Completely unsubstantiated rumor abour Patriots limiting acess

[PatsFanSince74]

The standard mode of operation at ESPN has been, spend several minutes wringing all the juiciness out of the allegations, then at the end of the report say, "The New England Patriots have issued issued a statement denying the allegations".

Well said. And, it applies to all media cluster f^@ks, not just what's happened to the Patriots. With very few exceptions, print and broadcast media writers, producers and on-air "talent" are lazy.

They pick a story that comes to them, that both has high potential appeal to their target audience and that is easiest to "sell" in 30 on-air seconds or in a lead paragraph.

Then they strip it down to digestible factoids, discard contrary evidence or opinions and feed it to the masses. Voila! The Evening News any night of the week.

Remember, they aren't interested in the "truth" but in a "story."

Spygate was a great "story." Feeding anti-Patriot fervor was easy. It became a full employment act for producers and commentators.

It's about darn time that the Patriots started fighting back. As I posted out here on the day the story broke in September, they should have started right away!

 

[upstater1]

Yes. IMO, you are giving credence to an innuendo you perceive in a rumor when there is a much simpler explanation, i.e., I can count on one hand the number of times a Giant receiver caught a ball in traffic in the SB.

Where did I do that?

You're completely misreading things.

In fact, every post I've made here has been about how bogus the rumor is.

Sheesh.

Please read more carefully in the future.

 

[upstater1]

The rumor :

"The only fly in the ointment here is some insiders are worried Ernie Adams might have done something with Walsh and this has put some strain on the BB/Adams relationship from limited observations. This is one reason Capers was brought in."

The conclusion ? "This is one reason" could refer to "Ernie Adams might have done something with Walsh" in which your conclusion is possibly valid although only possible as another valid conclusion is simply that Belichick is pissed at Adams. However, "This is one reason" most likely refers to "this has put some strain on the BB/Adams relationship" in which case Belichick just felt like he needed the help of a more veteran coach. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why is Belichick pissed at Adams?

If you can't tell that the rumor monger is referring to Adams and Walsh being in on the taping together, I can't lead a horse to water.