I like Chad Finn a lot (is he a member here? My memory sucks). That said, he absolutely misrepresents the problem with these types of articles. It is not that it is a hit-job. Instead, it is that it is the same unverifiable, salacious crap that ESPN has built its business model around.
I mean I get it. It reminds me of what someone said about Money Magazine. What are they supposed to do, run magazine after magazine with one article "Buying and holding index stocks is your best bet?" No, they talk about the next hot sector or whatever, even if it has no proven predictive power. This article, and ESPN in general have become that "next hot stock" article. "The Patriots are a well-run organization where the principals will often have disagreements but have an almost two decade history of subordinating those disagreements for the greater good. READ IT TODAY!"
Sometimes these takes happens to be right. Often they are wrong. But with no sources, and an entire article really premised on one read of the inevitably contentious relationships of incredibly successful men, really what is the point of this article? How is it different from the "They hate their coach" takes of however many years ago? I don't dislike the article for being a hit-job. I dislike it for being uninteresting pablum masquerading as insight.
I mean I get it. It reminds me of what someone said about Money Magazine. What are they supposed to do, run magazine after magazine with one article "Buying and holding index stocks is your best bet?" No, they talk about the next hot sector or whatever, even if it has no proven predictive power. This article, and ESPN in general have become that "next hot stock" article. "The Patriots are a well-run organization where the principals will often have disagreements but have an almost two decade history of subordinating those disagreements for the greater good. READ IT TODAY!"
Sometimes these takes happens to be right. Often they are wrong. But with no sources, and an entire article really premised on one read of the inevitably contentious relationships of incredibly successful men, really what is the point of this article? How is it different from the "They hate their coach" takes of however many years ago? I don't dislike the article for being a hit-job. I dislike it for being uninteresting pablum masquerading as insight.