Observer's agenda

http://blogs.charlotte.com/panthers/2011/04/twitter-poll-gabbert-lacks-support.html

Let's put aside the jokes about the writer, because it's been played out, and frankly, I'm not in the mood for angry incoming emails.

I like his work. Always have. I don't particularly like the fact that--even under the guise of "BLOG"--The Observer is publishing Gantt's personal Twitter account "polls", re: Newton v. Gabbert.

Wise or not, the escalation of Newton supporters in the region is clear, whereas Gabbert supporters could probably all fit in a short bus.

It's not that I mind Newton. I've actually come to terms that we'll probably draft him, and I am on board with it. Problem for me is a news organization filing news pieces that are undoubtedly framed to drive additional support from readers for Newton, which could potentially put pressure on ownership to make that choice.

It's not Gantt I have the issue with here, so let me make that clear. It's The Observer's borderline lack of journalistic ethics in the matter.

You may not give a shit. Probably don't. Or you may completely disagree. Whatever, but I have been around print and radio for--well--my entire life. This is a little transparent, in my view.

(cue the Black&Blue youtube clips)

 

Hey, Collin:

Shoot him a nice note about it. See what you get back. I would, but I think he knows my home address, SS# and the last meal I ate.

 

He did say that another poll will be done with QB vs non QB choices.

 

Newspapers sell because of high drama, people doing or saying things that raise eyebrows. That is what they want, like a comedian hoping for a president that will give him material.

I don't have the time or the means to figure out if the things people say about Newton are correct concerning the questionable decisions he's made.
If they are, I'd go Gabbert if we can't trade back and are going QB. This is the biggest poker hand Hurney will ever play. I would certainly pimp the most likely that teams would jump up for.

If they are turning a blind eye, to me that would be like winning 60 million on the lottery and going to Vegas and putting it on black, so you can make 8 figures. It just doesn't make sense.

News media without an agenda?

 

Where Gantt gets it right:

Newton's character concerns, while valid, are being a little over-amped.

I trust a select few in sports media:

1. Kirwan
2. Gil Brandt
3. Schefter

I trust these guys for various reasons, but most of all, for their consistency.

Brandt has had, arguably, the most 1v1 access to Newton than anyone else in his field. He's dined with the kid, his folks. Brandt's son is a student at Auburn and told his dad that Cam was a rock-solid dude, on and off the field.

I would say, on the surface, Gil somehow profits from pumping up Cam, but he's been hot and cold on so many prospects since like 1950, I can't help but trust his experience and wisdom. Perhaps he's getting a kickback. Doubt it.

One DUI, or other distraction, kills him moving forward.

To the point of agendas, contrary to popular opinion, not every paper and news org has an "agenda".....other than to make as much money as possible. That underscores your very first sentence, which is very accurate. But, if you're not careful, you'll miss the occasional subtle agenda-drive.

So, in the end, maybe I am dead wrong about "ethics"....I just don't dig a reporter feeding his personal twitter feedback into a news piece, behind the guise of "blog".....it's that type of confusion that leads the average simpleton reader to just roll with it, and jump onto the populous bandwagon.

 

Cool. But, with all respect, I think a QB v. DT/CB/WR poll will further drive home Gantt's point. Whether it's an "agenda" or not is debatable. It's just an odd form of journalism for someone who doesn't run his own blog from a basement.

 

So Gantt e-mails you if we make a joke about say, hypothetically, that he supports a Cam pick because his wife needs a new partner to cuckold him? You know...hypothetically.

 

Not saying that. But, when Collin shot him and Sorensen a couple innocent emails, they shot right back, with an amazing amount of speed on the turnaround time. I'd rather not get into an email war with a beat writer, but spend that time focusing on my own shit.

 

so, what you are saying is that you want to mess w/ a black man trying to make a dollar, without having to mess w/ a black man trying to make a dollar? or, to mess w/ a white man trying to make a dollar off a black mans dollar - which when all things are equal - will be just as bad as messing w/ a black man trying to make a dollar.

 

You need to diversify yo bonds.