« Michael Barrett Interview | Main | Schilling To Reach Free Agency »

Does This Paper Have Editors?

Paul Hagen of the Philadelphia Daily News continues to run wild with misinformation regarding the Phillies' offer of Aaron Rowand for Scott Linebrink.  I've been watching this one from the start; it's just strange.  Hagen insists on belittling this particular Buster Olney rumor and Internet reporting in general; he already took a shot on February 1st.

Today, he leads with these unflattering remarks:

"Rumors are cheap and plentiful during the offseason. Anybody with a vivid imagination and access to a computer can launch a blind item that will circle the globe in seconds and circulate for weeks.  At first glance, then, the Internet whisper that the Phillies had offered centerfielder Aaron Rowand to the Padres for righthanded setup reliever Scott Linebrink seemed far-fetched."

To which Olney responded today:

"To clarify, it was not an Internet rumor, ever. It was written, originally, as something that was discussed between the two teams."

When is Hagen going to print a correction?  I think he owes Olney an apology, though Buster is handling it with class.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does This Paper Have Editors?:


That the MSM is so threatened by bloggers and the inter-tubes in general is comical. I mean, really, it's junk like this by Hagen that underscores not only their fear, but shines a lot on their incompetence as well.

After all, there's a reason I no longer suckle at the teat of the MSM: credibility, or lack thereof.

From seeing Hagen on TV numerous times over the years, he seems rather level-headed and benign, so I tend to think his views on the matter just aren't coming across right.

Plus, trading Rowand really is a crazy move for the Phillies at this point as there is not a lot of outfield depth.

I'd say you cut off the excerpt at the wrong point, just a sentence or two later Hagen says that this rumor proved to be true.

What bothers me about it is the folks in the MSM are just as guilty of spreading rumors as anyone. Everytime a scribe writes "If Team A feels inclined, they could trade Player X to Team B", it starts a brushfire that has no basis, its all speculation.

Well, he has acknowledged numerous times in the past that the rumor proved legitimate. Why continue to go on about these unreliable internet rumors? What is the point of it?

And of all the people to go after why Buster Olney?? One of the more reputable, well-spoken writers on said internet. How many people do you think read his blog, a trillion or so ??

I think you might be misterpreting it. I take it as saying "You know a lot more stuff gets written on the internet than in print, and here's a rumor that was out there that seemed not to make sense, but lo and behold, it was true."

I don't think he's necessarily attacking the internet.

The one thing that sucks about living in South Jersey....

.... the Philadelphia media.

^^^ and the pineys.....and finding syringes at the beach.

".and finding syringes at the beach"

You know you brought those syringes with you.....just like everybody else ...you come to use our beaches and then you leave your trash. And, we our south of New York.

Does this blog have editors? In your haste to defend internet rumormills, you've completely misread, or just not fully read, the actual content of Hagen's article. Internet sports rumor sites are great, but abuse of the tempting freedom to editorialize seems to be a common affliction that often hinders and delays any potential gains in credibility that such sites might otherwise enjoy. Thus, the best sources of information, for now, are still those working for ESPN or reputable magazines/newspapers, i.e., Olney.

1. I know you asked tongue in cheek, but I don't have editors.

2. I fully read the entire article about 3 times. I didn't misinterpret anything.

3. ESPN's writers don't supply opinions? I kind of missed that. If you are limiting yourself to the mainstream, you are missing out on the more interesting opinions.

What's more, Hagen's shot was unknowingly toward Olney, who fits into your reputable group.

1. no kidding
2. read it again
3. Who said ESPN writers don't supply opinions? I'm simply observing that while independent internet sports blogs and the like can often provide for entertaining opinions, they all too often go a little overboard. More traditional sources often prove more professional in their constraint and discretion. I'm certainly not limiting myself to the mainstream, as I am a regular reader of even your site, but I have a bone to pick with some of the excess editorializing, for example, take profootballtalk.com. That's a free plug for a great site, but the site is home to some of the more annoying editorials found online. To each his own, I guess. This is just one vote for a more balanced blogosphere.

p.s. I don't think Hagen was taking a shot at Olney, as stated by "bobo" and "Balls, Sticks, & Stuff." This was the very reason for my original post, which surely has now become even more annoying than the editorializing that I originally complained of.
p.p.s. So, I hear you're in the market for an editor?

Tell me what I said or seem to believe about Hagen's articles that is false.

Hagen admitting that this craaaaazy, far-fetched internet rumor turned out to be true doesn't mean he hasn't insulted Olney.

I think he is saying, "Internet rumors are crap, but somehow they got one right."

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.