Once again the point is being missed completely by many of the so-called defenders of Carlson/journalism.....
This kid may very well be a whimp, he may very well be a momma's boy and it is clearly our job as columnists and even beat reporters to point this out -- that this is the reason he was benched.....
However, if we are going to go that route, we must make sure all of our "I's" are dotted and our "T's" are crossed so to speak so it is very clear that we are (a) not talking out of our ash, (b) not attacking athletes for the sake of trying to make a big splash and (c) not lazy ashes who are taking half-baked theories and running with them.
And unfortunately, Carlson did absolutely none of that, her column was horseship crap that barely rose above the level of writing in a college newspaper and because she relied so heavily on "rumblings, rumors and speculation" it came off as a lazy effort and it deserved the "two-cannons blazing" treatment it received from both the coach and people like Whitlock.
The facts MAY have been correct, but you'd never know by reading that crap because none of the "facts" were in the column, just a poorly crafted bunch of drivel that came off more like a personal vendetta than a well-crafted column.
And then credibility comes into play after the fact when we come to find out Carlson didn't even "observe" -- another word she used several times -- the chicken incident which she builds her premise on (yet in reading the lede, you sure get the impression she was there and saw it all.)
The written word is very powerful, it means something and when it is poorly used, it can cause far more harm than good. The issue isn't whether we should rip athletes or coaches -- we should -- the issue is how it is done and in this case it was a horse ship effort and the kind of crap that undermines all of our credibility.