Friday, January 18, 2013


This isn't a post about Shank, but when the subject of trust in the major media is discussed, I don't have any problem throwing another log on the fire.
It was back in November, before Notre Dame played Boston College, that I made my first-ever trip to South Bend, Ind., assigned to write about star linebacker Manti Te’o.

By that time, his story was well-known, featured in everything from the South Bend Tribune to Sports Illustrated. Te’o had lost his grandmother and his girlfriend within six hours of each other in September. He had played on, helped the Irish beat Michigan State, and made a moving tribute to the girl he said he loved.

Now, suddenly, we learn that she never existed. It was mind-blowing — all the more so because I had heard it from him directly.

So I read Deadspin. I read Twitter. I watched Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick explain the college’s side of the story. I yearned to hear from Te’o. And I couldn’t help but think about my role in all of this, as yet another complicit reporter who retold Te’o’s tale.
And that's the problem, isn't it?

Maybe next time Amalie remembers the old Russian proverb 'trust, but verify'.


ObjectiveBruce said...


A website that was formed because it doesn't like Shaughnessy raising issues about its heroes is now complaining that nobody asked enough questions about a hero.

But hypocrisy and blind hate are what this web site is all about.

By the way, how is the Great Schill doing in his effort to reinvent the media and go straight to the public by blogging all of his innermost thoughts. His latest posting is 17 months old.

It was titled "Why writers write, coaches coach, and players play."


Roger Bournival said...

I do not presume to speak for the original proprietor of this site, but I'lll state that your initial premise is incorrect, or (like many of your statements) misleading.

The general criticisms of Shank are 1) he is lazy, 2) petty, 3) vindictive, 4) repetitive / reuse of columns (that's why he doesn't write for CNN / SI anymore, take it from someone who knows), 5) a sloppy, unedited writer, and 6) relentlessly negative. I can't emphasize that last point enough, and I'm sure I'm probably leaving something out.

Bruce - I challenge you to show a single post of the approximate 1,100 since our inception where I, or anyone else, took issue with a Shaughnessy column solely because he was 'raising issues' with someone. If said post includes language pertaining to, but not limited to, one of the six factors mentioned above, you fail the test.

That said, I fail to see the validity of your hypocrisy charge.

Here's a question for you, Mr. Copy Desk - do you think one of the tasks of a journalist is to independently verify facts and statements? Why, then, is my criticism invalid?

If pointing out the failure of the media to do its job, or criticizing Shank as noted above, are considered 'blind hate', I'll go out on a limb and call it projection. You, much like Shank, don't like the fact that non-professional journalists now have an outlet to respond to bad / innaccurate / non-verified stories and columns, and the world of print journalism has been slowly crumbling for the last fifteen years. In fact, that's why you took the buyout from the Globe in 2008, isn't it?

Nice try, but you really need to step up your game...

mike_b1 said...

If by "issues" you mean that David Ortiz is overweight, well, it certainly hasn't affected his ability to hit a baseball now, has it OB?

Speaking of angry, you sound particularly foul these days. Commonwealth not doing so hot?