The biggest problem is the readers. Illustration: Right now the reporting is Free has "personal issues" that were at the root of the Bucs letting Free go.
Vin, respectfully, Scott went quite a bit further with his language on Friday than simply saying Free had "personal problems."
I know what really went down, but am sworn to secrecy. Schiano and the Bucs organization could have burned Freeman to the ground with what I know
Scott drew a lot more attention to the situation and himself with those very strong statements. Why not just say Free has "personal problems that I can't address."
Great but what do the details add to the "Schiano bad" versus "Free bad" story? If it so important for SR to report the specifics of an alleged "personal issue" there should be an obvious answer to my question, right? How would it further inform anyone if, say, the alleged issue was alcohol over drugs?My guess is some of the most vocal "critics" of PR cannot answer my simple question in any meaningful way.
It's one thing to want to know as a fan what Free's alleged issue might be, it's another to act as if PR is doing something wrong by not reporting details as a means of acquiring that info.
After reading through most of the thread my take is the "HE IS A NICE GUY SO I MUST PROTECT HIM SYNDROME" is rather apparent in the defense of Freeman and guys like Dominik and Rich McKay. Bottom line Freeman lacks the desire and fire to become the franchise QB that his numbers infer. Dominik should never have been made a GM and McKay put the Bucs in Cap Hell. All failed at some level and sticking one's head in the sand is not being objective. I do believe Schiano did receive a raw deal by many who have criticized him as being the source of the Bucs unsatisfactory season. Likewise I feel the Glazers are wrongly criticized. Yes both have made mistakes... Schiano with some of his hires at OC and DC and the Glazers for going cheap and hiring tweedle Rah and tweedle Dumb.Thankfully, it is all in the past and with the new regime I am getting excited. Schiano will end up with a good gig and he did a lot of good things in inserting discipline to the franchise and got rid of potential cancers. As to Freeman and his alleged " DEMONS" I hope he finds peace away from the game because it is obvious he lacks the desire and drive to be a Franchise QB at this time. Unless he does a 180 I don't see him in the league much longer and seriously that probably would be his best move. When your heart isn't in it you need to go in a different direction. Josh always seemed very likable and nice guy and I am sure his KSU background has caused Scott and Morris to protect him. That is what friends do. Personally the public deserves nothing... Time to let it go.... as Garv stated early in the thread. Nothing good from rehashing re-fried beans.
Is this thread for real? It's called "off-the-record." That means that the source provided info with the stipulation that it not be disclosed. Give me a break with the "pretty juicy stuff." It's called journalism.
Perhaps better described as journalistic integrity.
]Exactly.
"Is this thread for real? It's called "off-the-record." That means that the source provided info with the stipulation that it not be disclosed."Off the record has to do with protecting the source, not the story itself. In other words, no journalist I have ever heard of would say, "I have been sworn to secrecy" over a story. They say that sort of thing all the time when it comes to not revealing a source - but never in regards to protecting a story. There is simply no such thing as "protecting a story."
With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. "Off the record" is about the details of the story. I'll give you an example. Let's say I was writing a story about the failings of a certain player. I called a source - not the coach or the player - and said something like this:"I heard that the coach hates the kid with a passion, and that's the reason the player is struggling." The source tells me I'm wrong - very wrong. I tell him to prove it. The source tells me - off the record - that they adopted a baby together and live a secret life and the stress of secretly raising a child is why the completion percentage is dropping below 50%. But the source is the only one privy to this, as he's the "godfather." To divulge the story is to burn the source. And in case you don't like my example, here's NYU's journalism school handbook on the subject:"Off the record" restricts the reporter from using the information the source is about to deliver. The information is offered to explain or further a reporter's understanding of a particular issue or event. (Various presidents have invited reporters to have dinner with the understanding that no information from this meeting can ever be published.) But if the reporter can confirm the information with another source who doesn't insist on speaking off the record (whether that means he agreed to talking on the record, on background, or not for attribution) he can publish it. The problem with the phrase "off the record" is that many people, reporters and the general public alike, misunderstand its precise meaning. These days many interviewees think "off the record" is largely synonymous with "on background" or "not for attribution." There is so much murkiness about what "off the record" means that it is essential that the reporter and source agree on a definition before beginning an "off the record" portion of an interview. http://journalism.nyu.edu/assets/PageSpecificFiles/Ethics/NYU-Journalism-Handbook-for-Students.pdf.
When he felt he was wrong he stepped up to the plate and admitted it to every person who would take the time to read the article.
He also didn't apologize for using unnamed sources, he apologized for those sources being"inaccurate". There is a big difference there. It's nice that he wants to protect Josh. But don't pretend he isn't treating Josh with a different standard. Oh, and he wasn't just "wrong" in his reporting. There are a lot of other adjectives that could, and should be used when describing it.
You don't get apologies for a reporter using an unnamed source - you are just advised of that, you don't get the detail of Freeman from a reporter who has promised not to disclose that information. As for you desire to use different terminology - that is unsurprising.
The story Scott mentions in Fab 5 refers to how 4 Vikings said Freeman was consistently late and ill-prepared for meetings. There have been rumors in prior stories about his partying nature, so whether it is a related drug issue, sleeping around, or just a complete lack of focus/maturity, it's most likely something of that nature. Obviously, hindsight's 20/20 on this--Freeman wasn't signed to an extension and a QB was drafted in the 3rd round (both moves surprising on the surface). Also, SR (and PR in general) has a history of not reporting pure gossip; I know that soon after Morris was let go, that was the first I heard he had been out at bars post-game with players and had developed a "party hard" reputation. Apparently, though, that was "common knowledge" in Tampa, although not being a resident, I had never heard a whisper of it prior.I don't view SR's words as dire as everyone else has ("could have burned him to the ground"), since it doesn't take much to get a national media (both legit and not) focused on one storyline that's particularly scandalous. I mean, we all remember the "Favre vs Jets masseuss", "TO says X", "Player X wants a new contract", or even the Incognito story... how many minutes on TV, column inches, etc are spent on those stories that simply don't add up to much ACTUAL news? Basically, once PewterReport or some other news place reports "Freeman in love triangle with backup QB's wife, including abortion" (note: that's a TOTAL FABRICATION to wildly exaggerate my point), that's about ALL that would be discussed with the Bucs for the next 6 months. See Patriots/Hernandez, where until the team consistently won without him, that's all the stories were about, or at least mentioned at some point (i.e. Brady was good, had some help from a receiving corp still reeling from the loss of Hernandez, on trial for murder").
Who gives a flip about Freeman. He made enough money this year alone where he'll never have to work again. Freemans secret is simple. He sucks, and would rather spend his time chasing skirts, and partying, then honing his craft. He fooled Dom, and Rah into thinking he was a football player, but he was just a playa. Now all three are unemployed.
Who gives a flip about Freeman. He made enough money this year alone where he'll never have to work again. Freemans secret is simple. He sucks, and would rather spend his time chasing skirts, and partying, then honing his craft. He fooled Dom, and Rah into thinking he was a football player, but he was just a playa. Now all three are unemployed.
Well stated... As a fan of Freeman count me among those that was also fooled.
Who gives a flip about Freeman. He made enough money this year alone where he'll never have to work again. Freemans secret is simple. He sucks, and would rather spend his time chasing skirts, and partying, then honing his craft. He fooled Dom, and Rah into thinking he was a football player, but he was just a playa. Now all three are unemployed.
I believe Freeman has issues and isn't just a "playa". I hope, as a person, that Freeman can work those issues out, as he was someone who had everything right at his finger tips and his poor decisions have practically let everything slip away.That said, I agree with the premise - who gives a flip. His issues are no longer our problem, and while I hope he gets help, I have nothing riding on it, so its time to move on.
