rick34125 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 And because it's America - you're entitled to have a problem with Rich Cimini. I think he's pretty objective and if he writes an occasional slanted blurb - guess that makes him a human like the rest of us. The guy seems to work for his stories which puts him on top of a few others. Plus the guy has been pretty good to this board in sharing some time to answer questions. I'll give you that he works for his stories and seems to get more scoops than the other beat writers, but he writes more than an occasional slant. But hey you're entitled to your opinion with cimini too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 How should he have written about it? He should have asked kendall how he knows the jets are smearing him and included his response in the story. He quotes the Kendall stuff. Then makes mention that the Jets won't comment (to their credit). This is not to the Jets credit. it doesn't do anything to dismiss the accusation that they are smearing kendall. Should he have put in his opinion? You would be killing him even more if he agreed with Kendall. He's too clever for that. He voices his opinion through the slant of the article I really think you are reaching here. He didn't blast the Jets. He doesn't get paid to defend them. He was neutral in this article. If you want a pro-jets slant it can be found at nyjets.com. he doesn't blast the jets only because he has no fodder to blast them with. he wasn't neutral in this article. he leaves the reader wondering if the jets are really exercising a smear campaign against kendall. and yes i want a jets beat writer to be pro-jets. balanced and objective but pro-jets. it can be done. Seriously I just fail to see what he did wrong. I know the media can be negative. They are trying to sell papers. But in this case, not sure what else you wanted him to do. Who knows maybe Kendall called him. Should he have ignored the call? listen i can lead you to water.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Kendall says the Jets are smearing him. The Jets say nothing. At no point did Cimini make any judgment about the validity of any statements except: 1. To say Kendall's no comment about contact in practice "spoke volumes". This only has to do with Kendall's opinion on whether the practices had illegal contact. 2. That "sources" confirmed that Kendall was never offered a one year deal. We don't know who these sources are, but Cimini even qualifies it by saying technically, meaning IMO, that while no specific 1 year deal was offered it may have been a possibility. He even states that the Jets are refusing to be drawn into a war or words or criticize Kendall which IMO means Cimini is saying they are taking the high road, not admitted to smearing Kendall. What's the big ****ing deal? I don't see any "slant" to the article. Pete Kendall wants more money and thinks the FO is a bunch of scumbags sandbagging him. We all know it. Is Cimini supposed to defend the Jets or report the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Kendall says the Jets are smearing him. The Jets say nothing. At no point did Cimini make any judgment about the validity of any statements except: 1. To say Kendall's no comment about contact in practice "spoke volumes". This only has to do with Kendall's opinion on whether the practices had illegal contact. 2. That "sources" confirmed that Kendall was never offered a one year deal. We don't know who these sources are, but Cimini even qualifies it by saying technically, meaning IMO, that while no specific 1 year deal was offered it may have been a possibility. He even states that the Jets are refusing to be drawn into a war or words or criticize Kendall which IMO means Cimini is saying they are taking the high road, not admitted to smearing Kendall. What's the big ****ing deal? I don't see any "slant" to the article. Pete Kendall wants more money and thinks the FO is a bunch of scumbags sandbagging him. We all know it. Is Cimini supposed to defend the Jets or report the story? Thank you. Woody, er I mean Rick -- you are reaching here. Pick another article out of the paper tomorrow and start the exact same thread. Your premise is on. The execution is what did you in. Thanks for leading me to the water though. Gonna take a dip now, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 Kendall says the Jets are smearing him. The Jets say nothing. At no point did Cimini make any judgment about the validity of any statements hey dominator, you argue a lot better than sperm, er i mean max. let's look at it this way. i dont know if you're married or not, but let's say for argument's sake you are. now let's say you hear around that your wife has been chopping wood on the side, if you know what i mean (that's right adultury... did i spell that right gainzo?). now you get home and you ask her, "are you chopping wood on the side?" and she says, "no comment." what are you going to think? or let's say she doesn't answer you at all and says nothing. what will you think? of course you're going to think something is going on just like any normal person because if nothing were going on she would come out and deny she's been chopping wood on the side, but since she doesn't deny your charge and remains silent its like an admission of guilt. at least that's the perception whether she's actually guilty or not. you know what else.... i can't believe there is still 1 month until training camp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 Thanks for leading me to the water... Gonna take a dip now. praise God you've been saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 bring some actual football knowledge to the intelligent or mostly intelligent conversations at JN. hey einstein... don't say i haven't contributed to the intellectual wellsprings of football knowledge here at JN... http://www.jetnation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 hey dominator, you argue a lot better than sperm, er i mean max. LOL!!! Everyone in this thread (not just me) has basically said that you premise is not correct. You have failed to sway their opinions. But I am the one that can't argue a point. Gotcha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 LOL!!! Everyone in this thread (not just me) has basically said that you premise is not correct. You have failed to sway their opinions. You're right, it's a wonder to me too. The only reason for it that i can think of is that it's a conspiracy. I wouldn't be surprised if Rich Cimini is behind this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 You're right, it's a wonder to me too. The only reason for it that i can think of is that it's a conspiracy. I wouldn't be surprised if Rich Cimini is behind this... Ahhh the power of the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 hey dominator, you argue a lot better than sperm, er i mean max. let's look at it this way. i dont know if you're married or not, but let's say for argument's sake you are. now let's say you hear around that your wife has been chopping wood on the side, if you know what i mean (that's right adultury... did i spell that right gainzo?). now you get home and you ask her, "are you chopping wood on the side?" and she says, "no comment." what are you going to think? or let's say she doesn't answer you at all and says nothing. what will you think? of course you're going to think something is going on just like any normal person because if nothing were going on she would come out and deny she's been chopping wood on the side, but since she doesn't deny your charge and remains silent its like an admission of guilt. at least that's the perception whether she's actually guilty or not. you know what else.... i can't believe there is still 1 month until training camp This is even more twisted than your original logic. So you blame Cimini for the Jets refusal to comment? He asked and they refused to answer. Is that his fault? If your wife cheats on you and won't deny it's Rich Cimini's fault? He is not supposed to tell you because otherwise it's "biased" reporting? You are explaining why you think the Jets are in the wrong, not any prejudice of Cimini. Cimini even went so far as to state that the Jets were "refusing to be drawn into a war of words". Giving them an excuse for their no comment. Maybe the Jets won't comment because to blame Kendall will only kill any residual trade value and make it impossible for him to return to the Jets as a player. To admit wrongdoing would be ridiculous, but to bad mouth Kendall wouldn't help either. So they don't comment. Cimini never suggested otherwise. If you can't understand that it's your problem, not the newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 This is even more twisted than your original logic. So you blame Cimini for the Jets refusal to comment? He asked and they refused to answer. Is that his fault? If your wife cheats on you and won't deny it's Rich Cimini's fault? He is not supposed to tell you because otherwise it's "biased" reporting? You are explaining why you think the Jets are in the wrong, not any prejudice of Cimini. Cimini even went so far as to state that the Jets were "refusing to be drawn into a war of words". Giving them an excuse for their no comment. Maybe the Jets won't comment because to blame Kendall will only kill any residual trade value and make it impossible for him to return to the Jets as a player. To admit wrongdoing would be ridiculous, but to bad mouth Kendall wouldn't help either. So they don't comment. Cimini never suggested otherwise. If you can't understand that it's your problem, not the newspapers. I will not comment as to whether or not I approve nor disapprove of this post. Maybe it's because I approve; maybe it's because I don't approve. Maybe it's because 27's wife has been PM'ing me b/c she found out my wife has been secretly PM'ing him. But these are all unsubstantiated and I neither confirm nor deny that any of these transgressions have taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 This is even more twisted than your original logic. So you blame Cimini for the Jets refusal to comment? He asked and they refused to answer. Is that his fault? If your wife cheats on you and won't deny it's Rich Cimini's fault? He is not supposed to tell you because otherwise it's "biased" reporting? dominator, no one is blaming cimini for the facts of the dispute. did you know this country has something called a "Fairness Act" which governs bias in the media. Every news story is suppose to present both sides fairly. Quoting one party as having "no comment" is the reporters way of saying he's satisfied the need to be fair to both sides. but the bias of the article still remains as i mentioned above. no one is blaming cimini on the facts, just how he's reported them, i.e. with a bias against the Jets organization. he presents kendalls side which is fine, but he's not fair in presenting the other side, the jets side, of the dispute. if cimini were to be fair perhaps he would have investigated kendall's claim. or perhaps he would have asked kendall for his source of how he knows that the jets were orchestrating a smear campaign. in any case cimini should have done more to answer for the jets side of the dispute, which he didnt. You are explaining why you think the Jets are in the wrong, not any prejudice of Cimini. Cimini even went so far as to state that the Jets were "refusing to be drawn into a war of words". Giving them an excuse for their no comment. i'm not saying the Jets are wrong, but cimini does give that impression by saying the jets have no comment to the kendall charges. now i dont know about you, but where i come from if a person is accused of something and doesn't deny it or try to otherwise explain it, then he looks guilty. whether he is or he isnt doesn't matter. its just the way he looks, because people will reasonably say if he weren't guilty he would say so. Maybe the Jets won't comment because to blame Kendall will only kill any residual trade value and make it impossible for him to return to the Jets as a player. To admit wrongdoing would be ridiculous, but to bad mouth Kendall wouldn't help either. So they don't comment. Cimini never suggested otherwise. If you can't understand that it's your problem, not the newspapers. of course the jets have their reasons for not commenting, but cimini could care less. he wanted to bring kendalls side of the story so that in the future other disgruntled players will know that they can publicly air out their disputes through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 dominator, no one is blaming cimini for the facts of the dispute. did you know this country has something called a "Fairness Act" which governs bias in the media. Every news story is suppose to present both sides fairly. Quoting one party as having "no comment" is the reporters way of saying he's satisfied the need to be fair to both sides. but the bias of the article still remains as i mentioned above. no one is blaming cimini on the facts, just how he's reported them, i.e. with a bias against the Jets organization. he presents kendalls side which is fine, but he's not fair in presenting the other side, the jets side, of the dispute. if cimini were to be fair perhaps he would have investigated kendall's claim. or perhaps he would have asked kendall for his source of how he knows that the jets were orchestrating a smear campaign. in any case cimini should have done more to answer for the jets side of the dispute, which he didnt. i'm not saying the Jets are wrong, but cimini does give that impression by saying the jets have no comment to the kendall charges. now i dont know about you, but where i come from if a person is accused of something and doesn't deny it or try to otherwise explain it, then he looks guilty. whether he is or he isnt doesn't matter. its just the way he looks, because people will reasonably say if he weren't guilty he would say so. of course the jets have their reasons for not commenting, but cimini could care less. he wanted to bring kendalls side of the story so that in the future other disgruntled players will know that they can publicly air out their disputes through him. I thought that quoting on party as having "no comment" was reporters way of saying that one party had "no comment." So Cimini is biased for stating the Jets have no comment when the Jets have no comment? He wouldn't be biased if he reported the reasons the Jets have no comment? Even though those reasons are purely speculation and conjecture? You are some piece of work. I'd rather know what both sides actually said. I don't need a sportswriter tell me why the Jets have no comment. Whether Cimini cares or not is irrelevant. The Kendall story, dull and scripted as it may be, is the only news going on with the Jets at this point. That article was complete unbiased and the slant you are so concerned with is the fault of the Jets not Cimini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Is Cimini biased when he writes about Jets fans having reason for optimism? http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/jets/2007/06/jets_fans_have_reason_for_opti.html --You have a right to be excited about the upcoming season. The Jets are a solid, well-coached team that, barring something crazy, should be in playoff contention. This isn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 I thought that quoting on party as having "no comment" was reporters way of saying that one party had "no comment." Yes. see above So Cimini is biased for stating the Jets have no comment when the Jets have no comment? Yes. see above He wouldn't be biased if he reported the reasons the Jets have no comment? Even though those reasons are purely speculation and conjecture? You're missing the point. Its not a matter of speculating. Cimini needed to fairly answer for the Jets side of the dispute, which he didnt. see above. Whether Cimini cares or not is irrelevant. The Kendall story, dull and scripted as it may be, is the only news going on with the Jets at this point. its a story at any time and cimini is taking full advantage of it. see above. That article was complete unbiased and the slant you are so concerned with is the fault of the Jets not Cimini. no. see above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick34125 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 Is Cimini biased when he writes about Jets fans having reason for optimism? http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/jets/2007/06/jets_fans_have_reason_for_opti.html hey he's entitled to his opinion, he wrote this on his blog. anyway it sounds fair to me. His little league coverage, is that biased? http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/jets/2007/06/a_salute_to_the_boys_of_summer.html Sure he mentioned the other coach was all about good sportsmanship. But did he dig deeper and find out the history. Maybe that coach threw a helmet once. Don't the readers have a right to know that? Doesn't the freedom of information act put the responsibility on Cimini to tell us? i think he told us more than we wanted to know already. Oh and Rich -- congratulations to your son. That is pretty cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 You're missing the point. Its not a matter of speculating. Cimini needed to fairly answer for the Jets side of the dispute, which he didnt. see above. I give up. I guess we have different ideas on journalism. I don't think it is the responsibility of a writer to answer for somebody that refuses to answer for themselves. I also think the reader should be intelligent enough to decide for themselves the reason for a "no comment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.