I know the job of a reporter. This started because you didn't think Goold should bring up Mo's contract. By not mentioning it, he tows the line, and ultimately operates in bad faith (something I didn't see from Langosch). Granted this is one small example. I don't get why you dismiss/mind read. He's been called out on Twitter for his bad faith arguments (some I agree with, but not all)--no reason to think he doesn't do it a little in his reporting. Let me guess, his slow-to-the-punch reporting is because he was stowing away all of these great insights for "other reasons" or whatever?Jocephus wrote:i don't care about the differences between the two. you might not believe it but sometimes reporters have to hold on reporting details that they have, for a variety of reasons. i don't know why people expect goold to be a gossip columnist or to blow the top off on the "dewitt money making medicrity" plan. you think langosch is better? great.
I get that he has to massage certain people in the Cardinals' org to get information/retain clubhouse access, and I get that he needs to report a certain way to maintain that access, but at a certain point he becomes their mouthpiece, intentionally or not, and that's where you can either be like, "yipee I love reactive reporting and waiting for all the facts" or you can follow reporters that actually try to publicize what a powerful org like the Cardinals is doing behind the scenes--thus the definition of journalism. He's not the columnist. He's not the gossip guy (already established) but he can report better. Derrick Goold sounds like a j-school guy who's bitter he has to cover sports half the time.