Quick hit thoughts from Mike Reiss

[1960Pats]

If football deflation by humans had actually happened and if Belichick had been significantly involved I think that's exactly what would have happened.

(I will also go to my grave thinking that the presence of Dom Capers in 2008 was (a) due to Kraft, and (b) to have someone in place to be an interim coach if BB was suspended or worse because of the Walsh investigation.)

Instead, the only ball tinkering that went on was the NYFL employee who was stealing balls meant for charity. That was a much bigger story and it disappeared. I don't even know if we could find out the guy's name.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Don't know where to find a link but I remember he wrote a piece wishing he hadn't jumped the gun early on based on accusations.

Can we just stop and admire your post for a second? This is amazing. You are criticizing Reiss for making false accusations. Meanwhile, your criticisms have no evidence, no link, there's no quote, no context, just something you remember reading a while ago.

You're like Walt Anderson trying to recall which gauge he used. Except Walt wasn't openly blaming others for their ****ty memory at the same time.

I am just...so amazed and impressed by my fellow human beings every day.

Anyways, Reiss did say that the Patriots, if guilty, should be penalized. And for those who love watching the hot takes from the talking heads, it's pretty easy to just read half of that and think he's being harsh. It ignores the rest of what he wrote.

As others have pointed out here (with actual links to real stories, not just old memories) that throughout the weeks, months, and years, especially early on, Reiss was not a sensationalist. I'm not saying he was perfect, but when I read through the archives, I see him questioning both sides and asking lots of questions, but never making any misleading or unfair statements. He didn't believe the Patriots 100% at first, nor should he. Any real journalist should not believe anything 100%.

And if he does have a regret, I think it's exactly that, that he didn't question the original report enough and just accepted it at face value.

Anyways, I don't think Reiss was perfect. But I don't think he was intentionally misleading or trying to pump up the story. And instead of calling people out for supposedly not having all the facts, maybe you could lead by example and provide something more substantial than your own thoughts, you hypocrite.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Mort stated that his source was a person who was directly involved in the investigation. That means it was an NFL source.

No, that means Mort stated it was someone involved in the investigation.

-The source could have been lying (or exaggerating) about who they were

-The source could have lied about their involvement

- Mort could have lied about who they were

-Mort could have lied about their involvement

-The source could be legitimate but gave unintentionally incorrect information

-The source could have been legitimate and gave intentional false information.

- additionally all leaks that can't be confirmed run a possibility of the leak getting made to either get the truth out, or get a lie out. Both remain possible by reasonable standards.

Given the absurdity of the charge, the questionable mid-game investigation, the fact that it came from a rival, the fact that the league office has been repeatedly unethical, and the fact that the NFL was not willing to confirm the information publicly a reasonable interpretation is to say that it has the possibility of being true or false and requires confirmation.

Mike didn't question the report, he took a false report from an unknown source as true. That is a fact.

Plenty of people questioned the provenance of that report- Mike just wasn't one of them. I'll bet you were, I was too. I'm not holding him to a standard higher than I do myself.

You can read that article, he doesn't question the report. He knows that his own known sources- BB and Brady denied deflating footballs.

 

[jimnance]

FACT: Reiss was the most balanced, most professional and fairest of all boston- based media covering deflategate. He was one of the first to openly scoff at goodell and the wells report. He was 180' from Jackie Mcmullen and was less critical of Pats than Curran(who I like) early on.

Reiss and Curran both have longstanding mutually respectful
relationships and cache with BB, TB and others in the Pats organization that nobody else in Boston-based media has. But Reiss has more. Everyone who covers the Pats knows this. Its why so many Boston sports media clowns are jealous. But he earned it. By doing his job.

 

[jimnance]

N


Mike didn't question the report, he took a false report from an unknown source as true. That is a fact.

Plenty of people questioned the provenance of that report.

That is NOT fact. Now you're just making **** up. When it 1st came out, he only said IF it were true- that's a HUGE difference than saying it IS true.
So name ONE person in sports media who questioned the report before Mike. I can't recall ANYONE. Surely if there were "plenty" of people as you say, you should easily find a link to just ONE of these people. Good luck with that.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

That is NOT fact. Now you're just making **** up. When it 1st came out, he only said IF it were true- that's a HUGE difference than saying it IS true.
So name ONE person in sports media who questioned the report before Mike. I can't recall ANYONE. Surely if there were "plenty" of people as you say, you should easily find a link to just ONE of these people. Good luck with that.

No, here's the article- he doesn't question the report. If you find him questioning it go ahead and quote it.

Patriots should be held accountable

Nearly this entire forum questioned it. Finding another reporter is not necessary to prove my point that Mike was acting like the rest of the media. But someone like barstoolsports probably did.

I don't hate Mike, I don't dislike him. I'm sure he's a good guy. It's just that when I (and many here) were able to see through the NFL BS better from my couch than the guy who sees the team every day I decided I didn't have much use for him. I went from reading nearly every day to rarely.

And that's it for me, I'm on to the Super Bowl. Read whoever you want, I will to.

 

[jimnance]

I quote Mike Reiss from that article: "To be clear, more info is needed before any final judgement can be made on accountability." This was when Mort FIRST reported the 11 out of 12; NOBODY questioned it nor did they have reason to- Mort was highly respected and had never handled anything so badly before. As soon as more info surfaced, Reiss immediately questioned the veracity of the entire bogus affair.
s
STILL waiting for just ONE of those " plenty" of people who questioned the Mort report before reiss. Crickets

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Even spygate was really because the Pats kept winning. The penalties for spygate were already disproportionately large, because it was the Pats. Some of that was also because of Goodell's ego and BB pushing the limits on his memo restricting camera placement. But the real agenda was to bring the Pats down to the level of the rest of the league, because they were making a mockery of parity. Deflategate was more of the same, in spades, because they continued to do too well. Everyone else in the league knows how hard it is to maintain a winning culture and the Pats do it and make it look easy. Ergo they must be cheating.

Don't let the Tomases, BSPNs and the rest of the mindless hysterical sports hacks MSM off the hook. A mere 15 minutes of reading here on patsfans would have given them some perspective on "Spygate" (just as here or reading Sally would have provided perspective). Instead the biggest slime crony profession was simply looking for a big headline regardless of who they steamrolled to get it.

 

[rochrist]

No, here's the article- he doesn't question the report. If you find him questioning it go ahead and quote it.

Patriots should be held accountable

Nearly this entire forum questioned it. Finding another reporter is not necessary to prove my point that Mike was acting like the rest of the media. But someone like barstoolsports probably did.

I don't hate Mike, I don't dislike him. I'm sure he's a good guy. It's just that when I (and many here) were able to see through the NFL BS better from my couch than the guy who sees the team every day I decided I didn't have much use for him. I went from reading nearly every day to rarely.

And that's it for me, I'm on to the Super Bowl. Read whoever you want, I will to.

"To be clear, more information is needed before any final judgment can be made on accountability. "

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Mike didn't question the report, he took a false report from an unknown source as true. That is a fact.

That is NOT fact. Now you're just making **** up. When it 1st came out, he only said IF it were true- that's a HUGE difference than saying it IS true.

This was when Mort FIRST reported the 11 out of 12; NOBODY questioned it

So first you claim I am lying that Mike didn't question it, and now you say "NOBODY questioned it". Is that an apology for falsely calling me a liar?

I quote Mike Reiss from that article: "To be clear, more info is needed before any final judgement can be made on accountability." This was when Mort FIRST reported the 11 out of 12; NOBODY questioned it nor did they have reason to- Mort was highly respected and had never handled anything so badly before. As soon as more info surfaced, Reiss immediately questioned the veracity of the entire bogus affair.

STILL waiting for just ONE of those " plenty" of people who questioned the Mort report before reiss. Crickets

I already told you I questioned it, perhaps I'm the smartest person in the world since it turned out questioning it was the correct thing to do, but I don't recall being the only one in the forum questioning it. And let's pull out what exactly he was questioning in that quote.

The Patriots, assuming the initial inspection of footballs by referee Walt Anderson and his crew was done correctly and that weather wasn't a factor, should be held accountable.

Another words, the report was correct in his mind, the only questions were Walt and weather. Neither Walt or the Weather needed to be accounted for, because the report was misinformation. Mike believed it, I found it suspect, many people did. He's been on this beat many years, he isn't better than I am at deciphering what's happening, or questioning the motives of Goodell's goon squad (or people that claim to be). I guess next time there's a baseless accusation we can count on him to go along and not question the unknown sources or unnamed league sources until someone else proves them wrong. Since I can get that perspective from 99% of the media, it's not all that important to me to get it from him. This was the same league office that cleared itself in the Ray Rice incident two weeks earlier, I'm not sure if anyone questioned that either, but I'm not impressed by people that believed it because the league claims it.

Again, my thesis was Mike acted like everyone else, it's not necessary for me to find reporters not acting like Mike, to prove Mike acted like other reporters at the time. If you want to claim Mike is a reporter like other reporters, then sure, I agree.

 

[DaBruinz]

No, here's the article- he doesn't question the report. If you find him questioning it go ahead and quote it.

Patriots should be held accountable

Nearly this entire forum questioned it. Finding another reporter is not necessary to prove my point that Mike was acting like the rest of the media. But someone like barstoolsports probably did.

I don't hate Mike, I don't dislike him. I'm sure he's a good guy. It's just that when I (and many here) were able to see through the NFL BS better from my couch than the guy who sees the team every day I decided I didn't have much use for him. I went from reading nearly every day to rarely.

And that's it for me, I'm on to the Super Bowl. Read whoever you want, I will to.

That article was NOT his initial article. That's what you are failing to acknowledge.

Also, this line is key. clearly you overlooked it:

"The Patriots, assuming the initial inspection of footballs by referee Walt Anderson and his crew was done correctly and that weather wasn't a factor, should be held accountable."

Since you don't seem to understand how the English Language works, let me explain. Everything in between the two commas is the equivalent of Mike saying "IF the initial inspection was done correctly and the weather wasn't a factor, THEN the Patriots should be held accountable". Since we know that the IF part of the statement was false, then we know that the "THEN" part of the statement isn't applicable.

Furthermore, one of the scandals that occurred during this was that the "editors" of BSPN were caught changing Mike's stories to fit their narrative. He made mention of this.

 

[ZoisKing]

Yikes. You guys are so dramatic. Poor BYU, victim of a witch hunt himself.

 

[Lavictoire]

Can we just stop and admire your post for a second? This is amazing. You are criticizing Reiss for making false accusations. Meanwhile, your criticisms have no evidence, no link, there's no quote, no context, just something you remember reading a while ago.

You're like Walt Anderson trying to recall which gauge he used. Except Walt wasn't openly blaming others for their ****ty memory at the same time.

I am just...so amazed and impressed by my fellow human beings every day.

Anyways, Reiss did say that the Patriots, if guilty, should be penalized. And for those who love watching the hot takes from the talking heads, it's pretty easy to just read half of that and think he's being harsh. It ignores the rest of what he wrote.

As others have pointed out here (with actual links to real stories, not just old memories) that throughout the weeks, months, and years, especially early on, Reiss was not a sensationalist. I'm not saying he was perfect, but when I read through the archives, I see him questioning both sides and asking lots of questions, but never making any misleading or unfair statements. He didn't believe the Patriots 100% at first, nor should he. Any real journalist should not believe anything 100%.

And if he does have a regret, I think it's exactly that, that he didn't question the original report enough and just accepted it at face value.

Anyways, I don't think Reiss was perfect. But I don't think he was intentionally misleading or trying to pump up the story. And instead of calling people out for supposedly not having all the facts, maybe you could lead by example and provide something more substantial than your own thoughts, you hypocrite.

You posted your own recollection and failed to provide a link --hypocrite.

 

[Former Fan]

The fact one really need to know is that Reiss still works for BSPN.

Integrity is clearly not number one on his agenda.

 

[rochrist]

That article was NOT his initial article. That's what you are failing to acknowledge.

Also, this line is key. clearly you overlooked it:

"The Patriots, assuming the initial inspection of footballs by referee Walt Anderson and his crew was done correctly and that weather wasn't a factor, should be held accountable."

Since you don't seem to understand how the English Language works, let me explain. Everything in between the two commas is the equivalent of Mike saying "IF the initial inspection was done correctly and the weather wasn't a factor, THEN the Patriots should be held accountable". Since we know that the IF part of the statement was false, then we know that the "THEN" part of the statement isn't applicable.

Furthermore, one of the scandals that occurred during this was that the "editors" of BSPN were caught changing Mike's stories to fit their narrative. He made mention of this.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

You posted your own recollection and failed to provide a link --hypocrite.

Edit: I am being an *******. I think you're wrong but I don't need to be mean about it.

So let's just move on with our lives and cheer for Ring #5 together. All the best.

 

[Lavictoire]

Edit: I am being an *******. I think you're wrong but I don't need to be mean about it.

So let's just move on with our lives and cheer for Ring #5 together. All the best.

Agreed. On to #5! Enjoy the game.