JoeSixPat said:
Most people consider the Globe and Herald to be credible publications - not just internet chat rooms rumormills.
But if everyone feels that any time a Boston Globe or Herald article is listed there should be an asterix that it is not a credible publication I'll go along with that.
I consider any paper or TV show credible when they credit thier source.
If they say a source from within the Pats organization, or an NFL soukrce says this, or where-ever, fine.
But when they just throw out information, and we hav eno idea where it comes from, well, it is just like at that patsfans place. Post that something happened, and if you do not give your source, six guys will rightly ask for a link.
My favorite was the report (think it was the herald, but could have been the Globe) that Ty Law left a charity event to close out a deal and that it was between Arizona and New England. The paper said, that the Beaver County News (or whatever) said that Ty Law left a charity event to close out a deal and that it was between Arizona and New England.
No, if you went to the paper, it said, Ty law's cousin told the paper that Ty Law told him he left because yadda yadda.
So the source of this news is .... Ty Law.
Those reports are what I don't like, because after the Herald reported it, ESPN, SI etc all pick it up and reprot it as fact. It never gets out that the originator of the news is Ty Law himself.
I don't think we need to consider the Globe and Herald as not credible. What I said was that just because there are a lot of reports, it doesn't make it true, that when newspapers and TV start quoting each other you have to find the original source. The trouble (IMO) is that when someone does find the original source, everyone says things like, "It is being widely reported so it must be true" and "Where there's smoke, there's fire."