Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 49 to 51 of 51
  1. #49

    Re: Q Gives His Take on Mutiny-Gate



    Here's an article some of you will like a lot from Kevin Byrne.

    http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/...7-06aa78c71940
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  2. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,109
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Q Gives His Take on Mutiny-Gate

    Quote Originally Posted by RavensRule21215 View Post
    I personally am sick and tired of hearing the "columnist" defense. Beat writer or columnist, these clowns are STILL accountable for what they put in print.
    There are facts. There are opinions. And then there is speculation, which is neither of the first two things.

    I think people tend to lump together opinion and speculation as if they are the same thing and then they suggest that a columnist has carte blanche to speculate about what goes on behind the walls of the Castle. But I don't buy it. Columnists with opinions, even unpopular ones, are fine. Columnists with claims better dig up some facts to support their claims.

    Here is an opinion: The Ravens should have been playing Bryant McKinnie all year long last year.

    Here is speculation: The Ravens benched Bryant McKinnie because John Harbaugh didn't like the player's attitude.

    The former--the opinion--is certainly a topic a columnist could weigh in on.

    The latter--the speculation--is not something a columnist really has any business tackling. It's theory that a true reporter could certainly write a piece about, presenting whatever evidence exists, but being clear what is fact and what is merely circumstantial evidence. I'm even fine with a rumor site like PFT.com writing speculative pieces as long as it's backed with a clear indication of where their theories came from.

    Michael Silver of Yahoo wrote a decent piece where he reported on rancor inside the Ravens locker room after the loss to the Texans. It's ugly, but fair and I have no problem with it.

    PFT.com went too far after Pollard was cut when they went back to the Silver piece and presented it--actually, they inflated it by labeling it as a "mutiny"--as lone evidence to support their theory that Pollard was cut months later because Harbaugh didn't want a clubhouse lawyer undermining his authority. It's simply a lazy piece--it doesn't qualify as reporting and it doesn't qualify as an opinion piece. It's just another slapped-together piece of pure speculation on their part designed to incite web hits before moving on to another day of speculative, patchwork journalism.

    It's not that I refuse to believe that Pollard was cut because of his behind-the-scenes antics. I thinks it's clear, in fact, that it had a lot to do with his dismissal. I just objected to the way it has been reported by some.

    I don't often send people to their website to read anything but I have to admit that Drew Forrester at WNST probably wrote the best piece on the Pollard controversy, where he more thoroughly makes the case, citing more incidents and quoting a player who backs the notion that Pollard regularly undermined Harbaugh.

    That piece is in sharp contrast to the PFT.com "story" and also in contrast to Mike Preston's work, that Kevin Byrne takes exception to in the link provided by Woodlawn, above. It's a classic case where Preston really isn't giving you his opinion, as a columnist should, he's perpetuating a theory but throwing it out there as if it is a fact that doesn't merit any investigation.

    Preston is in the locker room a lot. More than Forrester I'll bet. He could have done the work to build his case--to support his theory. Instead he just throws it out there, knowing that it will stir up his readers even more if he tries to slip it past us unchallenged. He knows it deserves to be challenged, and therein likes the key to us writing about it and drawing more attention to his pieces.

    He is a columnist who ought to stick to opinions and avoid fake-reporting.
    Last edited by Shas; 04-06-2013 at 07:37 AM.




  3. #51

    Re: Q Gives His Take on Mutiny-Gate

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    There are facts. There are opinions. And then there is speculation, which is neither of the first two things.

    I think people tend to lump together opinion and speculation as if they are the same thing and then they suggest that a columnist has carte blanche to speculate about what goes on behind the walls of the Castle. But I don't buy it. Columnists with opinions, even unpopular ones, are fine. Columnists with claims better dig up some facts to support their claims.

    Here is an opinion: The Ravens should have been playing Bryant McKinnie all year long last year.

    Here is speculation: The Ravens benched Bryant McKinnie because John Harbaugh didn't like the player's attitude.

    The former--the opinion--is certainly a topic a columnist could weigh in on.

    The latter--the speculation--is not something a columnist really has any business tackling. It's theory that a true reporter could certainly write a piece about, presenting whatever evidence exists, but being clear what is fact and what is merely circumstantial evidence. I'm even fine with a rumor site like PFT.com writing speculative pieces as long as it's backed with a clear indication of where their theories came from.

    Michael Silver of Yahoo wrote a decent piece where he reported on rancor inside the Ravens locker room after the loss to the Texans. It's ugly, but fair and I have no problem with it.

    PFT.com went too far after Pollard was cut when they went back to the Silver piece and presented it--actually, they inflated it by labeling it as a "mutiny"--as lone evidence to support their theory that Pollard was cut months later because Harbaugh didn't want a clubhouse lawyer undermining his authority. It's simply a lazy piece--it doesn't qualify as reporting and it doesn't qualify as an opinion piece. It's just another slapped-together piece of pure speculation on their part designed to incite web hits before moving on to another day of speculative, patchwork journalism.

    It's not that I refuse to believe that Pollard was cut because of his behind-the-scenes antics. I thinks it's clear, in fact, that it had a lot to do with his dismissal. I just objected to the way it has been reported by some.

    I don't often send people to their website to read anything but I have to admit that Drew Forrester at WNST probably wrote the best piece on the Pollard controversy, where he more thoroughly makes the case, citing more incidents and quoting a player who backs the notion that Pollard regularly undermined Harbaugh.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland