http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...out-chad-johnson-release?campaign=Twitter_atl In particular, here is the part Rosenthal wrote at the bottom: This is just blatantly irresponsible quoting. Blatant. The first part, I could ALMOST excuse. Rosenthal implies that what Joe Philbin said in his presser, was an indication of what he was talking about with Dansby at practice. For those that haven't seen Joe's press conference, he was asked what he thinks of Karlos disagreeing with the move publicly on radio. He said the following in response: "You have a boss, I have a boss. I don't always agree with what the boss says every single time. I'm of the opinion that you should keep things in house in that regard." Does this come off sounding like something Philbin may have told Dansby? Sure. I could see making that honest mistake. Except Rosenthal goes on to quote Karlos Dansby's FIELD interview. And wouldn't you know, Karlos Dansby was asked "You guys (Philbin and Dansby) spent a lot of time talking this morning during practice, what did you guys talk about?" Karlos Dansby: "Getting better. Getting better as a team, how we're going to improve our position right now, as players and as people." Follow up: "Did he have anything to say to you about your comments on Chad?" Karlos Dansby: "Nah. Not at all." Follow up: "Has anyone from the team said, 'Alright, you've said your peace, don't say anymore'?" Karlos Dansby: "Nah man, nah. That's just how I am. That's just how I am, the way I was raised, the way I was cut." YOU KNOW GREGG ROSENTHAL SAW THIS INTERVIEW because in that "UPDATE" he quotes the following: So to me, first off Rosenthal implies that Joe Philbin told Karlos Dansby that he should keep things in-house even though Rosenthal damn well saw Dansby specifically refute that. Then, to cap it off, he makes it seem like the above "organization" quote was in reference to Philbin's wanting things kept in-house, when in actuality the question that preceded the "organization" quote was the following: Reporter: "Do you think this sends a message from the team that they're not taking any nonsense?" Dansby: "That's any organization; any organization is not going to stand for that. NFL period won't stand for it. The shield is what we are protecting at all times, so we just got to man up and be accountable for our actions." And for the record, that exchange happened BEFORE the later questions about whether Philbin or anyone on the team talked to Dansby about his radio comments. So when the reporter says "this", he is obviously talking about Chad Johnson's dismissal, not any conversation Philbin and Dansby had. It's just so freaking blatant and knowing...and disappointing. My opinion of Gregg Rosenthal just lowered. That's the reality. I didn't have a low opinion of him before but now I'm going to remember him for this, fair or not. That's the sad part.
Not all that surprising...sports media takes things out of context and puts words in people's mouths constantly...Agreed though that is bull****.
I still contend that Dansby needs to be concerned with how Blount truck sticked him Friday night, and how he appeared to lose containment a time or 2.
Never said national media was different...were talking about sports right now so I said sports media...I can edit it to just media if you'd like? lol
Who says he isn't? I get that you think he's overpaid, but that isn't his fault. What was he supposed to do say "You know I don't think I deserve that money."
In all fairness to Dansby, Blount isn't exactly Chris Johnson, Darren Sproles, or Dexter McCluster if you get what I mean. On topic, it is disappointing that the NFL allows that kind of journalism to be published on their site. I'd expect that from other media outlets, but not NFL.com.
Yeah, well I empathize. I started a stink about Dansby without knowing all the facts. Although, Rosenthal, it appears, DID know the facts and chose to misrepresent them. Are there media awards for worst job? If not there should be. I'd watch that awards show.
Should depend on the gap. But I haven't studied any of Coyles defensive sets. He looked subpar in limited action Friday...therefore why not worry about himself instead of a WR.
By the way, don't let it piss you off. Save that for important things like a stripper only dancing for half your song.
And that's my point. Everyone can make a mistake. Hell when I heard the Philbin said he'd rather keep things in-house I also assumed he must have told Dansby that when they were seen chatting at practice. But if you see Dansby's interview and you see him specifically refute that, how do you roll with it and just conveniently leave that out? And how do you go one and use another completely contextless quote to make it look like Dansby confirmed the conversation? SHODDY.
yeah, I'm a little surprised that Philbin didn't address it in his talk with Dansby. But I suppose you have to think that he kind of got the message indirectly with the media asking him about it afterwards? And that Dansby is now thinking back to his on field conversation with Philbin... With Philbin saying lets focus on getting better on the field etc. etc. it's one of those implied messages. How often does Philbin talk to Dansby during practice like that? Coach wants to move on... I think everybody in the locker room does as well.
I have somewhat of a problem with Philbin potentially sending mixed messages when he tells the press he'd prefer that kept in house but doesn't say that to Dansby. He needs to hear it from the coach directly. As I said after the first Hard Knocks, if this thing with Philbin goes down hill, his non-confrontationalism and mixed messages with players will be cited frequently as a reason.
You mean like the 90's when Woody Paige blatantly lifted an entire Super Bowl puff piece from Dan LeBatard? LOL. I dunno man. I don't know if this out of context thing is new or old or what but I don't like it.
lol, no. Back in the 70's and 80's when virtually every article or piece had to go through an editor and often a fact checker, no?
I believe it all still does...just the standards have lowered as content and speed to market have increased.
A reputable organization should start at the very least a year end list of horrible reporting jobs by media types. Too often media types are allowed to post garbage because of its revenue generating impact. The list should include singling out of the most egregious violators of journalistic integrity. Hopefully due to their names being dragged through the mud with cause, people will stop reading their work and there will be actual consequences for poor journalism. NFL Network/NFL.com would have to hire 85% new staff. Bye Jamie Dukes, Warren Sapp, Rosenthal, Rank, etc.
.... and CBS's Mike Florio. I haven't seen an article that guy doesn't slant based on the direction he wants it to go.
The narratives are already written long before staff are even spoken to and facts gathered. It's just the way it is, and hiw hese cats choose to go about earning their living.
I hate the media nowadays... the decisions by teams are based on the team itself and not if it is a good idea or a bad idea. For example when Randy Moss signed with 49ers all I read everywhere is how good that team was going to be. The Dolphins get 85 and all I read are articles asking why they did this, and that he is washed up, and that he will fail in the league. 85 had one quiet year, Moss was in 3 teams in a year, then wasn't in the league for a year. Also when Chad first got arrested all I read were people saying that he should be cut, and it should be a no brainer. The Dolphins do just that and now every article is questioning there decision. WHAT DO THEY EXPECT THE TEAM TO DO?!?!
If this thing pisses you off, please, please do not read any political media. Your head would asplode.
Unfortunately, that is where all the media digging, and digging, and digging for more began - in the political arena - and specifically in the media frenzy surrounding Watergate. A lot of coin was made in that circus - and it set the stage for the media to manipulate things once they found they had the power in generations hence - and with the advent of the internet - it is not only the media who have instantaneous access to a world wide market, but everyone else with a keyboard and an opinion, hint, guess, fairy tale or sea story to propogate. And poliitcal writing is mostly sea stories with even less a hint of truth and more skullduggery.
Thats why you should take everything with a grain of salt. Believe what you want and don't worry about what you dont believe in. There's a lot of things that we dont see, we assume, then we *****.
Hell I was surprised to see Chad was arrested before 10 pm on Saturday night. Way back when it was Dolphin Digest for me. That thing would be in my mailbox.
I was thinking about this issue this morning when I read the Palm Beach Post report on the release of Chad. Ben Volin's piece was headlined Cutting Chad an Easy Decision and backed that up with this quote "With any of these decisions, it is not an easy one and not reactive, nor was it based on one single incident," ... except it was actually quoted thusly "It was not reactive, nor was it based on one single incident". That is to say, he cut the very words from the statement that disproved the point he wanted to make in the report to make it fit. I was reading this in the UK at about 8am so it was, what, 3am in the US. I'm not sure when it was actually posted but when I went to find it again to post the link here it had been removed from the site. I wonder whether that's following feedback on the erroneous nature of the report?
