As a follow-up to yesterday’s post – Fun With NFL Payrolls and Draft “Value”

From the Globe this morning:

Correction: Because of a reporting error, the ranking of the Patriots’ payroll among NFL teams was incorrect in a column about the Jets-Steelers game in Sunday’s Sports section. The NFL salary cap can be tabulated in different ways, but in three of the most-commonly acknowledged ones, the Patriots are ranked second, ninth, and 12th.

So did he just Google “NFL Payroll?”

15 thoughts on “Shaughnessy Column Corrected

  1. You posters and your blowhards from 'EEI never make mistakes. Glad to see your perfect too, Bruce.


    1. This is the latest in a seemingly never-ending string of examples of CHB being lazy. It isn't a lack of writing ability, it's a lack of caring about accuracy. Shank knows he doesn't have to bother with accuracy because his superiors obviously never call him on it. Because if they did, he wouldn't continue to be lazy about it.


      1. When a writer trots out references to other sports (read: the Red Sox) and Larry Bird in almost every column, yes, that IS a lack of writing ability.


      2. I still think it's more about his anti-Kraft and anti-Pats agenda than it is about anything else. He may not have been lazy; he may just have decided that he was going to find the "source" that confirmed his bias and go with whatever numbers that "source" presented, accurate or not; and then he hoped that nobody would look into it and call him on it (back when the CHB started in the business, there were no Internet watch-dogs to keep media hacks like him honest, so he could get away with that stuff a lot more often).

        Writers with an agenda don't usually worry about accuracy, because if they did, they wouldn't have agendas in the first place.


  2. What’s frustrating is that Shags will use the emails to the Globe correcting his profound mistakes as more evidence of his regular reference to Pats fans as having the “thinnest skin of any sports fans.”. Never occurs to him that correcting his regular corruption of the facts is not subjective.


  3. The issue as I see it is not that The CHB started out with a wrongheaded hypothesis, blew off the heavy lifting (aka research), and wrote a piece of shit column. After all, that's part for the course.

    Rather, it's that the Globe, with all its edit checks, did not manage to catch the error and spike the piece.

    Reminds me of Feb. 3, 2004, when The CHB wrote a column about putting Tom Brady on Boston's Mt. Rushmore, one day AFTER Karen Guregian wrote the same thing. Makes you wonder if the edit desk is intentionally letting things slide in hopes of embarrassing the Great Red-Haired-Afro One.


  4. This is obviously more of Shaughnessy's long time vendetta against the Krafts. I regard anything he writes about the Pats the same as anything Borges writes about Belichik. There is such a bias and lack of objectivity that there's no need to even read it.

    I've been listening to Borges on the Big Show this fall and I think he may be a bigger jerk than Felger. How can anyone stand being around him? I've heard them read something to him, that he wrote, and he claims that he never said it. I wasn't a listener before the Globe was banned. Was he always this bad?


Comments are closed.