What is also hard to believe that the same people downplaying this alleged spying incident have no problem stating that the Patriots gained a significant competitive advantage from filming defensive signals. And they probably don't see how they are contradicting themselves.
In general, I think we've seen some thought and consideration go into the responses from the media for this situation and the Saints bounty program. There has been plenty of negative statements, but there were also counter-arguments and middle of the road responses.
I just wonder where that balance was 5 years ago with New England. You still see fallout from that today, with the McDaniels hiring. That story didn't merit any of the fuss that was raised over it.
Lastly, on a minor annoyance level, how is electronically tapping into the communications between the other teams' coaches without their knowledge merely "eavesdropping," while the filming of hand signals displayed on the opposing sideline, out in the open, considered "spying?"
