12/21/24
May 16, 2008
Boston Herald Should Name Its SpyGate Source: The newspaper and reporter John Tomase refuse to identify the unnamed source who burned them. Why the hell not?
A column by sportsfilter member rcade.
The quote about the Boston Herald not having spoken to anyone who had seen or possessed the tape is pretty telling. Maybe the anonymous source isn't the problem here. If a source tells you that he believes that someone else taped the walkthrough, but they never saw it, didn't know who had it, then that just isn't really enough information to conclude that there was such a tape. Leaping to conclusions is bogus. How do they conclusively know that no tape exists now? Because Walsh doesn't have it? I agree that reporters have to vet their information better. Just reporting what someone tells you when that someone faces absolutely no consequences when they get caught lying is a bad idea. Also, why don't reporters ever say that such and such argument is completely bogus. They think unbiased reporting means just putting out both sides regardless of their relative merit.
posted by bperk at 02:04 PM on May 16, 2008
I'm all for journalists protecting their sources. I'm all for journalists verifying information before publication. The error made in the latter shouldn't affect the first, no matter how pissed off we are about someone lying. I suspect the consequences will be that the 'source' will never be trusted again, and the Herald will take a little more care with stories in future. Also, rcade is spot on with his experience that most 'sources' are in fact people closely involved who are primarily interested in getting their spin on things. Newspapers get sucked into these internal battles without even knowing, or worse, because they don't care. Also, why don't reporters ever say that such and such argument is completely bogus. They think unbiased reporting means just putting out both sides regardless of their relative merit That, my friend, is an excellent question.
posted by owlhouse at 05:51 PM on May 16, 2008
I like what rcade said about the Cowboys coverage- that basically, sometimes these "unnamed sources" are actually not the night janitor, but a well placed person using the media as an anonymous megaphone. And in those cases where the information turns out to be untrue and the source lied, the source should be burned. After all the only reason anonymity is offered is because reporters know that the promise of anonymity is the only way some sources will agree to talk. But if your sources turn out to be provably liars... why do you care if they will talk again? I suppose the fear is other sources will refuse to talk to you because they worry they'd get outed even if they were telling the truth (for example, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame- if the "official" truth becomes that you were somehow lying even if you weren't, and that makes your anonymity fair game, I guess that would worry even honest sources).
posted by hincandenza at 06:14 PM on May 16, 2008
John Tomase should be fired. No reporter should print allegations about a video tape without actually seeing the evidence. Editor should also have some culpability for this fiasco and some sort of censor or punishment should follow, however most editor have to trust their reporters and believe they get the story right. As for naming sources I'll respectfully disagree with rcade. Foresee a slippery slope if sources are named no matter what the reason. As for rcade naming sources in the 90's about Dallas. See no useful purpose for this disclosure. Doesn't add to your editorial and actually compromises your opinion on this breach of journalist ethics.
posted by giveuptheghost at 07:03 PM on May 16, 2008
I suspect the consequences will be that the 'source' will never be trusted again, and the Herald will take a little more care with stories in future. What about all the consequences this will have for the NFL, the Patriots, and the fact that now the gov't will waste more time meddling in sports and not fixing the major issues we have in this country? This little mistake will cause a decent amount of damage to many others, not just the paper and the unnamed source.
posted by brainofdtrain at 07:14 PM on May 16, 2008
"while I had multiple sources relating similar allegations" As a former newspaper reporter, I can tell you that this is not an apology. Tomase is saying that he believes that it is true, that multiple people told him this though he relied on one more than the others. He believes it; he just can't prove it. BS. He bought off on a lie and is trying to cover his own tracks. If his "source" cannot be trusted, then I guess his "multiple sources" cannot be trusted. Or maybe, it's just Tomase that cannot be trusted.
posted by graymatters at 08:08 PM on May 16, 2008
...Or maybe someone is giving Tomase and his source(s) the "full court press" so they will drop it and move on. The Patriots did break rules, they were punished and fined, all this info says is that there is no evidence that they taped the Rams in the SuperBowl. So what makes them so trustworthy now? And what would happen to the Pats if there was a video? Probably enough to convince some to put the old hush-hush on Tomase and Co. The Pats(Brady)/Boston/Fans need to drop it, they shouldn't get any apologies, they broke the rules. Almost all the allegations regarding "illegal" taping were true, except for this one(as far as we know). We wouldn't want anyone else to look foolish if something else surfaces in the future. What about the editor of the Herald? He let it run, shouldn't he take responsibility? Thanks for the column, rcade. Spygate, I'm sure, will forever live on and every damn part will be scrutinized to no end.
posted by BoKnows at 08:39 PM on May 16, 2008
Doesn't add to your editorial and actually compromises your opinion on this breach of journalist ethics. Journalists make their living off people disclosing information. It's interesting that I'm not allowed to disclose information about their activities -- after 15 years no less -- without violating journalistic ethics. Neat trick.
posted by rcade at 09:19 PM on May 16, 2008
It's interesting that I'm not allowed to disclose information about their activities -- after 15 years no less -- without violating journalistic ethics. Neat trick. Did the men giving you the information on your article(s) ask that their names not be disclosed? If the answer is affirmative, you answer your own question. If they did give you permission, why all the mumbo jumbo ("More than 15 years have passed, so I can reveal this without getting myself into trouble") before disclosing the information in your editorial. Is there a statue of limitation on journalistic integrity? Or for that matter, intregrity of all sorts.
posted by giveuptheghost at 09:34 PM on May 16, 2008
Did the men giving you the information on your article(s) ask that their names not be disclosed? I wasn't a party to the confidentiality agreement. I was just one of the hundreds of people at the paper who had access to the story queue. Anyone who was reading Cowboys news at the office back then as it was filed would've known the identities. I kept the secret for years out of loyalty to my old paper, but it was a crappy move on their part to let sources use anonymity to take pot shots at each other. There's no compelling public interest in doing this; they were just trying to make their inside sources happy and sell papers. I don't think journalistic integrity compels you to say nothing to protect a misuse of anonymity. Journalists would be better off if they were called out on their mistakes like they do to everybody else. The biggest reason Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly and all the other fabulists happened was because journalists face so little scrutiny.
posted by rcade at 07:14 AM on May 17, 2008
The Pats(Brady)/Boston/Fans need to drop it, they shouldn't get any apologies Yes, we're clearly the problem, especially when logic like this keeps popping up: Or maybe someone is giving Tomase and his source(s) the "full court press" so they will drop it and move on . . . And what would happen to the Pats if there was a video? Probably enough to convince some to put the old hush-hush on Tomase and Co. Yeah, Rob Kraft had to get tough, see? And drop the hammer on a couple of newsies that been flapping their gums all over town. Those birds won't be flying no more, see? Conspiracy theories are for The X-Files. Life isn't like the movies.
posted by yerfatma at 07:30 AM on May 17, 2008
Interesting column, rcade. After reading it, I think the answer to your question becomes obvious. If the unnamed source is someone in the front office of the St. Louis Rams, revealing the name of that source would be detrimental to the career of the reporter and hurt the newspaper's ability to get stories from high ranking officials.
posted by canstusdis at 12:24 PM on May 17, 2008
...Or maybe someone is giving Tomase and his source(s) the "full court press"... ...or maybe Tomase's sources were people with an ax to grind against the Patriots, and who set Tomase up. Is it not possible that there was a conspiracy to start an untrue story concerning the non-existent walk-through tape? All you have to do is to have one person lie and the others swear to it. Tomase says that the source was one he trusted and had some faith in and some others that he had less faith in, but that since they all told the same story, he decided to write it. To me it sounds like Mr. Tomase has been "sandbagged" by someone looking to embarass the Patriots, or even to distract them from their Super Bowl preparations.
posted by Howard_T at 01:01 PM on May 17, 2008
Journalists would be better off if they were called out on their mistakes like they do to everybody else. The biggest reason Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly and all the other fabulists happened was because journalists face so little scrutiny If you feel comfortable in naming sources I'm not going to belabor the point. That's between a reporter and his own conscience, but I firmly believe in the snowball effect. Once done, it becomes easier and easier to jeopardize your standards until all we have left is everybody out for themselves and sources be damned. Hate to think where that will leave us. Naming sources weather true or untrue is wrong and its reporter responsibility to get it right or not print. The punishment should be determination or censure, but sources should be protected to the dying breath.
posted by giveuptheghost at 01:22 PM on May 17, 2008
Conspiracy theories are for The X-Files. Life isn't like the movies. Okay, I'll just trust that morals and ethics are more important to the Pats and the NFL than money is. (Yeah, we cheated but don't defame us in the process of naming your allegations, we have a rep to uphold.) I'll pretend that there is no corruption at all. I wish I could look at life through those eyes. Thanks for the insight, yerfatma. I was blind and now I can see.
posted by BoKnows at 02:48 PM on May 17, 2008
Conspiracy theories are for The X-Files. Life isn't like the movies. Debreif and debug me, David Duchovny I know you could love me I'm sweet and I'm cuddly, I'm gonna kill SCULLY! David Duchovny why won't you love me
posted by HATER 187 at 09:36 PM on May 17, 2008
Okay, I'll just trust that morals and ethics are more important to the Pats and the NFL than money is. I'm not sure if you can hear this over the sound of that axe that you're grinding, but those who followed the case in some detail got to read a statement made by Bill Belichick in which he explained why the taping was done, and how he believed that it was entirely permissible under NFL regulations. I won't rehash the facts of the matter, since your mind is made up, but having read both Belichick's statement and the regulation in question, I agree with him. Had I read that regulation, prior to all this brouhaha, I would have come to the same conclusion he did about what it meant and what was permitted -- I would have made the same mistake in not interpreting a carelessly-worded regulation according to whatever Goodell et al meant rather than what they actually said. The very worst spin you could put on the situation is that the Patriots read the reg and said, "Hmm, I don't think they actually mean to permit this, but their wording is ambiguous, and we can always claim that as a defense." Under that worst possible interpretation, the Patriots are guilty of no worse than what every single rules-governed organization has ever done. If you consider that to be indicative of a complete absence of "morals and ethics", all I can say is that your list of immoral and unethical organizations and individuals must be extremely long indeed. I'm surprised that you can find anyone who's good enough for you to do business with, and I'm amazed that your heart is holding up under the stress of constantly being subjected to these outrageous breaches of "morals and ethics".
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:48 AM on May 18, 2008
I suspect the consequences will be that the 'source' will never be trusted again, and the Herald will take a little more care with stories in future. Also, rcade is spot on with his experience that most 'sources' are in fact people closely involved who are primarily interested in getting their spin on things. Newspapers get sucked into these internal battles without even knowing, or worse, because they don't care. Thank You Owlhouse, I would like to continue with this though. The Newspapers are just as guilty and I think they don't care as long as the story is good. I have personal experience with this when I had a story about me go national news. I did some interviews with journalists and during the "proof reading" noticed that they were putting things in that were not said by me. When I asked about it, I was told that "it sounds better" So I happen to KNOW how these people are. They want the story to be "better" so more people will buy their product. Therefore in my mind they are knowingly getting involved (and not sucked in) to these internal battles and knowing that some info is false or exaggerated.
posted by brandy at 09:39 AM on May 18, 2008
I'm not sure if you can hear this over the sound of that axe that you're grinding, but those who followed the case in some detail got to read a statement made by Bill Belichick in which he explained why the taping was done... My mind isn't made up, lbb. You should've picked that up while reading my first comment that simply proposes a different scenario including a lot of unknowns. I'm just not going to believe the story that's given to the public, and I don't believe that it's complete. I'm surprised that you can find anyone who's good enough for you to do business with, and I'm amazed that your heart is holding up under the stress of constantly being subjected to these outrageous breaches of "morals and ethics". Right, because the way I feel about scandals in sports determines how I lead the rest of my life. (That's sarcasm, so don't mis-interpret it.) Take the blinders off.
posted by BoKnows at 11:30 AM on May 18, 2008
I'm just not going to believe the story that's given to the public, and I don't believe that it's complete. Okay...so, why are you "just not going to believe the story that's given to the public"? Because something doesn't add up? If so, what? Or because you just on principle never believe anyone's story?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:34 AM on May 19, 2008
You should've picked that up while reading my first comment that simply proposes a different scenario including a lot of unknowns. You mean the comment above in which you asserted with zero evidence that the Patriots had somehow forced John Tomase to retract a legitimate story, to his great shame and humiliation, using a tactic you described as "the old hush hush"? It was such a baseless and insipid point to begin with...I'm not sure why you feel the need to call further attention to it.
posted by Venicemenace at 09:38 AM on May 19, 2008
Okay...so, why are you "just not going to believe the story that's given to the public"? Because something doesn't add up? If so, what? I believe that the NFL would do whatever it could to cover this (SuperBowl taping) up. I have no evidence that that's the case, but I feel they'd press the reporter before admitting to a cheating scandal. Or because you just on principle never believe anyone's story? Again no, my outlook on a sports scandal, in no way, describes who I am, or how I conduct my personal life. I'm not sure why you keep assuming that. It was such a baseless and insipid point to begin with...I'm not sure why you feel the need to call further attention to it. It's a theory, an idea, simple speculation and my opinion. If you don't like it, fine, but I haven't called your opinions baseless so I'd appreciate the same level of respect.
posted by BoKnows at 11:02 AM on May 19, 2008
It was such a baseless and insipid point to begin with ... "insipid" ... hmm, maybe reference your own post and lbb's I'll apologize immediately for calling this out, but it's getting frustrating watching/reading a vocal minority of posters occasionally get their undergarments in a bunch on a topic and make attacks, which lack any objectivity or sense of respect. I don't have a dog in the Sypgate fight, and I don't know BoKnows or anyone else here from adam. But, I do know that BoKnows is a consistently very strong poster (as are lbb and others), who posted an alternative theory to all the belaboring that the Pats have been mistreated. Maybe he could've spelled out his admittedly no-proof-behind-it scenario, but it certainly didn't deserve the venom it received. Venom that seemed to be justified by "those who followed the case in some detail ..." ... This wasn't a simple misunderstanding by the Pats. Didn't other news outlets that also followed the story in some detail report that the commissioner's office sent out a very clear reminder of the intent and focus of the regulation. Good lord, the tiniest part of you can't admit that your precious team may have f'ed up?! No feasibility of you staying loyal to your team but disagreeing with what they did ... or at the very least not ridiculing anyone who doesn't feel the same way as you? BoKnows doesn't need me coming to his defense, and I value this site overall. But I expect a little more dignity from posters on here who are clear to hold themselves and this site in such high regard (see : any time a newbie comes in with a horrible post).
posted by littleLebowski at 11:08 AM on May 19, 2008
Maybe he could've spelled out his admittedly no-proof-behind-it scenario, but it certainly didn't deserve the venom it received So now we need to treat all speculation, no matter how baseless, as potentially valid? Sounds like a recipe for success.
posted by yerfatma at 11:35 AM on May 19, 2008
BoKnows: I believe that the NFL would do whatever it could to cover this (SuperBowl taping) up. I have no evidence that that's the case, but I feel they'd press the reporter before admitting to a cheating scandal. [emphasis mine] Well, see, that's the problem that I have -- there's no evidence that such a thing happened. Without any such evidence, I can't see where this is any different from any other tinfoil-hat "theory": it's interesting fiction, and because it could have happened, you could write a great novel about it...but without evidence, it's an order of magnitude worse than hearing hoofbeats and looking for zebras. Again no, my outlook on a sports scandal, in no way, describes who I am, or how I conduct my personal life. I'm not sure why you keep assuming that. I assumed no such thing -- you're heading off into left field, there. Nor did I assume that you view sports scandals as being of as much importance as, say, earthquakes in China or national energy policy. I did assume, and I think not unjustly, that your requirements of evidence and use of logic would be more or less consistent regardless of the subject matter. IOW, when someone makes a statement and I lack any evidence of its falsehood, my estimation of whether the statement is likely to be true doesn't depend on whether the subject is a sports scandal or the latest doings of the House Energy Subcommittee. I wouldn't automatically disbelieve what someone said about a sports scandal (particularly as, in this case, they cannot possibly prove that negative) just because it was about a sports scandal. Your statement seems to indicate that you would, but maybe I'm still not getting it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:50 AM on May 19, 2008
Sorry, but I'm not inclined to treat make-believe, so-called "theories" - completely bereft of any supporting evidence needed to justify that moniker, mind you - with respect. I take my words seriously when I'm discussing serious matters, and I expect to be called out when I make an invalid point, just as I am quick to call others out for doing the same. Lebowski, you claim that Pats fans refuse to accept that our "precious team may have f'ed up." This is demonstrably false, particularly so in my case. I'm the one who posted the original Spygate thread to SpoFi, in which I referred to it as a "cheating incident" and later commented "I'm a huge Patriots fan, but even I know they deserve some kind of punishment." There's a big difference between making knee-jerk attacks on Belichick critics, as you accusing the SpoFi Pats fans of doing, and accepting that the Patriots were wrong to tape coaching signals from the sidelines, and agreeing that they deserved their punishment, while still defending the team against baseless attacks, which is what LBB and I were actually doing.
posted by Venicemenace at 11:53 AM on May 19, 2008
Do what you want, yerfatma ... and Venice, point taken. yerfatma, I actually wasn't even including your first response in my rant (which was a rant, I admit) - your post was pointed, but didn't come across particularly nasty. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I'm far from being qualified to "police" this site. I'm merely suggesting that some folks consider the target and content of some of their attacks. I was just surprised - I falsely assumed that others felt like I, that BoKnows was a pretty quality and respectful poster, and the subsequent level of seething hatred towards his post was disproportionate to his history on this site.
posted by littleLebowski at 12:02 PM on May 19, 2008
littlelebowski: I'll apologize immediately for calling this out, but it's getting frustrating watching/reading a vocal minority of posters occasionally get their undergarments in a bunch on a topic and make attacks, which lack any objectivity or sense of respect. How about if you apologize instead for a baseless and uncalled-for insult? You accuse me of having "undergarments in a bunch", "attack[ing]", having a "lack of objectivity or sense or respect", and exhibiting "venom" -- based on what? I say you're standing in a glass house and chucking stones -- you're the one flinging "venom" here. This wasn't a simple misunderstanding by the Pats. Proof by assertion? Didn't other news outlets that also followed the story in some detail report that the commissioner's office sent out a very clear reminder of the intent and focus of the regulation. As I understand it, no. They sent out the reminder that there were limitations on taping; they did not clarify the point of confusion in the wording. My guess for why they didn't do this, based on the clarifying statements that the NFL did eventually make, is that they didn't realize at the time that the confusion existed. Nobody had the discussion of exactly what the regs meant, because everyone thought they understood them correctly -- they just had different understandings, and no one knew that anyone else interpreted the regs differently. (edit: "subsequent level of seething hatred"? Oh, come now.)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:02 PM on May 19, 2008
I assumed no such thing 1. I'm surprised that you can find anyone who's good enough for you to do business with, and I'm amazed that your heart is holding up under the stress of constantly being subjected to these outrageous breaches of "morals and ethics". 2. Or because you just on principle never believe anyone's story? It seems that you're comparing my business life, my health, and my principles to my dis-trust in the NFL. You could make your point(s) without questioning my personal character, and my ability to function in life. I wouldn't automatically disbelieve what someone said about a sports scandal (particularly as, in this case, they cannot possibly prove that negative) just because it was about a sports scandal. Well, I guess that's where we differ, in light of Barry Bonds, Balco, Canseco, MacGwire, Rose, Tocchet, Vick, Barkley, and all the rest, no, I don't automatically trust the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA. Venice, you can call me out whenever you feel it's necessary, and if you want to be an ass about it then that's you're prerogative. If you think my posts make me look like a fool, so be it. We'll all have to wait 20 years for this to be featured on some ESPN8 special, then all the truths will come out. I hope my theory is wrong actually, I'd love to learn that the NFL told the truth hands down. But I doubt we know it all now.
posted by BoKnows at 12:31 PM on May 19, 2008
It seems that you're comparing my business life, my health, and my principles to my dis-trust in the NFL. You could make your point(s) without questioning my personal character, and my ability to function in life. Are you really that bound and determined to see this as some kind of attack on your character? Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. I was simply saying that, in my experience, most people don't have a radically different approach to how they consider evidence (or its lack) in one arena vs. another. So, you're unusual. If you want to be offended that I assumed that you were like most people in your attitude towards evidence, again, I think you're seeking to find offense where none was intended, but you're welcome to an apology. I'm sorry if what I said sounded like I was "questioning [your] personal character, and [your] ability to function in life"; that was certainly not the statement that I was trying to make. Well, I guess that's where we differ, in light of Barry Bonds, Balco, Canseco, MacGwire, Rose, Tocchet, Vick, Barkley, and all the rest, no, I don't automatically trust the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA. But "don't automatically trust" doesn't mean "automatically distrust". One can choose to neither automatically trust nor automatically distrust. It just seemed like you were indicating that you automatically distrust, at least where sports scandals are concerned. And the look back on your early SpoFi days you posted about is unimportant, maybe you're just trying to hard to redeem yourself. (Another baseless opinion, right?!) I'd call that more in the nature of pointless dredging up of ancient history. Really, what's the point? Venice didn't say that "[your] posts make [you] look like a fool", so why are you picking this fight?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:44 PM on May 19, 2008
Are you really that bound and determined to see this as some kind of attack on your character? Again,... Okay, I'll drop it. Thanks for the apology. I apologize to you too for my mis-understanding your point. It just seemed like you were indicating that you automatically distrust, at least where sports scandals are concerned. Yeah, maybe. But it's becoming more and more routine. A strong level of trust has to be earned, and the Pro Sports industries have lost lots of trust from me. I'd call that more in the nature of pointless dredging up of ancient history. Really, what's the point? Venice didn't say that "[your] posts make [you] look like a fool", so why are you picking this fight? Venice edited the last paragraph of his comment that I pulled that from. I then edited mine to not reflect my statement that you pulled.
posted by BoKnows at 12:52 PM on May 19, 2008
Yeah, maybe. But it's becoming more and more routine. A strong level of trust has to be earned, and the Pro Sports industries have lost lots of trust from me. Gotcha. I can see your point, if not entirely share it. I guess I don't trust any organization not to do what it considers in its best interest (sometimes stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny in the doing), and to rules-lawyer whatever advantage it can. That's not the same as automatically distrusting, though. I also think that while the quest for an advantage is the one constant, there are a lot of different and sometimes divergent threads running through the various sports meta-scandals: PDA use has its own set of unique issues, videotaping or stealing signals has another set. Sometimes there are commonalities that are helpful to understand them, but I don't think that sports scandals per se have anything in common.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:13 PM on May 19, 2008
Venice, you can call me out whenever you feel it's necessary, and if you want to be an ass about it then that's you're prerogative. If you think my posts make me look like a fool, so be it. Awww come on. I never made it personal. Admittedly, I don't pull my punches on this topic - but I have taken particular care in this instance to restrict my criticism to the ludicrousness of your "theory," and I haven't said anything about you being a fool, looking a fool, acting a fool, etc. Play the ball, not the man, ya know? By the way, rcade, thanks for outing those sources...I can't imagine a better sports-related example of a case in which anonymous sourcing of quotes obscures the true motives of those quoted, thus leading to misguided news coverage. Of course, this is a huge problem in political coverage, too. Is it just me, or do political journalism and sports journalism seem remarkably similar these days? (To the detriment of both.)
posted by Venicemenace at 01:43 PM on May 19, 2008
I'll apologize, lbb. Although I considered some of the initial responses to BoKnows' original post to be condescending (can't hear above his axe-grinding, surprise that his heart hadn't given way to the evils of the world), I shouldn't have fallen prey to the very thing I was railing against. But, I don't live in a glass house - I wouldn't have posted if I didn't welcome and expect reaction and feedback. Your recent posts have been much more in line with, what I view, to be your normal quality style. So, although my sentiment remains - that posters here deserve a certain level respect from others, especially considering the history of that poster's posts, and I feel many of us unnecessarily get our "undergarments in a bunch" when a nerve is touched (myself included) ... I apologize for crossing that line myself. On topic, on one hand, because of the debacle this led to (including some of this thread, my post included), I'd love for everyone involved to be sentenced to a noogie, including the source. But when a story gets broken and it turns out to be some major revelation, the journalist gets the credit for great investigative journalism ... when the story falls on its face, the journalist can bitch and moan all they want to their source, but it should be the journalist and editor that face the consequences.
posted by littleLebowski at 01:50 PM on May 19, 2008
On topic, on one hand, because of the debacle this led to (including some of this thread, my post included), I'd love for everyone involved to be sentenced to a noogie, including the source. Dude, I pay to get noogied. It's called aikido.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:47 PM on May 19, 2008
Awww come on. I never made it personal. Admittedly, I don't pull my punches on this topic - but I have taken particular care in this instance to restrict my criticism to the ludicrousness of your "theory," and I haven't said anything about you being a fool, looking a fool, acting a fool, etc. You edited your post. The last paragraph originally included how you made some asinine comment, got your head bit off, so now you're doing the same by calling me out. You wrote something to the tune of my comment only establishes that I am a fool and that it would be obviously whether you pointed it out or not. I had that paragraph ready to paste but since you changed yours, I left it out of my comment. That's a double noogie for you. (This is like 12 Angry Men - only lbb is a woman.) (I'm Henry Fonda by the way.)
posted by BoKnows at 03:30 PM on May 19, 2008
I bet this is really setting Buzz Bissinger off. To think, people hide behind the cloak of anonymity to say whatever they want and to avoid being accountable for the veracity of their claims. I thought that vice was limited to blogs and the journalistic integrity of the real news media wouldn't tolerate such behavior. On a less snarky note, I agree that anonymity should come with the requirement of a good faith effort to be truthful. Being incorrect shouldn't be punished but dishonesty should.