Michael Silver is at it again

[Rob0729]

You've taken that situation and blown it far out of proportion, and Kraft's comment did note a "need" (I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but it was about compromise or understanding or something. I'm sure you can remember the general idea of what I'm referring to) for the deal to be made. I understand your position on using the quotes, but you're arguing against the entire history of journalism, including the so-called 'best'. They've all done it.




You're here making claims about motive, when you've got no evidence. Again, Silver claims a source. Also, again, not naming sources is an accepted journalism tactic.



They are also examples of a person doing his job in a thorough and acceptable manner, but you keep ignoring that, because you're making an assumption that the story is incorrect.

I'm tired of playing these games. You can have the last word.

 

[efin98]

My biggest problems with Silver recently have been:

1.) Editing Kraft's quote of both sides wanting to get a deal done into something that Kraft doubts that a deal would get done which is not something Kraft had said.
2.) Using an unnamed "friend" to say inflamatory things about the Pats and Welker in a puff piece about Welker's return. I have never seen anyone ever try to twist a story like this to make people look bad. For any story, you can find someone who will say something inflamatory like that, but that quote served no purpose other than to cast a shadow on Welker's reason for returning so quickly just to get a new deal and the Pats motives to replace Welker where there is no evidence of either.

Both these are examples of a person with an agenda who wants to make headlines for himself. Both are examples of some of the lowest versions of journalism that at one time used to be only used by the gossip rags. Unfortunately, "legitimate" journalists now use it more regularly.

He either refuses to or simply can't seperate facts from opinions...he is at the point that he is seeking out anything that will support his opinion no matter how asinine they are(unnamed friend source?!?!) to force his opinion on the topic.

To call him a journalist is an insult to real journalism. To call him a reporter is a slap in the face of actual reporters. He is a cheap excuse for an opinion writer who isn't good enough for the editorial page but is OK enough and anger inducing enough to get his own column online.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Given that "hearsay" (so long as it falls under the correct category) can be used to send a person to his/her death, I'd say it qualifies as evidence, and so would dictionaries and law dictionaries.

Again, and obviously, I have no problem with eviscerating people over incorrect facts.

If only certain forms of hearsay constitute admissible evidence. . . .

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I agree. Unnamed sources prefer to be unnamed for a reason. Many have an agenda that advances their own interests. Whether it's "evidence" or not, I would regard it as unreliable.

There's a difference between killing the messenger and disregarding rumor mongering and sensationalism.

Well said. Now I see why you're the king of the gods, Zeus.

 

[Rob0729]

Well said. Now I see why you're the king of the gods, Zeus.

Actually, I kinda disagree with Zues. Deep Throat was an unnamed source and he confirmed one of the biggest political scandals of all time. So at times an unname source can be invaluable. But usually when the unnamed source is not coming forward for reasons of personal safety or risk of harm to themselves (like a whistleblower who could lose their job).

I think in cases like this though, it is usually someone with their own agenda. Why would the friend of Welker keep his name out of the paper? Well, if this friend was Adalius Thomas or Joey Galloway or Shawn Springs, we would know why they would not want their name attached to the quote because they wear their agenda on their sleeve.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Actually, I kinda disagree with Zues. Deep Throat was an unnamed source and he confirmed one of the biggest political scandals of all time. So at times an unname source can be invaluable. But usually when the unnamed source is not coming forward for reasons of personal safety or risk of harm to themselves (like a whistleblower who could lose their job).

I think in cases like this though, it is usually someone with their own agenda. Why would the friend of Welker keep his name out of the paper? Well, if this friend was Adalius Thomas or Joey Galloway or Shawn Springs, we would know why they would not want their name attached to the quote because they wear their agenda on their sleeve.

We agree on Deep Throat but not Zeus' context because of agenda issues and disagree on Breitbart

 

[Fixit]

I'm just here to finally enjoy a thread where Deus isn't being a contrari---

F#$*

Never mind.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Tomasse had a source he trusted implicitly on the walk through taping story. When it was debunked he declined to name that source. He was football beat reporter who wanted to be a baseball beat reporter. He got his wish. So much for consequences.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Actually, I kinda disagree with Zues. Deep Throat was an unnamed source and he confirmed one of the biggest political scandals of all time. So at times an unname source can be invaluable. But usually when the unnamed source is not coming forward for reasons of personal safety or risk of harm to themselves (like a whistleblower who could lose their job).

I think in cases like this though, it is usually someone with their own agenda. Why would the friend of Welker keep his name out of the paper? Well, if this friend was Adalius Thomas or Joey Galloway or Shawn Springs, we would know why they would not want their name attached to the quote because they wear their agenda on their sleeve.

If we can believe Mr. Silver, it can't be Afailius or Springs; he said it was a friend "on another team."

 

[jmt57]

Michael Hurley of NESN lets us know his opinion on the matter:

Tom Brady Contract Speculation No Longer Worth Anyone's Time - New England Patriots - NESN.com

Enough, enough, enough.

The most frustrating part is that there's no real doubt that Brady will sign an extension with the Patriots. There never really was. And now that camp has been going strong for weeks, there's plenty to talk about. There's a dearth of outside linebackers, there's the miraculous comeback of Wes Welker, the potential roster battle in the offensive backfield, the shape of the AFC East that is hanging in the balance with Darrelle Revis' holdout, among other topics. Sure, they're getting some attention in New England, but not nearly as much as the non-news that is Brady's contract negotiations.

Disagree? Read the following passage from the earth-shattering Yahoo report from Wednesday:

"A source close to the [Brady contract] negotiations says, 'It could come together really soon. Or it might not happen at all [before the season]. It's really tough to know.'"

In summary, an unnamed source said that a contract might get done soon, or it might not.

I'll give you a moment to catch your breath.

The story takes it a step too far, saying "Brady, after taking a below-market deal in 2005, wants to be compensated at a level befitting his status as one of the NFL's two best players (along with the Colts' Peyton Manning, whose deal also expires after this season.)"

Because Silver was the writer who secured the one-on-one interview with Brady, such a statement appears to be a summary of their conversation. However, Silver later writes that "Brady declined to discuss his contract status Tuesday night."

So, in the end, the only story on Tuesday was that there was no story at all.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Where's the evidence that Silver's columns have consistently been made up with false sources?

It's possible that he has sources, but they simply suck. The fact that he keeps throwing egregiously wrong stuff out there, which is contradicted by more credible reporters, more or less speaks for itself.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Felger is right on this one with what he said on Sports Tonight

 

[PatsFan24]

Who is this person? I only know about him from the posts on the site. Is he a sportscaster who always has to hate on the Patriots?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

The content of the interview really doesn't matter to me. The fact that Silver got the one-on-one interview after the "disconnect" article is far more interesting, in light of there having been so many people bashing Silver for that. If Silver had been just making that story up, why is Brady giving him this interview?

Tom Brady does not do his bidding through the media. Never has and never will. Anything the mediots TRY to gin up (for their own self promotion) must be taken with a mega grain of salt. Why aren't we hearing "disconnect" stories out of Indy with the Manning contract situation?? Or out of New Orleans with Drew Brees?? Why only here?? Is it Brady or is it the Boston mediot crowd?? Anyone with half a brain who observes the local "mediot schtick" (Silver is a member) on a regular basis knows we simply can't trust much of what gets reported/opined.
Deus you're sounding like the Queen of the Mediots, Michele Felger.

 

[jmt57]

While Michael Hurley of NESN thinks things were clearly not as bad as they were made out to be, not surprisingly Michael Felger believes the Brady 'exclusive' with michael Silver confirms the "disconnect" report. In the piece for NECN, Felger says the following:

"Even the worst footy-pajama Patriot fan has to agree now there was a problem, and I'll tell you why," said Felger. "Tom Brady, in terms of doing media the entire year, has done basically nothing. He's only given one exclusive interview that I can tell since the end of last season, and that was today. To who? Mike Silver of yahoosports.com . .

 

[PatsFan24]

I tried to read part of his article on yahoo from yesterday, and it was awful. He clearly was looking to take shots at the Patriots, but even more so I hate his style of writing. I did not even get half way done with the article before I had to quit reading it. It was awful. I am never going to read anything by him ever again.

 

[ausbacker]

Hai guyz... E L E OK. E L E.