Boston Herald Published Front Page Apology to Patriots

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1093898&srvc=home&position=0

Apology
Wednesday, May 14, 2008

On Feb. 2, 2008, the Boston Herald reported that a member of the New England Patriots ’ video staff taped the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. While the Boston Herald based its Feb. 2, 2008, report on sources that it believed to be credible, we now know that this report was false, and that no tape of the walkthrough ever existed.

Prior to the publication of its Feb. 2, 2008, article, the Boston Herald neither possessed nor viewed a tape of the Rams’ walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI, nor did we speak to anyone who had. We should not have published the allegation in the absence of firmer verification.

The Boston Herald regrets the damage done to the team by publication of the allegation, and sincerely apologizes to its readers and to the New England Patriots ’ owners, players, employees and fans for our error.

has done no damage to the reputation of the team and its Coach. He has taken care of that all by himself. And, apparently, its a slow news day in Boston.

Just throw that rule book in the fireplace and make everyone happy.

that is not to say that they weren't breaking the rules (they were) but there didn't really seem to be all that much gained.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/14/sports/NFL.php

the "thing" about the walkthru was rather trivial and a result of a newspaper error. I still offer a year of banishment for the team of league play. Then the Herald will have a story.

CBS Apologizes for Report on Bush Guard Service
By JIM RUTENBERG and KATE ZERNIKE

Published: September 21, 2004

After nearly two weeks at the center of a news media storm, Dan Rather and CBS News admitted yesterday that they could not authenticate four documents the network had used to raise new questions about President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service and said the news report had been a "mistake in judgment."

Network officials said a former Texas National Guard officer had misled their producers about how he obtained the documents, which came under scrutiny almost as soon as the network broadcast its report on the CBS Evening News and "60 Minutes" on Sept. 8. While CBS stopped short of calling the memos a fraud, it said it could not now say for certain where the documents came from.


"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report," said Andrew Heyward, the CBS News president. "We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

The network's admission tarnishes the reputation of what was once the nation's most prestigious broadcast news division. Just two weeks ago, its 72-year-old anchor seemed to have one of the biggest stories of the campaign, in the twilight of his career.

In fact, the Patriots incredulous statement reminds me very much of how team Bush reacted the the TANG story.

Patriots cheated for 7 years before being caught and got off easy.

18 tainted wins and ONE GIANT LOSS.

if not, surely the Pats could use him in their PR department.

Strip USC of its national title for using an ineligible player, ban them from all post season competition for 3 years.

CBS had documents in their possession and they couldn't authenticate them. They ran the story anyway, but at least they were in possession of what they believed to be proof, at the time.

The Herald admitted that they don't have a tape, they've never seen the tape, and they didn't talk to anyone who had the tape or had seen the tape. The MOST proof they would have is that one of their sources says they "know a guy" who says they have or have seen the tape, but the Herald didn't follow up and talk to that person before running the story.

Regardless of whether you think CBS should have apologized or not, how can you think the Herald was wrong to apologize?

Sorry if I can't gin up much sympathy for they're being wrongly accused in this one case when they have repeatedly lied about others.

journalistic integrity is another. Regardless of whether you're sympathetic to the Pats or not, the Herald ran a story and later admitted that they had NO evidence to support it, and none of their sources had any evidence to support it either. Shouldn't that warrant at least an apology?

And I think a retraction was in order.

were in play, would the original story have been published in the first place? I'm not familiar with the Herald, but a skeptic would suggest they may have written the original story so they could eventually publish an "apology." Suspend the Pats from playing in the 2008 season and let the Herald report on that for the next year.

I can't think of any reason a newspaper or a reporter would do this. Is a temporary PR bump for the Pats (that will be forgotten in a few days) worth it? If one's goal is to benefit the Pats, is suggesting that the Pats taped a Rams walk through only to later apologize by admitting that you can't prove any of it much of a benefit? It plants the idea that the tape does exist and keeps the story alive long after most news organizations would have stopped talking about it. It destroys the credibility of the newspaper (or AT LEAST of the sports desk) to admit that you handled a story in such a way. It pissed off a lot of readers when first reported on the day before the Superbowl. Though some did stand up for the paper as "the truth coming out" but the apology pissed off that group when they found that they've been defending the Herald for the last few months to their friends when they talk about the story. It will hurt circulation for no appreciable long-term benefit to the Pats, and arguably could have done more damage with the story than it helped with the apology. The Herald F'd themselves and their sports section will become the laughing-stock in a market where sports reporting/sports talk is a big business. I have no idea what affect it will have on non-sports fans, but I can't imagine it would benefit them in any way. John Tomase will soon find that he's Boston's version of Jayson Blair.

As for canceling the Pats 2008 season, it will never happen. The NFL is not going to completely rewrite its 2008 schedule, reimburse networks and advertisers, and deal with players union issues that result all to punish a team and it's city for the actions of it's coach (or coaching staff). Though I agree that it would deter this type of activity, it's overkill and not necessary to get their message across.

On edit:
As far a journalistic integrity goes, I agree, if they Herald had any, they wouldn't have run the story in the first place. However, if one expects journalistic integrity from news outlets, then one should also expect to see this apology.

Should we do the right thing? And piss off advertisers? No way! Hey its almost as if billicheat knew the outcome.

SIT THE PATS DOWN FOR A YEAR OR THROW AWAY THE YEAR BOOK. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T DO ONE, THE OTHER DON'T MATTER.

There is a degree here. If my Eagles were involved I'd be much more irate about doing the right thing. Obviously thats not an issue in Boston. No dout WILL PITT can address this issue. Hey if the Pats are winning FUCK RIGHT AND WRONG.

and anything else is the wrong thing? Is the purpose of the punishment to punish those responsible and deter this from happening in the future, or is the purpose to make the Pats sit out a year, no matter who else gets punished as well, to satisfy someone's sense of vengeance?

I can't stand the NCAA but I gotta admit, if you break the rules they'll slap the shit out of you. What the Pat's got for cheating was a joke. 500 grand and a draft pick. I don't think a years banishment is the answer, cause it aint the fans who cheated---but I think losing your first 3 picks and a 2 million dollar fine would have been just fine.

They broke the filming rule over and over and over again and Coach Bill's excuse is, uhhhhh, didn't know I couldn't do that. Bullshit.

Them losing in the Super Bowl was sweet justice in mho.

but banishment (No 2008 season for the Pats) just makes absolutely no sense to me, since it punishes a lot of people, but not necessarily those actually responsible. More picks, a larger fine, or even a suspension for Belichick would have been more appropriate.

Specter Calls Patriots’ Spying Wider Than Stated
NYTimes, 15May2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/sports/football/15nfl.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1210856977-pR1hl8zk4rdlWPcrTiui+w

:eyes:

is about as relevant and worthwhile as his Single Bullet theory of JFK's asassination.

Ptooey...