1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SF_Express, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. creamora

    creamora Member

    Kindred and Ragu,

    That is part of the problem with the Chronicle. Yes, Rains is a "hired gun", but that makes it even worse for the Chronicle because they knew the truth about Ellerman being the leaker of the transcripts and they still promoted Rains' rants to look in other directions. Nobody except Ellerman has been reported to have leaked the transcripts to the Chronicle, period. Many types of evidence have been leaked and likely from both sides. What we do know is that so far the only actual GJ transcript leaks came from Ellerman and nothing has ever been reported to the contrary. Other newspapers did not know who leaked the transcripts, so they are not in the same boat as the Chronicle as far as promoting Rains' rants.

    creamora
     
  2. creamora

    creamora Member

    Ragu says, "It's not the way it SHOULD work." Says who, you? That's your opinion and that's all it is. Others here have a right to have an opinion was well. The case is far from over and it's likely to have more twists and turn. Your opinion is certainly not the gold standard as you often present it to be. Let's simply agree to disagree regarding whether to just focus on the "big picture" or go after "more details" that may be important. You would like to divert the attention away from the questionable behavior of the Chronicle reporters and I would like to put their feet to the fire and find out a bit more before I make a final decision as to whether they are good guys or bad buys. I'm still open, but I would like some more answers, period.

    creamora
     
  3. creamora

    creamora Member

    Ragu says, "You give us those posts under the guise of truth, but the thing you refuse to talk about is the truth."

    That's because I'm still in search of the truth and you think you already know the truth. All you've really got is your strong opinion that may or may not be right. You don't know the complete truth and neither does anybody else at this point. There is a lot that we still don't know. Stop trying to prevent people from asking the tough questions. I thought that was supposed to be the responsibility of a good journalist. Is it not?

    creamora
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Yup. My opinion is my just one man's humble opinion. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I am hanging my hat on two pretty tangible things: 1) The importance of a reporters' ability to protect his sources (and what a giant principle--again my opinion--that is for the well-being of my country), and 2) The quality of Williams and F-W's work.

    And that doesn't seem all that stubborn to me. I'm not that hard to figure out on this. That approach seems far more reasonable than a bevy of "more twist and turns to come" posts.

    They established their commitment to 1, and showed a willingness to go to jail because of their integrity. They are now putting up with an assault from people like you over it. As for 2, there's less "opinion" involved. They did their work, and despite detractors like you, no one has effectively been able to say, "They got it wrong!"

    I wasn't born with a man-crush for those guys or their work. I'm a reasonable person persuaded by reasonable things. They did a good job of laying out a story and I was persuaded by the evidence they gathered. If they were wrong, I'm waiting for the people involved to prove it as effectively as the reporters did. I'm certainly open-minded about it.

    What I've seen from you are vagaries. I'm really not as stubborn as you think. Just as I had no reason to automatically accept Williams and F-W's work on anything but its merits, I'll consider those twists and turns you are talking about--if they exist, and if they ever come to light. But it's sort of a weird argument for you to make here and believe is persuasive. I can turn this into a UFO thread. If people don't have a clue what I'm talking about, it doesn't make then close minded or stubborn.

    In the absence of these vague twists and turns, and the absence of any evidence of the myriad of speculative allegations of wrongdoing (a new one every day from you, and most just outlandish, because you don't have a clue who their sources were) by the reporters, give me something tangible to work with. What do we know that should make me think Game of Shadows got it wrong? Not minutia. Something persuasive. What about the character those reporters have displayed should make me think anyone pointing fingers at them right now--and calling them liars or criminals--has any justification? I see it the opposite wayfrom you. Given the quality of their work and the integrity they have shown over the principle that is at stake, they've got more credibility today with me than they did the day the book came out, when anyone involved was free to set the record straight and prove their work false.
     
  5. Ragu --
    Do you need to call a 24-second yet?
     
  6. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Ragu--You are going to blow out a keyboard on these posts. ;)

    Look, this is a story that may lose steam among the general public (if there was any steam to begin with), but people in the business are going to wonder and wrestle with it for a long time.

    Seems safe to assume that creamora has a lot of answers (and perhaps an agenda) that he (or she?) just isn't willing to share. But clearly, this is one of the more knowledgeable people on this thread, and I wish I knew how to access some of that insight.
     
  7. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    I used to care, now I only want to see Ragu and Creamora fight.
    Some kind of steel cage match, or maybe mixed martial arts.
    Do some pay-per-view and make some money.
     
  8. creamora

    creamora Member

    JayFarrar,

    OK. I'll fight The Big Ragu, but only if he's willing to be tested for steroids.

    creamora
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I need some SERIOUS help if I have turned into "that guy." I may have to change my name to Mr. Chuckles. Or The Big Picture.

    And FB, the 24 sec. is more perfect than you realize. You're all seeing a side of me that I only occasionally display on here. It pretty much sums up how I am on a basketball court, though.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    cream, I'm willing to be tested. But only because 1) you won't test for HGH, 2) you can't test for what you don't know about, and 3) 21 assures me that the masking agents are full proof.

    Seriously, you don't have to test me. I'm clean. If I was using, I'd just tell you. I'm not much for making decisions and then lying about them.
     
  11. creamora

    creamora Member

    Let's get ready to rumble! Combat cage size? Bare knuckles? Weapons? Nude? When is the
    weigh-in?
     
  12. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Let's see, for one, Ragu spaghetti sauce is excellent. He's also self-described as no-meat eating, regular runner, who doesn't mind going toe-to-toe with burly construction type guys.
    So we can surmise that Ragu is healthy, physcially fit and fearless.
    Creamora has given no clues, outside of a willingness to fight nude, but is full of a certain amount of insider information on the steroids mess.
    Hmmm... if I was laying odds, I'd give the advantage to Ragu.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page