You may have heard this article talked about on the Dale & Holley show this morning, but I think it’s worthy of mention and discussion here as well.

Dan Pompei in the Chicago Tribune tells readers it is time to forget Spygate and remember how good that Bill Belichick really is. He tells us that while the black hat does fit Belichick well, he adds:

On the day before the most recent Super Bowl, the Boston Herald ran a story stating a member of the team’s video department taped the Rams’ final walk-through on the day before the 2002 Super Bowl.

Matt Walsh, the former video assistant for the Patriots who was negotiating with the league about information he claimed to have regarding the tapings, did not deny the allegation. And the controversy was fueled by grandstanding U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

With the way it’s starting to look, that black hat fits Specter, Walsh and the Herald better than it fits Belichick.

After issuing criticism of Walsh and Specter, he then has the following to say about the Boston Herald:

The Herald meanwhile, bit on a story that more responsible media outlets did not. The Herald was not the only outlet that had the information it printed Feb. 2, the day before the Super Bowl, but they were the only outlet that deemed the story solid enough to print.

It’s now starting to filter out that other media outlets got the same information that John Tomase did, but they didn’t run with it.

They’re not absolved of blame, however, because as we know, they all certainly jumped on the story and ran with it once the Herald published it. They no longer had to worry about whether the information was shoddy or not, they could just state “The Boston Herald reports that…” and go merrily along their way of speculating that the tape of the Rams walkthrough might be out there and what it could mean if Walsh turned it in to the league.

Pompei closes by saying “Belichick’s reputation won’t be sullied by this affair as much as the reputations of some others.”

“Some others” includes not only Walsh, Specter and the Herald, but most of the sports media at large.


7 thoughts on “Dan Pompei on Boston Herald, Spygate.

  1. Hear! Hear! The sports media cabal in Boston is WAY too big. Indeed, a career that requires nothing more than an interest in sports, free travel, and free food is bound to attract the, shall we say, ‘lesser talents’ on planet earth. So we have Wal-Mart door greeters disguised as TV anchors (hello, Butch Stearns); radio hosts (hello, John Dennis); and newspaper hacks (hello, John Tomase). Too many flies around too little garbage, so they all bang into each other. So, what to do? Invent stuff, embellish stuff, shout louder, and generally act like you know more than everyone else. That sort of MO gets people into trouble, as people like Borges et al now know…and Tomase soon will.


  2. One interesting sidelight. If, as Pompei states in his article, the Herald was not the only outlet that had the information it printed Feb. 2, the day before the Super Bowl, then the other media outlets know whether Walsh’s attorney is telling the truth when he claims that Walsh was not the Herald’s source. If that’s the case, then shouldn’t these other outlets tell us who their source was? The public has a right to know whether Walsh’s attorney is telling the truth or lying. Seems like the media knows the answer but isn’t disclosing it. Why?


  3. Felger spent all afternoon suggesting that there WAS a tape of the Rams walk-through, but somehow Walsh’s dog ate it or something. Sports reporters have to look up to see a used car salesman’s belly.


  4. And that is exactly why Felger has pretty much become a joke in the eyes and ears of most sports fans around here.

    His contarian, ratings driven view coupled with the Callahan type of cocksure, smarminess exemplifies all that is wrong with Boston media.

    They think they are the story and people really care what they think. I imagine Sirius subscriptions owe a dept of gratitude to Felger, Callahan and the rest of their media whores with inadequate microphones.

    By the way doesn’t this adjective define Felger??



    unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech; “buttery praise”; “gave him a fulsome introduction”; “an oily sycophantic press agent”; “oleaginous hypocrisy”; “smarmy self-importance”; “the unctuous Uriah Heep”; “soapy compliments


  5. Frank hits the nail on the head. Again. The sad thing about Felger is that at one time he was one of the best at debunking the popular line and taking on the cows he now grazes with. Brady-Bledsoe, he was one of the few that nailed it early on and predicted success for the Belichick regime. He took shots from McAdam over Garciaparra, (the Mr. Baseball crack) and again was proven correct. He then took a verbal thrashing from Peter Gammons over Manny, resulting in great soundbites followed by a weak mea culpa from the Sleepy One when it was shown that he wrote a column months earlier that echoed Felger’s comments to the letter. He has crossed over to the Dark Side now, having learned at the feet of Ordway that it doesn’t pay to hold truth in high regard.


Comments are closed.