The Packers have had their share of bad press this year, starting with the hiring of MM himself. Then it was Favre, the inactivity in free agency, Favre, the inactivity in free agency, Walker, more FA inactivity, Driver, then Harris. Heck, the Driver story was made into a bigger deal by some than it should have been.
MM may not have the rep yet to control the media, but this was his first step towards that. Basically, he took a stand that publishing rumors and checking the facts later will not be ignored by the team. The media has had a free run at the Packers every since January. MM just told them enough was enough.
Maybe Harris did have multiple reasons for not being there, so what? Even if he did, publishing that he was boycotting because of dissatisfaction is nothing more than exagerating. Who knows what his primary reason was? Absent the other reasons, would he have boycotted just on his contract? That's what was implied.
Journalists used to have integrity and pride. Now all they want is to be first with a big story. Doesn't matter if they are wrong 10 times, so long as the get the "biggie" once. I used to believe what was in the paper, what the "talking heads" reported. When did Cronkite, Brinckley, etc. get caught with an untrue story?
As I said before, all we have now are gossip columnists. Some of what they write turns out to be true, much of it is only half true, and some is blatantly false.
MM may not have the rep yet to control the media, but this was his first step towards that. Basically, he took a stand that publishing rumors and checking the facts later will not be ignored by the team. The media has had a free run at the Packers every since January. MM just told them enough was enough.
Maybe Harris did have multiple reasons for not being there, so what? Even if he did, publishing that he was boycotting because of dissatisfaction is nothing more than exagerating. Who knows what his primary reason was? Absent the other reasons, would he have boycotted just on his contract? That's what was implied.
Journalists used to have integrity and pride. Now all they want is to be first with a big story. Doesn't matter if they are wrong 10 times, so long as the get the "biggie" once. I used to believe what was in the paper, what the "talking heads" reported. When did Cronkite, Brinckley, etc. get caught with an untrue story?
As I said before, all we have now are gossip columnists. Some of what they write turns out to be true, much of it is only half true, and some is blatantly false.



Comment