing too many outside gigs and so don't have the time to actually do the research for the articles they write. It's so sad becase I used to think that the Globe Sports pages were the best in the country.

 

[Tunescribe]

] Perhaps Globe sports jounalists are doing too many outside gigs and so don't have the time to actually do the research for the articles they write.

I think that's definitely part of the problem. Once they become media celebrities on television and radio they get full of themselves and start believing that their talent trumps the nuts-and-bolts hard work which got them there to begin with.

 

[shmessy]

I think that's definitely part of the problem. Once they become media celebrities on television and radio they get full of themselves and start believing that their talent trumps the nuts-and-bolts hard work which got them there to begin with.

Sadly, I think you hit the nail on the head.

When Jackie MacMullen joined Around the Horn I hoped that she would influence Woody Paige, Jay Marriotti, etc.

Unfortunately, it appears, the influence went the other direction.