- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
So that means you feel the same about Tedy Bruschi?
Why wouldn't I?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.So that means you feel the same about Tedy Bruschi?
I met Reiss' brother thru a mutual friend a few years ago. Also a good dude.Agreed. If he left ESPN he would instantly regain all credibility. But if I can't be sure even wrote it even if his name is in the byline than I am lost. It's a shame too as I've met him a few times and he couldn't be a nicer guy.
At least you're being consistent. I just strongly disagree with you and the OP. Reiss and Curran are still the 2 best covering the Pats IMO, despite some of the lost editorial control at ESPN. But if you're being consistent you should also never read or listen to weei, the globe, the herald or cssne. All if them have had as much, if not more, negativity aired about the Pats.Why wouldn't I?
At least you're being consistent. I just strongly disagree with you and the OP.
Reiss and Curran are still the 2 best covering the Pats IMO, despite some of the lost editorial control at ESPN. But if you're being consistent you should also never read or listen to weei, the globe, the herald or cssne. All if them have had as much, if not more, negativity aired about the Pats.
Bru at ESPN is not something that thrills me but when Reiss has 3 SB rings and there is evidence of ESPN writing something with Bru's byline he didn't write then come back and ask this question.So that means you feel the same about Tedy Bruschi?
Rory is this you?wow, you guys could not be more wrong.
Reiss is like Landa from Inglorious Basterds. Professional, Intelligent, really good at his job and looks like a guy you would like to have a beer with.
It's a shame he works for the bad guys.
What the hell could you possibly be in disagreement about?
What the hell could you possibly be in disagreement about?
You're making no sense, at all. Where, in this thread, did I say anything about not reading Reiss, or anyone else, and where did I say anything about not reading ESPN or any other media outlet?
Reiss knew what ESPN was. He chose money over principles and honor. Can we all stop weeping for him?
Eh ... You seem to be saying Reiss sold his soul for money and it's OK because that's just the way things roll.Reiss has zero editorial control over his columns. You know this already....
He made the decision to take a visible, high paying job with a major corporation and has relinquished control over his own voice. People need to do that sometimes to make a living, advance their career and provide a nice lifestyle for their family.
Eh ... You seem to be saying Reiss sold his soul for money and it's OK because that's just the way things roll.
I wasn't speaking against him at all, but you and others here are presuming things about his work for ESPN that might not be true. I'll tell you a little something here: I am a journalist and I worked with Mike briefly during his time at Patriots Football Weekly. That was quite a few years ago, but I knew him as very principled, as all good journalists are. I haven't followed his ESPN stuff very closely so I don't know specifically what discrepancies others are sensing, or if their assessments might be clouded by anti-ESPN bias. But I WILL state that journalists who take their craft seriously tend to be steadfast idealists who do not compromise themselves for money or advancement. Our "voice" is all we really have that means something at the end of the day.If selling your soul means doing a job you love and providing for your family so they have a comfortable lifestyle and your tradeoff is you can't be 100% yourself is what millions of Americans do every day.
People need to go easy on Reiss for crissakes. He writes about a sports team. Hes not in the Mafia.
I wasn't speaking against him at all, but you and others here are presuming things about his work for ESPN that might not be true. I'll tell you a little something here: I am a journalist and I worked with Mike briefly during his time at Patriots Football Weekly. That was quite a few years ago, but I knew him as very principled, as all good journalists are. I haven't followed his ESPN stuff very closely so I don't know specifically what discrepancies others are sensing, or if their assessments might be clouded by anti-ESPN bias. But I WILL state that journalists who take their craft seriously tend to be steadfast idealists who do not compromise themselves for money or advancement. Our "voice" is all we really have that means something at the end of the day.
If true that is very sad and disappointing. Just curious: did you see his column before and after the changes, and did Mike somehow confirm the changes weren't his doing?I'm going off of a couple of Mike's columns that were posted on the site and manipulated after the fact by Goebbels's henchmen.
If he was a hardcore idealist he would have quit right then and there but he took the time to rationalize the situation and decided the pros outweigh the cons and that is fine.
Reiss confirmed it himself.If true that is very sad and disappointing. Just curious: did you see his column before and after the changes, and did Mike somehow confirm the changes weren't his doing?
If true that is very sad and disappointing. Just curious: did you see his column before and after the changes, and did Mike somehow confirm the changes weren't his doing?
People need to go easy on Reiss for crissakes. He writes about a sports team. Hes not in the Mafia.
This is the exact sentiment that has led to crappy sports journalism. There are no checks and balances because hey it's just sports. These guys flat out make stuff up, quote each other as sources of things that aren't true, and just don't properly vet a story.
It was a long time ago but I over heard a conversation between Shalise and Price about a story someone else wrote. They were laughing because Shalise felt she was the unnamed source in the story because the guy who wrote it could clearly hear her the day before talking about problem was she said it just a hypothetical taken out of context.