I disagree completely. From the article, here is what Bedard promises:
"These are the things we can promise you:
- Our coverage will be hyperlocal to Boston and New England. If it doesn’t matter to you, it doesn’t matter to us.
- No clickbait articles. We don’t care about clicks and generating national headlines. We only care about serving our subscribers.
- No contrived opinions. We will mean what we say, and say what we mean. And if we don’t, call us out on it.
- The will be a 100 percent politics-free zone. We want to this to be an oasis from the outside world.
- We will be interactive and accessible. Lots of Q&As, mailbags, in-game chats and Tweet-ups. Podcasts, videos and other multimedia projects are in the works.
- We will not clutter up your experience with annoying popup/clunky ads and autoplay videos. "
The stuff he says he won't do (well, really items 2-6) are exactly the type of crap that's turned me off to sports media/journalism (and mainstream media/journalism too). It's not 100% perfect in my view, but it's one of the better models out there which keeps freedom of the press alive, while at the same time eliminating the clown shoes sensationalism (to sell papers / grab viewers / generate clicks) and focus on the real issues.
The basic question is whether these people are competent enough to deliver the real sports journalism I'm looking for. Bedard's been one of the better ones, albeit still flawed, so from the Patriots' perspective I'm happy. McAdams is ok from the Red Sox perspective; I wouldn't sign up if it was exclusively him, but he's also not one of the bad ones either.
Frankly the only real competition on the Patriots are Mike Reiss and Tom Curran. Everyone else out there is just sensationalist noise, and I'm willing to pay a premium to read real analysis instead of that garbage.