Mike doesn't report or mention anything that he doesn't know for sure. I can promise you that, which I mentioned in my other post.
With all due respect, I disagree with that as well. If there are off the field issues factoring into their decision, I don't need to know what they are. I'd obviously like to know (everyone would), but Mike shouldn't be forced to tell us the entirety of the details behind what those are just because he hinted they exist. You can't expect a reporter to just hide the issue if it's true, because if it's relevant to the story that people are looking for answers to, it needs to be mentioned if it adds context behind something as bizarre as this one. If a reporter decides to just say there are off-the-field issues that caused them to elect to go in another direction, I don't feel they should be forced to tell us what they are if that will only exacerbate the situation. I know the details behind a couple of stories over the years that would have been far worse if we knew "the whole story" behind the "off the field issues" that caused moves to be made "because it was the best thing for the team". It would have been really bad for the player and not necessary for us to know, aside from making some serious noise and I give credit to the reporters who opted to not go there but still reported an issue existed.
I understand what you're saying, but I think the other thing that is a little ridiculous too is just because of one error where he got burned by trying to tell us something in the most indirect way he could without causing a problem (which instead, caused a problem) there are a fair amount of people out there who are now ready to tar and feather him over one entry despite the fact he's been one of the most honest and fair guys over the years. I know people love to kill the media and seem to relish when this thing happens, but I wish the ones who deserved it if they admit an error got the benefit of the doubt. Not saying you fall into that category, but I've seen others in this thread that do and Mike is definitely a guy who has earned a little leeway given his history of how he handles things.
Sorry, Ian. I respect you and what you do for this Board to the skies, but that just doesn't work.
I can state my position in four brief sentences.
If a journalist of integrity and high standards has verifiable information about a public figure, he can and in most cases should write about it.
If the same journalist's information is not verifiable, he should not write about it.
If a journalist of integrity and high standards has verifiable information, but wants to protect a public figure, he can choose not to write about it, unless the story includes public corruption, where one can argue that he has an obligation to write it.
The one thing a journalist of integrity and high standards can not do, is "hint" at problems by peddling innuendo and gossip. That's what Mike did and for which, to some degree, he has apologized.
I'm not smearing Reiss and I appreciate your acknowledging that. But, his story appeared under the Banner of a media entity that allowed Mort's half truths about balls that lost air-pressure due to atmospheric conditions hang out there for a long time without retraction, doing untold damage to Tom Brady and the Patriots. There is no room for innuendo or half truth in good journalism.
I still have a very high view of Mike Reiss, but I worry that he's been hanging out with the wrong crowd too long and will read what he writes in the future with a more careful eye.
Thank you for allowing me to disagree with you on what is essentially "your Board."
