Last night on Twitter, I had an interesting, and very civil Patriots discussion with among others, Albert Breer, ( @albertbreer ) Greg Bedard ( @GregABedard )  and Chris Gasper ( @cgasper).

The discussion started with talk about the Patriots cutting more disappointing draft picks. Breer claimed that he never bought into the hype about players like Brandon Tate and Darius Butler, and produced some past blog posts to back up his claim.

Talk then shifted to this “hype” that is allegedly created around certain Patriots players, and how he never buys into it. I inquired about where this hype comes from – the organization, or perhaps from media looking to get in good with the team. Breer really didn’t want to get into this and instead made this statement:

[blackbirdpie id=”111217432173084672″]

Naturally, with a statement like that, I really want more information. Some specifics. They weren’t forthcoming. Bedard noted to Breer that it was like he never left New England, and Breer replied:

[blackbirdpie id=”111241143416651776″]

Again, I really wanted more information on this, but Breer didn’t want to tell tales out of school, which I can understand to a degree. I did get a little chuckle when Bedard chimed in with:

[blackbirdpie id=”111248340913635328″]

But I’m still interested in how Breer (and others, apparently) feel that the Patriots “control” the media. I can see plainly how they control the message that goes out to the media, they do that better than any other organization, and I understand why they do it. What they give out in press conferences and releases is minimal at best.

But how do they control the media? Are they placing secret phone calls to “their people” in the media to hype or disparage certain players? Is Glenn Ordway given a list of specific talking points, telling him to declare Taylor Price as the next Jerry Rice?

Patriots cynics, here’s your chance, tell us how the team controls the media here in New England. Be specific. Give examples if you can. Tell us who is in the team’s pocket and why.

How do the Patriots control the media?

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “How Do The Patriots “Control The Media?”

  1. They don't. Breer skulked away from that one when challenged. Like any good media member, he couldn't support his claims and moved the goalposts. I suspect this will get him at least 3-4 more paid weekly radio and TV appearances.

  2. If by control, Breer means "limits access" then he's wrong in a reasonable way. The Pats give the legal minimum of access to players and coaches according to NFL rules, and almost all Pats players uncannily mimic Belichick's thoughts when asked questions. Of course, that's easier for them.
    BUT, that's no different than the situation for reporters covering oh, about 29 of the other 31 NFL teams. They're all like that. Reporting on an NFL team requires the water-on-rock approach. It's a lot of effort and time for a slow trickle of non-public information. But it can be done.
    If by control Breer means the Pats reward some reporters with information and punish others, I can only say I saw no evidence of that when I was covering the team, and I'd be shocked if Belichick game enough of a damn about how the team is covered to do it.

    1. This perception is a large problem amongst the local media Michael. How often do you hear someone like Felger say that someone else is in Belichick/the Red Sox/whoever's pocket and they, and they alone are the independent voice of reason. If a reporter gets scoops from a source like Belichick, then he's a toadie or a fanboy. Felger calls Mike Reiss the 5th Kraft son because he dares to play it straight, report the facts, ask interesting questions and stay out of the "look at me" circle Felger, Breer and others have grown so accustomed to as being important.

      I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume Belichick might give scoops to people he thinks are worthy. It just so happens that those people aren't the type of people who complain about not having things handed to them. The Cafardo types who beg off the Patriots beat because they have to work to get information instead of having it spoonfed to them.

      Of course, the same folks who criticize those who outscoop them also spend half their days retweeting facts reported by people like Adam Schefter who are actually out there doing some work.

      1. Dear Unruly: I have written on my blog and I believe at the Herald that the best way to elict information from Belichick is to figure out how to frame your question as a football theory question and then use deductive reasoning to infer how his answer applies to the specific issue involving the Pats you wish to write about.
        I realize deductive reasoning is an increasingly rare element of all journalism.

  3. Frankly, this sounds like more media crying and whining to me. These guys are like little children. If THEY don't get everything THEY want they stomp their feet. Funny thing is, being a diehard Patriots fanatic,as a fan I couldn't CARE LESS. It's all about GAMEDAY to me, I'll find out everything I need to know injuries..etc..then……The only reason I would need injury info ahead of time is if I were BETTING on the game, and other than a few small pools I don't, so I don't give a crap……(I love how sometimes these guys try to turn it around and say THE FANS are being shortchanged because they don't give out alot of info…..no, just the BETTORS are)

  4. In an Obi-Wan voice, while waving hand in front of beat writers face, "These ARE NOT the draft picks you are looking foooooorr…"

    That is how Stacy James, The Hoodie, and co do it.

  5. Weren't the Patriots finalists for some sort of media cooperation award this past year?

    Shalize Manza Young comes closest to their "secret" in explaining they tend to make things difficult for lazy reporters. BB thinks everyone should work hard at their job, including the press. Can't fault him for that even though many local press despise him for it. It's hard to have energy when you down six donuts and a gallon of Dunkin Express every day.

    Every team takes on the personality of its coach – with the Jets being the worst example. Breer didn't like the BB approach so took the first gig out of town – few I think miss him. When he was here he reminded me of a weasel.

    I drink Belichick's Kool-Aid and am proud of it. The press wants the easy story – this weekend they were talking a ton about the possibility of Moss returning but fans like me just want a team/organization that is consistently put in a position to win – boring stuff for the print media and radio waves but there were plenty of great stories about the Pats in the 90's and well it wasn't fulfilling.

    The key to the Pats controlling the media? If you work hard you'll find the story, if you want a sound-bite so you can hurry back to the buffet table then be a Ryan groupie.

  6. I still have to laugh at certain media members' complaints about the Patriots. Belichick's coaching mentor, the Great and Powerful Tuna himself, used to treat reporters like pond scum during his press conferences. He would berate and insult guys, on camera, if he felt they made a dumb statement or asked a dumb question. Belichick has never done that. But the media loved Parcells, because even though he was ripping them in public, he also was providing great theatre and great sound bites/quotes for them. That's Belichick's ultimate sin as far as they're concerned: he's not chatty (unless you ask him a legitimate football question) and he's boring to boot.

  7. I know a lot of people who contribute to this website are very sensitive to the perception of the pats and ANY negativity. If a reporter writes something negative there is a chance that they will be shut out of any information from the organization. It happened with John Tomase, it happened with Borges, and I bet it happened to more. They are now black listed from breaking any stories, to the extreme where Tomase (seems like a very good guy and a good reported) is not even allowed to follow the pats anymore. Some of the information from John Clayton (ESPN), Chris Berman (ESPN), Mike Reiss (who I like very much, but doesnt he have an office at Gillette?), Phil Simms(CBS) breaking that story we overheard Welker is benched on the sidelines? really come on that was pathetic!, Karen Guregian, most people at at weei, the preseason cbs crew. All of this is how the media is controlled so if a hardworker like umm I dunno… Ian Rapoport comes out with a harsh column like say Borges would write, he would probably be black listed again and would not be allowed to break a scoop again.

    1. In Tomase's case it wasn't true…not one bit. That's why he's not covering the Pats anymore.

      Borges doesn't cover the team because his "inside source" (Drew Bledsoe) doesn't play for the team anymore.

      1. Oh, and I don't mind citizism of the Pats if it has some basis in fact.

        For instance, Tom Brady never had to "get on his knees and beg" for a contract. Felger came up with that one with absolutely no information other than what he came up with in his mind.

        But if you said the drafts that brought in players like Butler, Tate and Merrwether weren't very good and have hampered the team the last couple of years, I'd agree with you because, the facts are right there.

        It's when some media members have an anti-Pats agenda (Felger, Borges, et al) and then try to hide behind "objectivity" and "fact not opinion" that makes me either shut them out and react negatively towards them.

        1. Hey, I just like to call it like I see it. Now do we (the fans) get all of the info? No we get nothing, but bruce wants to say no one is in the pats bag. I think I gave like 10 examples. Now some reporters can occiasionally be critical, but the point is, there are some critics out there, but reporters are scared that the teams will shut them out, which would make it very difficult for that reporter to
          continue to be employeed.

          What I dont get is you say someone like felger is anti-patriot. I listen to him kill the pats drafting (06-08 3 players left, 2 of which are special teamers) and say BB and his team is still good enough to probably go 14-2 be a great reg. season team and probably get a bye. Now how is that anti patriot?

          1. You didn't give "like 10 examples" — you threw out a bunch of names, then made no connection between those names and steps/ways in which the Patriots "control" them or have them "in the bag". That's not an argument — it's a bunch of names. It's no more illuminating or incisive than me saying "here's the people who actually killed Nicole Simpson: Barry, Joe, Leon, Lester, Jon Papelbon, Sinbad, and Terrell Owens", then questioning why we're not reporting on the vast conspiracy to keep these guys out of prison.

            The Patriots are an elite franchise that's won consistently over more than a decade's worth of seasons, something that's nearly unprecedented in today's NFL. There aren't a lot of anti-Patriot articles being written because there isn't a lot they have done wrong. Yet somehow pointing out this fact in print means 'you're in the bag' or 'you're controlled' by the team. That's ridiculous. Please, please, PLEASE point to something legitimately controversial or questionable that the Patriots have done which was irrationally glossed over or ignored by the local media. Because if you can't do that, then don't say that the Pats "control" the media. "Control" means BAD STORIES NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, not "bad stories are only reported by some, and not all, of the reporters."

            Edit: And by the way — the preseason games are done by Kraft Sports. Those aren't independent CBS employees; they're employees of the team. Using them as one of your "examples" doesn't exactly fly.

          2. You get nothing? You get to watch a team go 14-2. What else do you want? What information could you possibly be missing that isn't available at your fingertips if you'd only take the 5 minutes to look for it?

            If you've been paying even a little bit of attention, there's ample negativity around this team and has been from the mainstream media for years. But they don't "blacklist" everyone. Tomase was pulled from the beat because he fabricated a story. Borges is a plagiarist and a known hater of anyone who won't kiss his behind. Do you read the drivel on Boston.com? Do you hear everyone being "very concerned" about every little thing this team does? There's no negativity? The Patriots are controlling the spin? You need only to look at the Shaughnessy puppet controlled by Lucchino to see how media control works. That doesn't happen in Foxboro.

          3. Are you serious? Felger and Mazz are not anti-Patriot? What color is the sky in your world? They lead the anti-Pats movement in the Boston media. Why, because gullible fools get pissed off and listen for hours waiting to hear what they'll say next, so they can scream at their radio. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
            And it's horribly ironic that Felger says that people are in the Patriots pocket. Go and check out who wrote the forward to his book that bombed. Oh yeah that was back when he used to say and write great things about the Pats. So fake.

        2. Oooo I didn’t know I had to explain every person I named to satisfy you. I do like how you don’t mention the one example I did usd simms in the playoffs. Like I said so sensitive, and f &m yea they hate the pats, 14-2 prediction that’s terrible. And trlr I know you didn’t say this but for the guy asking 14-2 what else do I want, well I want a super bowl nothing else matters, I guess a playoff win would be a good start. When my fav team has agruably the best qb of all time I want more superbowls when the team is favored to win.

          1. You're the worst kind of "fan." You feel entitled. You feel like you're owed a perfect season after they robbed you of it in 2007. Probably been following the team a grand total of five years. Despite not having a clue about how any of the responsibilities, schemes, or assignments of the players, you think you know better than the staff that has brought a perennial contender to a franchise that had never won a title before this century.

            You're not sensitive to criticism of the team because you never fully committed yourself to them. You have the gall to call others sensitive while yourself answering posts calling you out with "Oooo" like you're a teenage girl. You call it your "fav" team but love hearing F&M spend four hours a day bashing them while sprinkling in a "but I think they'll go 14-2" in there a couple times per show.

            You can go away now.

          2. OK, I apologize if I put an OOO in. But its nice to know you have me pegged 5 years of being a fan. But your right I am happy the pats finished 14-2 last year. I am satisfied, thats all I need a competitve team. I am satisfied with the draft classes of 06-08, I forgot The teams owes me a perfect season, because I said that? Oo wait I did not. (Opps did i offend you again with an O). Now when did I say BB was a bad coach? Or a bad Gm? or a bad President? Hes the best, but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything he does. That game plan against the Jets was spectatular, even Kraft said it sucked! You obvisouly do not have a problem with anything the pats do because as long as the team wins at least 10 games your happy. You must have thought the Bills in the early 90's were great, top team for many years. Same as the braves of the 90's lots of trips to playoffs, won less titles than they should.

          3. I have the ability to look objectively and if I am wrong I can admit it? But should I be happy with the pats playoff performances of recent years. I am not a fan to watch the team suck in the playoffs. I want to know what the team needs to do to win a Super Bowl, not finish with the 1 seed and lose in the first round. If the pats go 9-7 get a WC and win the SB thats better than 14-2 and 1 and done. What dont you get, titles or not good enough. Especially when your the favorite!!!

          4. I hate the Jets but I think they'll do really well this year. You can hate a team and still predict them to do well. If I said the Jets would be 2-14 just because I hate the team, my opinion would have no weight since they aren't likely to have the record.

            What don't you understand about that?

          5. That is true, I hate the Jets also and I dont agree with a lot of the ways they operate. The pats have been excellent over the last 10 years, but my whole point is they have struggled in the playoffs and all that matters are superbowls. And I enjoy listening to information about what needs to happen to get another SB or 2 while brady is still with the Pats. I do not enjoy people saying how great that pats are the last few years by going 14-2 and losing in playoffs. Thats not the goal!

          6. Yes. That's exactly how it happened. Patriots lose in playoffs, people here say, 'I'm still happy for them and all those regular season wins, when's the NFC game on?'

          7. Seriously, why are people happy with not winning a playoff game since 2007 and SB since 2004 when the team has one of the greatest coaches & QBs of all time? And they call me the worst kind of fan, the one thats demands the team I love to do its best to win a title every year. I guess im just a bad guy and a bad fan for not being satisified with 3 straight poor playoff games

          8. Take a second to read what you wrote dude. No Super Bowls in 7 years? The horror!

            Also, the fact that you think you can demand anything of the team cements your status as the kind of fan people should aspire not to be. Do you actually think they're not trying to win?

          9. This is also where reading comprehension can come in handy. Who's happy about not winning a playoff game in a few years? Name 1 person who's happy about that.

            What people are happy about is that the organization is a contender for the Super Bowl every single year, whether they win it or not. There have been 3 organizations in the NFL who have sustained excellence over the past decade, and the Patriots are one of them. You're damn right fans of this team are happy about that.

            What that doesn't mean is that every decision and every rare loss on the field needs to be treated like a federal crime.

          10. No, your whole point is that you think Bruce and others hate anyone who says even one negative thing about the Patriots. Which of course, couldn't be further from the truth or the point. Some people, like you, are negative for the sake of being negative. No real substance to the discussion points, just screeching from the rooftops about how ONLY SUPER BOWLS MATTER!

            I have no idea how you can claim to be a Patriots fan, sports fan or football fan and not enjoy what they did last season. Yes, it ended poorly. And no, no fans want that result. That doesn't mean it wasn't a successful or enjoyable season. Except to frontrunners and entitled pink hats.

          11. Did you hear what Brady said monday, 3 days ago on D & C. "Last year was a failure", did I enjoy last regular season? Yes but it was not good enough.

          12. You keep hanging on to that Dave, and we'll keep admiring you for being so tough minded. What these other guys don't understand that if we relax for even a second these guys will slough off and probably go 4-12. No, the only way we will get the Super Bowl we have coming to us is to continually berate their every move. That's way as they prepare they'll account for our demands.

    2. First off, ESPN became persona non grata in Foxboro the minute the untrue, unfounded words, "they hate their coach" spewed from the lips of Tom Jackson on the air in 2003. Fair or not, BB has never treated them the same way since. Can't say I really blame him. Borges has been attacking Belichick from Day 1. It has nothing to do with him writing anything negative and then being shut off. Borges also never really liked Parcells, to be fair, so maybe it's a Parcells-affiliation thing and that's the reason he doesn't like BB. It's personal with Borges, and it always has been; and HE started the feud, not BB. Tomase simply lied in print. Period. He printed a false, unfounded six-year old rumor and got away with it. He's lucky to still have a job; I feel no sympathy for him that he was "forced from the beat." Reiss worked for Patriots Football Weekly many years ago. I don't know if he has an office in Foxboro or not, though I highly doubt it in his current role. He has been critical of them, the difference being that his criticisms have been fair and based on rational analysis, and not an agenda. Ditto for Tom Curran.

      1. Quick point on BB and ESPN…BB likes Chris Berman a lot. So much so that I am pretty sure Berman has been invited to the Vineyard home in the past. As far as I know the real problem is between Tom Jackson and Bill Belichick not ESPN and Bill Belichick. The false perception that ESPN is feuding with BB was not helped by the presence of Sterling Sharpe because he hated the Pats and let anyone and everyone know it.

        1. Didn't realize he and Berman were tight. I'm sure ESPN didn't endear themselves too much to Belichick with their hysterical and sensationalist coverage of "Spygate," however. They were completely insane and oversensational about it, all the way through the day when Matt Walsh told Goodell in May of 2008 absolutely nothing that we didn't already know. But Schlereth, Wingo and Co. still went ballistic on the air after viewing those grainy tapes that Walsh turned over–tapes that showed nothing we didn't already know. That didn't stop the ESPN crew from hyperventilating about it on the air for 3 solid hours, however.

          1. I look at Schlereth the same way I look at Sterling Sharpe…ex-player with axe to grind. I think Belichick recognizes their place in the food chain. I don't think the schrill emanating from them even during the “spygate” fiasco really effected him. The Tom Jackson comments did because they were personal. Belichick knew there was no truth to the spygate stuff so he probably wrote off the media firestorm as publicity and not much more. I do think Bill Belichick understands ESPN's place in helping promote sports as a life style in general and football specifically over the last 25 years.

    3. Yes, it's shocking that John Tomase, who took a shady, jilted former low-level Patriots video drone's word that "he had something" and used it as the sole basis to accuse the team of deliberate and premeditated cheating in a major article right before a Super Bowl appearance, was "shut out" by the organization.

      Shocking.

    4. Tomase ran a one source uncorroborated article. The timing of the article was to have the greatest impact due to it being Superbowl weekend in the Pats quest for the perfect season. This was to garner the most glory for Tomase for “breaking the story”. Regardless of how nice a guy he is, he rolled the dice and lost. He favored getting the story out there rather than making sure it was correct. Poor judgment and a lack journalistic ethics does not make for a good reporter. He got off easy in my mind.

  8. Actually, I suspect that Breer wants the old days back, when Bledsoe would give behind the scenes interviews to Ron Borges about what the Krafts had told him in private. They want more access, and access ALWAYS comes with a quid pro quo. When the time came, Borges supported Bledsoe agaisnt Belicheck, and basically destroyed his career and reputation as a result. And those were the Good Old Days.

    Commenter Tony makes a great point – Parcells was vicious with reporters who didn't do anything for him, all the while giving back-door material to the likes of Peter King. Remember when he attacked the guy from some small local paper? "Who asked that stupid question – what's your name?" He humiliated the guy in front of his peers deliberately. And these same reporters now call Belichick 'arrogant?'

  9. Bruce:
    I think the answer to your question is pretty simple. I think the acceptance of the answer to your question by the people who have written for the Boston Globe and a select few others is where this gets really interesting.

    The Patriots certainly control the information they make available. All questions about football are supposed to go through Bill Belichick or Stacey James who does not say anything without checking with Bill Belichick. The assistant coaches are off limits except on the designated days that the NFL mandates someone besides the HC are to be made available. The players all control what they say else they are removed.

    The problem comes when an organization like the Globe remembers how it used to be under Pete Carroll. Players speaking off and on the record. Assistant coaches stabbing their HC in the back. The GM, Bobby Grier, was also always willing to point out where the blame should be. I am not defending Pete Carroll, he had his favorites and could not keep his mouth shut.

    Enter Bill Belichick. He stopped all the back stabbing, unofficial communications and illegitimate information. As others have said…he made being a beat writer harder because he made it all about the football and not the soap opera. Some guys like Nick Cafardo and Bert Breer could not hack it. They were unwilling to look for creative stories, or accept Bill Belichick at face value. (*point of order both Cafardo and Breer worked for the Globe). Some thrived, like Mike Reiss (who left the Globe rather than be sucked in) or Tom E. Curran or Ian Rappaport.

    When I hear a person like Bert Breer complaining about the flow of info out of Foxboro it tells me he is in the wrong job or he is not listening. Look at the Albert Haynesworth story. Haynesworth gets signed and practices once. During that practice he was a beast…no one could stop him. Then he disappears. Speculation starts…"Haynesworth is poison" "Haynesworth is not coachable", "Haynesworth is out of shape and not willing to work,", and my favorite "Haynesworth will be cut before camp to make an example for the other players". While all this is going on…the good reporters were saying "The pats saw all they needed out of Haynesworth in one practice, he has been very diligent in the classroom, we think they are privately working to get him into football shape without having to embarrass him…he is very much in the picture and on this team". Now did two different reporters look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions or did one look at the facts and report, while the other looked at the facts and twisted them to fit what he wanted to BELIEVE?

    1. The Haynesworth story has played out exactly like the Moss entrance to New England did.

      Remember when the nitwits said Moss was going to be cut before the first regular season game?

      And did that also not happen with Haynesworth and Ocho a couple of weeks ago as well?

  10. Bruce,
    I think you just need to give Breer a pass, he is still peeing in his pants from Belichick glaring at him from the Haynesworth questions. I was actually waiting for Belichick to ask Breer "DO I STUTTER??". That would have been the icing on the cake. But seriously, Breer's reporting has become clearly negative since he left town a few years back. So tell us Albert, were you being controlled THEN? Ot is this a recent turn? Which is it. All I know it I used I used to enjoy Breer's columns much more back when he was a reporter, before he decided he could make value judgements. I love all the amateur scouts masquerading as reporters.

  11. LFD nails it.

    1. Shaughnessy hates them because of an invite to a breakfast that never came.
    2. Borges calls BB duplicitous pond scum before press conference 1.
    3. Auntie Shalise's t-ball scheduled is being interrupted by the lockout being rescheduled.
    4. Albert Breer is dumber than most of the plants he was standing next to in hotel lobbies up and down the eastern seaboard all spring and early summer.

    Why would you want to control the message?

    1. One quick correction….it was Kevin Mannix who called Belichick duplicitous pond scum. Borges had it in for Belichick the moment he removed Bledsoe…because veterans can never lose job because of an injury *eye roll*.

  12. One final note on the "office at Gillette" idea. In my increasingly bygone day, but I'd be surprised if it had changed, the large media outlets that covered the Pats, Globe, Herald, ProJo, AP, etc., ALL had private offices (just rooms with a door, actually) in the Gillette press room area. ESPN is a large media outlet, or so they're always telling us.

    1. To add to this point…the fact that a media outlet has space at the stadium is more of a reflection on what the team sees as a reasonable marketing tradeoff. They give the media ease of use/space and in return they get free news coverage. There is no quid pro quo that the team has to be treated a certain way until a reporter or a media outlet cognizantly decides to do something deceitful (Tomase), hurtful (Borges) or just plain stupid (Tom Jackson).

  13. The point you're missing, Bruce, is that Breer made a comparative statement. He's become an NFL Network guy, a nationally recognized and respected voice of the entire league. He's saying that the Patriots operate differently than the rest, and I think in this market we miss that because we're not immersed in those other teams. So I'll take Bert's word for it on the assumption that he knows more about how the relationship between the team and media in other markets than we do.

    1. WHy would you take Breer's word on anything? What has he done to prove that he knows what he is talking about? Is it because Breer works for the NFL network so you conclude he must have a national reputation and therefore must know what he is talking about? Likewise because 31 other teams do things differently the Patriots must be wrong? To paraphrase Sam Axe from Burn Notice "You know national beat writers they are like whiny little girls". I think Breer expects to flash his NFL Net credentials and then have every idiotic question answered and every door opened for him. He is lazy and stupid, how you can think he is nationally respected is beyond me. This website has quite thoroughly documented how national guys haven't a clue to the inner workings of the Boston Sports franchises…when Breer was on the Pats beat he didn't get it…why do you think he magically knows stuff now?

  14. I don't have much else to add today because I would just be re"tweeting" what others had always used. However I agree with A PIMP, LTD, etc and laugh at posts like "Dave." This has been a glorious day to read at BSMW, god i love this site!

  15. Off subject, but WEEI will attempt to control the media at 8:00am tomorrow morning when D&C announce the station will be simulcasting on 93.7FM starting Monday (reported by Chad Finn on boston.com). Likely not a coincidence EEI wants to try and upstage the Pats' season opener.

  16. I am pretty baffled how Breer thinks the Patriots are controlling the media. The article he uses as an example does not have any evidence that the Patriots are doing any controlling. If Breer is going to make a claim like that on Twitter, then he better have some proof to back it up. You can't say, "I'm not going to get into that. But there's no team in the NFL that does more to control the media than that one." For any of you who follow college football, it's like Danny Sheridan knowing who paid off Cam Newton's father then going on the Paul Finebaum Show and saying I can't tell. It does not wash and makes Breer a total fraud.

  17. Remember that the Patriots are a business. They make a profit by operating and marketing an NFL football team. Any business (or team) will try to put a positive spin on their franchise (marketing) in order to enhance their image. A reporters job is to roll up his sleeves and separate the wheat from the chaff. Some do it better than others. Some just complain they are being controlled. Albert Breer is the later. BTW, I wonder if Breer thinks THE Ohio State University controlled the media during the Tressell fiasco? Just asking.

  18. Breer, Bedard, Gasper all didn't say the obvious: We're not as good covering the Pats as Mike Reiss and Ian Rappaport, so instead we'll cry about it.

  19. Tired of reporters trying to "be the story"
    Mike Reiss is a good example of how it should be done. Fair and balanced.

    1. We all like Reiss a lot but he is not the first nor will he be the last. Bob Ryan has been doing it the right way for 40 years. Sean McAdam, Billy Reynolds, Fluto Shinzawa, Jackie MacMullen, Tom E Curran, Ian Rappoport, Joe MacDonald, Peter Gammons (for the most part) are just a few who have made reporting more important than being having people "look at me". On the national scene guys like Rich Gosselin, Ron Jaworski, Chris Collinsworth, Tom Verducci, just to name a few do a good job at making sure they do not become part of the story. They are out there…the problem is too many less talented/lazy reporters decide to take the easy way out…create controversy by becoming part of the story and then ride the negative publicity to a larger audience. Because they are less talented it becomes a vicious circle, they have to continue with their "look at me" approach because without it no one would read them.

Comments are closed.