I tend to not read the comments section of any online posting, whether it's on a blog or at the end of a newspaper article. Most are over-the-top, reactionary comments by anonymous folks who likely wouldn't be as willing to share their feelings in a public setting without that cloak of anonymity.
But I read the bottom of Danny O'Neil's post "Tim Ruskell on the way out" at the Seattle Times, because I was curious to see what the reaction would be to the news that Tim Ruskell was actually resigning.
"swab" from Olympia, Washington wrote the following: "I think all you reporters owe PFW an apology for scoffing at their report."
Respectfully "swab", no we don't.
The PFW report had no byline, so there's no one to actually apologize to. I suppose we could apologize to the entire staff at Pro Football Weekly, but I'm not so sure it's right to applaud a news organization that has such little confidence in the news it reports, that it's afraid to associate an actual reporter's name to it. More bluntly, if PFW is going to treat it's news items like a turd left in the toilet for some unsuspecting person to discover, it deserves to be treated like it.
What PFW posted was pansy journalism, and it was rightfully skewered by the media for it.
Besides, as Mike Sando of ESPN.com notes, Ruskell approached the Seahawks this week, after those reports, to discuss his status. When he didn't get the response he wanted to hear, he opted to resign.
If anything, PFW's report prompted the action, not reported on it, and if you trust the word of certain sportswriters who used to work for a daily newspaper in Seattle who now work for the Seahawks--which I do completely--Ruskell and Pro Football Weekly aren't exactly strangers.
So sorry, "swab", but PFW will get no apologies from me.
0 comments:
Post a Comment