Wilbum is a Bum

[Cane26]

PTI just spent the first three minutes of the show talking about the Skins, Gibbs, the penalty, the missing man formation, and NOT ONE WORD of contrition out of that BUM for his rude, ignorant, out-of turn statements he made last week about Sean Taylor.

If he really had any class, he would have used his pulpit to issue a mea culpa.

No class= no mea culpa.

Boo!

[silverspring]

Agreed. I understand his viewpoint and the point he is making, but he did it with no class, and more importantly in this case he was straight up wrong. You want to get even angrier, look at his arrogant chat session where he just refuses to apologize. I am glad he is honest with his viewpoints, but you still have to recognize when they are just plain wrong. People will always make mistakes, but owning up to them is what sets us apart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/28/DI2007112801721.html?hpid=topnews

[akhhorus]

For the 50th time: I guess its fine that Shapiro was even worse and said the same things that Wilbon did after Taylor died(which Wilbon didn't do). But you're right, Wilbon's satan because he refuses to give the full apology y'all want. Btw, Wilbon's right with his explanation: he didn't say or hint that Taylor "had it coming" or anything even remotely close to that(which many others said). The worst thing he said was that "if he heard that a Redskin was shot, that Taylor would be the first person he'd think of".

[Cane26]

For the 50th time: I guess its fine that Shapiro was even worse and said the same things that Wilbon did after Taylor died(which Wilbon didn't do). But you're right, Wilbon's satan because he refuses to give the full apology y'all want. Btw, Wilbon's right with his explanation: he didn't say or hint that Taylor "had it coming" or anything even remotely close to that(which many others said). The worst thing he said was that "if he heard that a Redskin was shot, that Taylor would be the first person he'd think of".

Shapiro was completely disingenuous by playing both sides of the fence. What should he apologize for? For talking out of both sides of his mouth? He's obviously hopeless and unscrupulous.

You too are wrong about what Wilbon said. Here is what he said, as i have copy/pasted it from the chat page linked on this thread:

I wrote that Sean's past and his associations had likely caught up with him...

That is the crux of the issue. He prematurely jumped to the wrong conclusion, so he should have apologiZed for it. He was WRONG. Why is that so difficult to admit?

I am not that familiar with Shapiro's work, so i had no prior opinion of him.

I did like PTI. Though kornheiser is terrible on MNF, i did like the PTI show.

Maybe that is why I am so pissed at Wilbon- i thought he was better than that.

[greatest2]

Shapiro was completely disingenuous by playing both sides of the fence. What should he apologize for? For talking out of both sides of his mouth? He's obviously hopeless and unscrupulous.

You too are wrong about what Wilbon said. Here is what he said, as i have copy/pasted it from the chat page linked on this thread:



That is the crux of the issue. He prematurely jumped to the wrong conclusion, so he should have apologiZed for it. He was WRONG. Why is that so difficult to admit?

I am not that familiar with Shapiro's work, so i had no prior opinion of him.

I did like PTI. Though kornheiser is terrible on MNF, i did like the PTI show.

Maybe that is why I am so pissed at Wilbon- i thought he was better than that.

agree with this post 100 percent. The guy was wrong he needs to apologize. And so does Shapiro and whoever else spit this kinda crap.

[akhhorus]

Shapiro was completely disingenuous by playing both sides of the fence. What should he apologize for? For talking out of both sides of his mouth? He's obviously hopeless and unscrupulous.

So, you're giving him a free pass? No, if you're going to dump on Wilbon for what he said, you can't give a free pass to anything else--especially someone who was worse.

You too are wrong about what Wilbon said. Here is what he said, as i have copy/pasted it from the chat page linked on this thread:

That is the crux of the issue. He prematurely jumped to the wrong conclusion, so he should have apologiZed for it. He was WRONG. Why is that so difficult to admit?

And he did today.

I am not that familiar with Shapiro's work, so i had no prior opinion of him.

I did like PTI. Though kornheiser is terrible on MNF, i did like the PTI show.

Maybe that is why I am so pissed at Wilbon- i thought he was better than that.

Wilbon also said in his chat today that he was wrong about that(which would be a retraction), and that Antrell Rolle and Taylor's cousin hinted at the same things he did. What Wilbon wrote today:

Those of you who are upset that I wrote that Sean's past and his associations had likely caught up with him should stop screaming and burying your heads under the pillow and read the comments from his lifelong friend, Antrelle Rolle of the Arizona Cardinals who talked forcefully and with insight when he said his dear friend of 18 years was afraid to go to Miami in recent trips because he thought people were after him...Rolle's words, not mine.

This is what I was talking about last week when I said just because Sean was in the process of changing his life doesn't mean others would let him, or that a complete change is possible in months (18 months, according to Joe Gibbs)...His own cousin talked about how people wanted Sean to leave South Florida because they feared something would happen. His cousin's words, not mine.

None of this is Wilbon, Rolle or Taylor's cousin saying that Taylor is a 'thug' or something(something that Wilbon didn't even come close to saying ever), but that Miami might have been a dangerous situation for him(and many others).

[hail2skins]

When did Rolle and his cousin say he was a thug. I also read where other friends of his disagreed with Rolle. It Sean was scared to go to Miami area, why on earth would he go for a 30 mile bike ride alone.

[RedskinsDave]

When did Rolle and his cousin say he was a thug. I also read where other friends of his disagreed with Rolle. It Sean was scared to go to Miami area, why on earth would he go for a 30 mile bike ride alone.

At night.

[akhhorus]

When did Rolle and his cousin say he was a thug. I also read where other friends of his disagreed with Rolle. It Sean was scared to go to Miami area, why on earth would he go for a 30 mile bike ride alone.

No one said that they said that.

[greatest2]

When did Rolle and his cousin say he was a thug. I also read where other friends of his disagreed with Rolle. It Sean was scared to go to Miami area, why on earth would he go for a 30 mile bike ride alone.

or have his family with him. they meant the most to him, and what turned him around. If he was scared he wouldn't bring his family to his home. also the bike ride was at night.

[hail2skins]

No one said that they said that.I just reread your post it was confusing but I get it now. I think Wilbon is using other's comments to justify his comment that was made earlier. He definately thought it had something to do with the thug mentality. I'm not singling him out either, a lot of mediots prejudged him when this story broke. People are upset with Wilbon but that doesn't mean they aren't upset about others as well. Shapiro did cover both sides but Wilbon didn't. He showed no compassion which is why everyone is probably upset.

[akhhorus]

I just reread your post it was confusing but I get it now. I think Wilbon is using other's comments to justify his comment that was made earlier. He definately thought it had something to do with the thug mentality. I'm not singling him out either, a lot of mediots prejudged him when this story broke. People are upset with Wilbon but that doesn't mean they aren't upset about others as well. Shapiro did cover both sides but Wilbon didn't. He showed no compassion which is why everyone is probably upset.

See, I saw Shapiro as being a weasel. When I read here about him trashing ESPN for their comments about Taylor's past, he was on Comcast saying worse things than Wilbon--basically hinting that Taylor brought it on himself. Thats much worse than what Wilbon said imo. Wilbon could have said what he said in a much better way and with better timing, but he didn't come close to what the idiots on Around the Horn said or some of the other outrageous comments were.

[greatest2]

See, I saw Shapiro as being a weasel. When I read here about him trashing ESPN for their comments about Taylor's past, he was on Comcast saying worse things than Wilbon--basically hinting that Taylor brought it on himself. Thats much worse than what Wilbon said imo. Wilbon could have said what he said in a much better way and with better timing, but he didn't come close to what the idiots on Around the Horn said or some of the other outrageous comments were.

i understand what your saying, and its a great point. but just because he wasn't the worst doesn't mean he doesn't need to apologize. As i said early, all those who stated things like this, Wilbon, Shapiro, Around the horn, who ever else, need to apologize.

Do i think they will: no. Should they: yes. if they don't do i have any respect for them anymore: NO

[hail2skins]

See, I saw Shapiro as being a weasel. When I read here about him trashing ESPN for their comments about Taylor's past, he was on Comcast saying worse things than Wilbon--basically hinting that Taylor brought it on himself. Thats much worse than what Wilbon said imo. Wilbon could have said what he said in a much better way and with better timing, but he didn't come close to what the idiots on Around the Horn said or some of the other outrageous comments were.That's what you felt but you can't push that on everyone. Some people probably didn't hear it. I believe it's something that could have been said later. That's means all of them could have waited.

[akhhorus]

That's what you felt but you can't push that on everyone. Some people probably didn't hear it.

Yeah, but Shapiro wrote it also.

I believe it's something that could have been said later. That's means all of them could have waited.

Agree, 100%.

[Cane26]

i understand what your saying, and its a great point. but just because he wasn't the worst doesn't mean he doesn't need to apologize. As i said early, all those who stated things like this, Wilbon, Shapiro, Around the horn, who ever else, need to apologize.

Do i think they will: no. Should they: yes. if they don't do i have any respect for them anymore: NO

Exactly.

So, you're giving him a free pass? No, if you're going to dump on Wilbon for what he said, you can't give a free pass to anything else--especially someone who was worse.

No free pass. He is as i said, hopeless and duplicitous. there's no pass there.

I expected more from Wilbum. His semantic explanation is disingenuous, and his vanity and ego are preventing him from being humble and admitting he screwed up. He comes across as a lawyer trying to disingenuously defend his position, and I'm not sure why you are defending him, either.

[akhhorus]

No free pass. He is as i said, hopeless and duplicitous. there's no pass there.

No, not giving a pass to someone is criticizing them for what they said. Shapiro was worse than Wilbon, and was disingenuous to boot.

I expected more from Wilbum. His semantic explanation is disingenuous, and his vanity and ego are preventing him from being humble and admitting he screwed up. He comes across as a lawyer trying to disingenuously defend his position, and I'm not sure why you are defending him, either.

Because I think that he's being singled out for no apparently reason here. I'm not a big fan of what he said, and he should have waiting on it for awhile, but what I'm seeing here is that Wilbon is being criticized for things he didn't say and others at the Post were just as bad-if not worse. Saying that you expected more from Wilbon and think Shapiro sucks anyways as the basis of why you're singling out Wilbon doesn't make much sense either.

[CarMike]

Good lord. Any mediot who said that Seans past caught up with him is wrong. As simple as that.

[hail2skins]

No, not giving a pass to someone is criticizing them for what they said. Shapiro was worse than Wilbon, and was disingenuous to boot.



Because I think that he's being singled out for no apparently reason here. I'm not a big fan of what he said, and he should have waiting on it for awhile, but what I'm seeing here is that Wilbon is being criticized for things he didn't say and others at the Post were just as bad-if not worse. Saying that you expected more from Wilbon and think Shapiro sucks anyways as the basis of why you're singling out Wilbon doesn't make much sense either.Maybe the person doesn't appreciate/follow Shapiro's writings but does with Wilbon and that's why they have the feelings they have towards Wilbon. That would make sense.

[akhhorus]

Maybe the person doesn't appreciate/follow Shapiro's writings but does with Wilbon and that's why they have the feelings they have towards Wilbon. That would make sense.

Yeah, but we all read all the columns from last week. Shapiro's hypocritical article was prominent here at HR and I remember people criticizing Shapiro for saying the things he did before it. But that doesn't really change what Shapiro said and what Wilbon did and did not say(part of my criticism with this criticism is that people are putting tons of words into Wilbon's mouth).

[Cane26]

Maybe the person doesn't appreciate/follow Shapiro's writings but does with Wilbon and that's why they have the feelings they have towards Wilbon. That would make sense.

Thank you. i am not from the DC area, and if that's the audience that Shapiro reaches, that doesnt include me. Is his column syndicated? I havent seen it in any of the papers i read. I admitted i am not familiar with him.

This thread is specifically about Wilbum, who has a daily national cable tv show. Does Shapiro?

Why couldnt Wilbum come clean on his show today? i specifically turned it on to see what he would say. He never spoke of his transgressions as a journalist that he committed last week.

And here is part of what Shapiro wrote, apparently attributing these statements to Wilbum:

"My colleague, Post columnist and ESPN broadcaster Michael Wilbon was asked about Taylor during his weekly internet web site discussion Monday and said, "I've known guys like Taylor all my life, grew up with some. They still have shades of gray and shouldn't be painted in black and white.

"I know how I feel about Taylor, and this latest news isn't surprising in the least, not to me. Whether this incident is or isn't random, Taylor grew up in a violent world, embraced it, claimed it, loved to run in it and refused to divorce himself from it. He ain't the first and won't be the last. We have no idea what happened, or if what we know now will be revised later. It's sad, yes, but hardly surprising."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112701111.html

[hessy36]

For the 50th time: I guess its fine that Shapiro was even worse and said the same things that Wilbon did after Taylor died(which Wilbon didn't do). But you're right, Wilbon's satan because he refuses to give the full apology y'all want. Btw, Wilbon's right with his explanation: he didn't say or hint that Taylor "had it coming" or anything even remotely close to that(which many others said). The worst thing he said was that "if he heard that a Redskin was shot, that Taylor would be the first person he'd think of".

Dude, you are making me think you have a pillow next to Wilbon at night! He was wrong. Shapiro was wrong. They were BOTH wrong!!!

[akhhorus]

Thank you. i am not from the DC area, and if that's the audience that Shapiro reaches, that doesnt include me. Is his column syndicated? I havent seen it in any of the papers i read. I admitted i am not familiar with him.

This thread is specifically about Wilbum, who has a daily national cable tv show. Does Shapiro?

Why couldnt Wilbum come clean on his show today? i specifically turned it on to see what he would say. He never spoke of his transgressions as a journalist that he committed last week.

And here is part of what Shapiro wrote, apparently attributing these statements to Wilbum:

"My colleague, Post columnist and ESPN broadcaster Michael Wilbon was asked about Taylor during his weekly internet web site discussion Monday and said, "I've known guys like Taylor all my life, grew up with some. They still have shades of gray and shouldn't be painted in black and white.

"I know how I feel about Taylor, and this latest news isn't surprising in the least, not to me. Whether this incident is or isn't random, Taylor grew up in a violent world, embraced it, claimed it, loved to run in it and refused to divorce himself from it. He ain't the first and won't be the last. We have no idea what happened, or if what we know now will be revised later. It's sad, yes, but hardly surprising."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112701111.html

Shapiro writes online columns in the same place you get Wilbon's from(which you appear to know about), so the fact that you're not in DC is irrelevant.

Dude, you are making me think you have a pillow next to Wilbon at night!

I'm not going to dignify this nonsense with a response.

He was wrong. Shapiro was wrong. They were BOTH wrong!!!

Then criticize fairly. You(and others) aren't. I know I've had to point out a couple times where you've put words in Wilbon's mouth.

[Cane26]

Continuing on from the prior post, this is what Shapiro wrote earlier in that linked column:

"On the field, Taylor often was a thoroughly undisciplined player who loved to make bold statements with vicious and often dangerous hits that occasionally got him tossed from games. Clearly, he seemed to embrace the thug image on and off the field, and the fact that he rarely spoke to members of the media only enhanced his reputation as a moody, enigmatic athlete we hardly ever got to know. "

Is he even a Skins fan? As Skins fans, did you all disapprove of Taylor's "thoroughly undisciplined" style of play?

I didnt think so.

he rarely spoke to members of the media only enhanced his reputation as a moody, enigmatic athlete we hardly ever got to know. "


It was guys like Shapiro that ST didnt trust, and that is why he didnt speak to them.

So, Shapiro hardly knew him, yet he thinks he was in a position to say he was not surprised by his murder? Oh, the irony.

And they were BOTH wrong to state that Sean "refused to divorce himself from" what the pundits generalize as a "thug" lifestyle. Well, it appears from the testimonials over the last week from people who REALLY knew Sean that that couldnt be further from the truth!

[hessy36]

And they were BOTH wrong to state that Sean "refused to divorce himself from" what the pundits generalize as a "thug" lifestyle. Well, it appears from the testimonials over the last week from people who REALLY knew Sean that that couldnt be further from the truth!

Exactly!!!!... Who can possibly defend him?? I'm thinking big fluffy pillows...

[hail2skins]

Yeah, but we all read all the columns from last week. Shapiro's hypocritical article was prominent here at HR and I remember people criticizing Shapiro for saying the things he did before it. But that doesn't really change what Shapiro said and what Wilbon did and did not say(part of my criticism with this criticism is that people are putting tons of words into Wilbon's mouth).you didn't address my point Ahk. It doesn't matter that it was prominent at hR. People have preferences for authors/columnists like they read. That's my point.

[hail2skins]

Shapiro writes online columns in the same place you get Wilbon's from(which you appear to know about), so the fact that you're not in DC is irrelevant.

Then criticize fairly. You(and others) aren't. I know I've had to point out a couple times where you've put words in Wilbon's mouth.C'mon Ahk, there are hundreds of books in a bookstore but it doesn't mean a reader reads all of them.

When is criticism ever fair.

[akhhorus]

you didn't address my point Ahk. It doesn't matter that it was prominent at hR. People have preferences for authors/columnists like they read. That's my point.

Thats fine, but when informed that person B also did the same, but worse, Cane26 decided that it was irrelevant in this thread. I don't like Shapiro and don't read him with any regularity, but I knew about his writings on this.

[akhhorus]

Exactly!!!!... Who can possibly defend him?? I'm thinking big fluffy pillows...

I'll be sure to show you the same level of disrespect in a later occasion.

C'mon Ahk, there are hundreds of books in a bookstore but it doesn't mean a reader reads all of them.

Thats irrelevant. I pointed this out to Cane26 in this thread, and decided that it was irrelevant because he doesn't like Shapiro. You can't be selectively outraged.

[hail2skins]

Thats fine, but when informed that person B also did the same, but worse, Cane26 decided that it was irrelevant in this thread. I don't like Shapiro and don't read him with any regularity, but I knew about his writings on this.That's fine but don't jump on folks because they didn't do it. He started a thread about Wilbon and wanted to discuss Wilbon. You mentioned Shapiro did it as well. Okay.

[akhhorus]

That's fine but don't jump on folks because they didn't do it. He started a thread about Wilbon and wanted to discuss Wilbon. You mentioned Shapiro did it as well. Okay.

Like I said: you can't be selectively outraged when people say the same things. Peach King wrote today that he thought the same things(maybe a bit worse) but didn't write it. He's as bad as Wilbon supposedly is, maybe worse since he was dishonest.

[hail2skins]

Like I said: you can't be selectively outraged when people say the same things. Peach King wrote today that he thought the same things(maybe a bit worse) but didn't write it. He's as bad as Wilbon supposedly is, maybe worse since he was dishonest.That's your opinion, not there's obviously. You choose not to be selectively outraged, they are. Who are you to tell them they can't. C'mon, you know better than that.

[akhhorus]

That's your opinion, not there's obviously. You choose not to be selectively outraged, they are. Who are you to tell them they can't. C'mon, you know better than that.

They can have that opinion if they want, but I can criticize them for what I see as logical flaws in such an opinion.

[hail2skins]

They can have that opinion if they want, but I can criticize them for what I see as logical flaws in such an opinion.as long as you're fair and not selective.

[silverspring]

They can have that opinion if they want, but I can criticize them for what I see as logical flaws in such an opinion.

Oh cmon Akh just admit it the truth. You are just defending wilbon because just like him you can never admit your opinion is wrong :)

[akhhorus]

as long as you're fair and not selective.

I think saying that people who said similar things also deserve criticism is being as fair as is possible.

[sinskin]

I'm kinda under the impression that the Shapiro articles were discussed under a past thread named after him. This article was titled about Wilbon.

I recall being hammered a while back about bringing up an offensive post in a defensive thread. I mean this member is absolutely correct imo to single out Wilbon because he approprietly titled this thread that way.

[dj_stouty]

I think Keino called this correctly from the beginning when Wilbon's chat was publilshed. Wilbon took this opportunity to make a political statement using premature assumptions in the murder case...and he called burned on it.

He deserves any criticism he gets, IMO.

[Cane26]

Oh cmon Akh just admit it the truth. You are just defending wilbon because just like him you can never admit your opinion is wrong :)

Is that what it is? because he sure is making, or trying to make, some obtuse arguments here. they arent even worth replying to.

I have said they were BOTH wrong, and quoted Shapiro quoting Wilbon. i am not putting words into anyone's mouth. What they both wrote stinks!

But here's where i differ from Shapiro: I dont know Shapiro, so I am not in a position to make sweeping, broad statements condemning his journalisitc integrity. Unlike him, who admits he "hardly" knew Taylor, yet made an inaccurate and sweeping conclusion as to Sean's life and death- I wont make uninformed, possibly unsubstantiated conclusions about him and his work.

[akhhorus]

Is that what it is? because he sure is making, or trying to make, some obtuse arguments here. they arent even worth replying to.

I have said they were BOTH wrong, and quoted Shapiro quoting Wilbon. i am not putting words into anyone's mouth. What they both wrote stinks!

But here's where i differ from Shapiro: I dont know Shapiro, so I am not in a position to make sweeping, broad statements condemning his journalisitc integrity. Unlike him, who admits he "hardly" knew Taylor, yet made an inaccurate and sweeping conclusion as to Sean's life and death- I wont make uninformed, possibly unsubstantiated conclusions about him and his work.

I'd like to know why you think you need to know him and his work before you can criticize what he said? I've never read anything Jay Mariotti(or any of the people on ATH who said terrible things about Taylor) has written, but I know he's a jackhole for saying what he said about Taylor on Around the Horn(and he's on a national Sports show almost as much as Wilbon is). Your argument, in my opinion, is as obtuse an argument as there is in this thread. If you want to dump on Wilbon, fine. You can believe what you want. But you seem to be looking for any reason to make Wilbon this devil and ignore others for the same thing. That doesn't make any sense and I don't know of anything you can say that would make it logical.

[greatest2]

I'd like to know why you think you need to know him and his work before you can criticize what he said? I've never read anything Jay Mariotti(or any of the people on ATH who said terrible things about Taylor) has written, but I know he's a jackhole for saying what he said about Taylor on Around the Horn(and he's on a national Sports show almost as much as Wilbon is). Your argument, in my opinion, is as obtuse an argument as there is in this thread. If you want to dump on Wilbon, fine. You can believe what you want. But you seem to be looking for any reason to make Wilbon this devil and ignore others for the same thing. That doesn't make any sense and I don't know of anything you can say that would make it logical.


dude, im not trying to jump in the middle or anything but CANES26 said that he wants an apology from everyone who has said something like that. He said he expects one from Wilbon more because he knows his work. whats wrong with that?

[hessy36]

I'll be sure to show you the same level of disrespect in a later occasion..

I'm sure you mean like the kind of disrespect Wilbon showed Taylor....

[Cane26]

I'd like to know why you think you need to know him and his work before you can criticize what he said?

I have said what he wrote stinks!

In another post, i said they were BOTH wrong.

Nowhere have i defended what Shapiro wrote.

Him and Wilbon are in the same cesspool of journalistic integrity on this story.

Are you not reading all of what i post?


I do not read every columnist in the country. I may read Podhoretz, or Malkin, but that doesnt mean I read every political column linked on the page.

I dont usually read Wilbon's column either, but I do watch him on PTI, so i am familiar with his take on things.

And he has really disappointed me with this latest crock he has put out there.

[akhhorus]

dude, im not trying to jump in the middle or anything but CANES26 said that he wants an apology from everyone who has said something like that. He said he expects one from Wilbon more because he knows his work. whats wrong with that?

I didn't get that at all from any of his posts in this thread.

[akhhorus]

I'm sure you mean like the kind of disrespect Wilbon showed Taylor....

Again: I'm not going to dignify this nonsense yours with a comment.

[akhhorus]

I have said what he wrote stinks!

In another post, i said they were BOTH wrong.

Nowhere have i defended what Shapiro wrote.

Him and Wilbon are in the same cesspool of journalistic integrity on this story.

Are you not reading all of what i post?

I do not read every columnist in the country. I may read Podhoretz, or Malkin, but that doesnt mean I read every political column linked on the page.

I dont usually read Wilbon's column either, but I do watch him on PTI, so i am familiar with his take on things.

And he has really disappointed me with this latest crock he has put out there.

Fine. You can have that opinion. But if Malkin wrote something terrible and then Jonah Goldberg says something as bad or worse, I'll criticize both equally, even if I'm more familiar with Goldberg. That's just me though.

[Cane26]

I didn't get that at all from any of his posts in this thread.

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?p=1043541#post1043541

My posts on the Shapiro thread, #19, 21 and 23, speak of anyone who cast these aspersions on Sean, and I didnt single anyone out. In #23 i referred to "these self-righteous media types".

this thread is about Wilbum being a bum.

It goes for everyone else who screwed up like he did on this story, too.

[hessy36]

Again: I'm not going to dignify this nonsense yours with a comment.

Good for you. Maybe the rest of the Media will take your lead, and SHUT UP.

[hail2skins]

I'm going to remind everyone that they should be attacking the content and not the person.

[Cane26]

Fine. You can have that opinion. But if Malkin wrote something terrible and then Jonah Goldberg says something as bad or worse, I'll criticize both equally, even if I'm more familiar with Goldberg. That's just me though.

So then you agree Wilbum is a bum on this story?

[hail2skins]

Good for you. Maybe the rest of the Media will take your lead, and SHUT UP.We don't tell people to shut up here.

[akhhorus]

So then you agree Wilbum is a bum on this story?

He spoke before knowledge of the event came out(much like Shapiro and the rest of the media) and if they wanted to make a comment about Taylor's life visa-via his death, they should have waited. I do credit Wilbon for stopping all talk about that and ameliorating his comments a bit after Taylor passed(something Shapiro didn't do), but everyone should have waited.

[Cane26]

He spoke before knowledge of the event came out(much like Shapiro and the rest of the media) and if they wanted to make a comment about Taylor's life visa-via his death, they should have waited. I do credit Wilbon for stopping all talk about that and ameliorating his comments a bit after Taylor passed(something Shapiro didn't do), but everyone should have waited.

You are generous with your credit, and not so forthcoming with the criticism.

I give Wilbum demerits for not issuing a mea culpa on his show today.

And as far as waiting...Sean will be dead forever. Yes, they could have waited at least until the body was in the ground. But they chose to be vultures.

[akhhorus]

You are generous with your credit, and not so forthcoming with the criticism.

I give Wilbum demerits for not issuing a mea culpa on his show today.

Thats your opinion. I think we'll see one from him, about when Shapiro apologizes for being a hypocrite ;)

[Cane26]

Why does what Shapiro does have anything to do with what Wilbum does?

That makes no sense. What about personal responsibility? It isnt dependent on someone else accepting their mistake, it's about him accepting his mistake.

Do you really think it's okay to not admit he was wrong because some hack on the WP hasnt issued an apology?

I dont care what Shapiro does, because I dont read his column, and wont in the future. On the other hand, I was a fan of PTI, but will never look at MW the same again. He has lost a fan.

[akhhorus]

Why does what Shapiro does have anything to do with what Wilbum does?

That makes no sense. What about personal responsibility? It isnt dependent on someone else accepting their mistake, it's about him accepting his mistake.

Please point out where I said that Wilbon doesn't have to say he's wrong because of what Shapiro said.

Do you really think it's okay to not admit he was wrong because some hack on the WP hasnt issued an apology?

And Wilbon isn't just another hack on the WP in your eyes also? And I believe him saying that he was wrong about the circumstances of Taylor's death on the Post today is admitting he was wrong. I'm sorry he didn't do the full sumimasen than you wanted on ESPN, but so what.

I dont care what Shapiro does, because I dont read his column, and wont in the future. On the other hand, I was a fan of PTI, but will never look at MW the same again. He has lost a fan.

Fine. I'll hold everyone(shapiro, wilbon, the ATH morons, etc etc etc) to the same standards. Thats just me though(apparently).

[Cane26]

I'm sorry he didn't do the full sumimasen than you wanted on ESPN, but so what.


So what?

LOL

He reaches a much larger audience on the TV show, and he didnt have a problem casting aspersions on the show last week. He should have issued similar mea culpas on both mediums where he spread his crock last week.

[akhhorus]

So what?

LOL

He reaches a much larger audience on the TV show, and he didnt have a problem casting aspersions on the show last week. He should have issued similar mea culpas on both mediums where he spread his crock last week.

No, he didn't say the same things on the TV show which he did online. He said the thing about "the first person who'd he think would get shot would be Taylor", but not the rest of his comments that he said online.

[Cane26]

him saying that he was wrong about the circumstances of Taylor's death on the Post today is admitting he was wrong.

Was this in an actual column or just on that little chat page?


No, he didn't say the same things on the TV show which he did online. He said the thing about "the first person who'd he think would get shot would be Taylor", but not the rest of his comments that he said online.

I must say your defense of him is persistent but quite weak. Are you related to him?

[akhhorus]

Was this in an actual column or just on that little chat page?

In his chat page, where he said the original comments a week ago.

I must say your defense of him is persistent but quite weak. Are you related to him?

Yeah, because reality and facts are "weak" :rolleyes: And no, I'm not related to him.

[Cane26]

He made derogatory comments on his TV show, too, and should have issued an apology or retraction.

But as I learned and now know, he's not a mensch.

[akhhorus]

He made derogatory comments on his TV show, too, and should have issued an apology or retraction.

Again: your opinion. He didn't call Taylor a thug or a criminal, or anything like that on his show(or in the Post). Nor did he blame Taylor for getting shot unless he said/wrote something I didn't see/hear.

[Cane26]

His comments on TV gave the same impression as what he wrote did in his chat.

if he made an apology in one medium, he should have done it in the other, too, where his words reach a much larger audience.

[akhhorus]

His comments on TV gave the same impression as what he wrote did in his chat.

Except that they still weren't "derogatory" nor were they the same to the ones on the online chat. I wouldn't hold your breath that he'll apologize for his comments on PTI. He admitted he was wrong about the circumstances of Taylor's death after the facts came out today. PTI does reach a bigger audience, but his retraction today was a long one and wasn't because of a question. I think he might write a column about it later in the week on thursday, but thats just a hunch.

[Cane26]

Except that they still weren't "derogatory"

Yes they were, and your claim that they werent carries no weight with me due to your fixated defense of his irresponsible conduct.

[akhhorus]

Yes they were, and your claim that they werent carries no weight with me due to your fixated defense of his irresponsible conduct.

Your opinion of me doesn't matter to me. And I suppose I could say that your fixated obsession with him means that your complaints about his comments shouldn't carry any weight either. And calling a Taylor a thug or something racial would be derogatory. Wilbon didn't do that, nor did he say that Taylor brought this on himself.

[Cane26]

It seems you'd rather make obtuse arguments than admit your boy screwed up.

You've gone from me not being familiar with Shapiro as a reason to defend Wilbum, to not reading the WP because i dont live in DC, to Shapiro not apologizing first, to not knowing what I posted about ALL the self-righteous media types and claiming all the journalists were not being judged equally...all in defense of your boyfriend.

In a way I'm glad you keep responding, because it just allows me to drive home the fact that Wilbum has exposed himself as an irresponsible sports journalist.

It is very disappointing to learn that a guy I liked doesnt have the integrity that I thought he did.

And all of the people who jumped on Sean as being at fault for his death obviously had an agenda, and used these circumstances to promote their agenda.

but keep responding, because Wilbum is still a bum, and that wont change.

[akhhorus]

It seems you'd rather make obtuse arguments than admit your boy screwed up.

My boy? Keep dreaming. And I believe I said that he shouldn't have said what he said when he said it.

You've gone from me not being familiar with Shapiro as a reason to defend Wilbum, to not reading the WP because i dont live in DC, to Shapiro not apologizing first, to not knowing what I posted about ALL the self-righteous media types and claiming all the journalists were not being judged equally...all in defense of your boyfriend.

*yawn* if this is going to be the level of your discourse, then trying to have intelligent discussion is a pointless endeavor with you. Thanks for not reading what I wrote. I haven't changed any of my opinions on Shapiro or anything. If you think I'm given them up because I'm haven't mentioned it in awhile, then you're a fool. Wilbon shouldn't have said what he did, Shapiro was worse(and you knew what he said) and the ATH guys were worse. But you have an obsession you have to feed, so you single out Wilbon and get hostile and defensive when someone points out your nonsense and bias.

And you can stop this "I don't live in DC, so I don't know the post" nonsense. You're pretty informed about the writings in Post.

In a way I'm glad you keep responding, because it just allows me to drive home the fact that Wilbum has exposed himself as an irresponsible sports journalist.

Really? How so? By showing that you're obsessed with him no matter what.

It is very disappointing to learn that a guy I liked doesnt have the integrity that I thought he did.

I don't think you know what the words derogatory or integrity mean.

And all of the people who jumped on Sean as being at fault for his death obviously had an agenda, and used these circumstances to promote their agenda.

What agenda? Are you that paranoia or something that you think there's some agenda behind what the media said about Taylor?

but keep responding, because Wilbum is still a bum, and that wont change.

And I hope you keep responding, you show how clueless you are with each post.

[Cane26]

Why hasnt Wilbum apologized in his column or his TV show?

He doesnt have the balls, does he?

I recall he wrote a non-flattering column about Sean last week, yet couldnt use that vehicle to come clean this week.

he apologized in a chat room? BFD!!! No one goes into his chat room compared to the number of people who read his column and watch PTI.
What he afraid of?

He made similar unflattering comments on his TV show last week, before the body was even cold, but couldnt apologize for those comments on his show yesterday.


He showed no respect for Sean Taylor and his family.

His true colors of being a disgusting, slanderous vulture came through on this story.

He's a bum.

[hail2skins]

Alright, I see this is going down hill. Keep attacking each other and this thread will be closed.

[Cane26]

Agreed, hail2skins. For the most part, including my post this morning, I am ignoring the sham defense put up for Wilbum.

This thread isnt about any posters- it's about a lowlife journalist who made disparaging remarks on TV and in his column about a murdered NFL player, and didnt have the integrity to apologize to the bereaved family for his premature and inaccurate nonsensical crap that he spewed last week.

[smoak]

For the 50th time: I guess its fine that Shapiro was even worse and said the same things that Wilbon did after Taylor died(which Wilbon didn't do). But you're right, Wilbon's satan because he refuses to give the full apology y'all want. Btw, Wilbon's right with his explanation: he didn't say or hint that Taylor "had it coming" or anything even remotely close to that(which many others said). The worst thing he said was that "if he heard that a Redskin was shot, that Taylor would be the first person he'd think of".

Two wrongs don't make a right... Start a thread on Shapiro if you don't want to discuss Wilbon, but Wilbon is a national media personality and should be held accountable.

[dukeuch]

Taylor's death was a tragedy, he certainly did not desrve it, and I believe all the accounts that he had apparently turned his life around, but it is not really all that much of a leap to think that if your past included pistol whipping someone, you might have some enemies that would go so far as to kill you. So let's not all get too high and mighty about how terrible it is that someone might hrpothisize that this tragic event might have had something to do with his past.

Just about every commentator I heard who speculated that Taylor's death may have had something to do with enemies picked up over the years, without fail predicated their remarks with "we don't know the facts yet, but it would not be surprising if..." or something like that. I admit that had I heard a Redkin had been shot, and was asked to guess who, I would have guessed Taylor.

We pontificate about what is or is not true about all kinds of tragic events in this and other forums before all the facts are in.

[redskin_rich]

Taylor's death was a tragedy, he certainly did not desrve it, and I believe all the accounts that he had apparently turned his life around, but it is not really all that much of a leap to think that if your past included pistol whipping someone, you might have some enemies that would go so far as to kill you. So let's not all get too high and mighty about how terrible it is that someone might hrpothisize that this tragic event might have had something to do with his past.

Just about every commentator I heard who speculated that Taylor's death may have had something to do with enemies picked up over the years, without fail predicated their remarks with "we don't know the facts yet, but it would not be surprising if..." or something like that. I admit that had I heard a Redkin had been shot, and was asked to guess who, I would have guessed Taylor.

We pontificate about what is or is not true about all kinds of tragic events in this and other forums before all the facts are in.

And sometimes, even after the facts have come out, people like you can't get them right. I'll give you the opportunity to either retract the pistol whip comment or at least find one source that indicates that ever happened.

[smoak]

Taylor's death was a tragedy, he certainly did not desrve it, and I believe all the accounts that he had apparently turned his life around, but it is not really all that much of a leap to think that if your past included allegedly pistol whipping someone, you might have some enemies that would go so far as to kill you. So let's not all get too high and mighty about how terrible it is that someone might hrpothisize that this tragic event might have had something to do with his past.

Just about every commentator I heard who speculated that Taylor's death may have had something to do with enemies picked up over the years, without fail predicated their remarks with "we don't know the facts yet, but it would not be surprising if..." or something like that. I admit that had I heard a Redkin had been shot, and was asked to guess who, I would have guessed Taylor.

We pontificate about what is or is not true about all kinds of tragic events in this and other forums before all the facts are in.

Corrected.

Had Micheal Greico not been on the case, it would have been thrown out/plead down weeks after it happened. Geez, I got into one bar fight in 2005, does that mean you wouldn't be surprised if I was shot?? :rolleyes:

[dj_stouty]

Taylor's death was a tragedy, he certainly did not desrve it, and I believe all the accounts that he had apparently turned his life around, but it is not really all that much of a leap to think that if your past included pistol whipping someone, you might have some enemies that would go so far as to kill you.

Shame on you. I'd expect to hear this crap from an Eagles fan...or even someone who isn't an NFL fan who is just picking up pieces of information on Taylor via the media; but to hear a FLAT OUT LIE come from a "diehard" Redskin fan is troubling.

[akhhorus]

Agreed, hail2skins. For the most part, including my post this morning, I am ignoring the sham defense put up for Wilbum.


Apparently not since you keep feeling the need to try and continue the obsessed attacks on him and repeating the same tripes over and over.

Two wrongs don't make a right... Start a thread on Shapiro if you don't want to discuss Wilbon, but Wilbon is a national media personality and should be held accountable.

I didn't say it made a right, I just believe that calling out one person for something, but giving a nonsensical excuse that he's "not familiar" with another, so he won't discuss him is ridiculous. If Wilbon's wrong, they're all wrong and all should be criticized. Singling one out is ridiculous imo.

Shame on you. I'd expect to hear this crap from an Eagles fan...or even someone who isn't an NFL fan who is just picking up pieces of information on Taylor via the media; but to hear a FLAT OUT LIE come from a "diehard" Redskin fan is troubling.

He's a redskin fan? What that, his first post on the skins in 6-8 months?

[WarEagle]

As I said on another thread, the Redskins should pull Lenny and Mike's press credentials. The great Thomas Boswell today cautions his colleagues to "err on the side of respecting the dead." Since they lacked the basic decency to do that, there should be concrete consequences.

[hail2skins]

Corrected.

Had Micheal Greico not been on the case, it would have been thrown out/plead down weeks after it happened. Geez, I got into one bar fight in 2005, does that mean you wouldn't be surprised if I was shot?? :rolleyes:I think you should have let him correct it. I believe Rich wanted to make a point about facts and getting them straight.

[Keino]

And sometimes, even after the facts have come out, people like you can't get them right. I'll give you the opportunity to either retract the pistol whip comment or at least find one source that indicates that ever happened.

Unbelievable. I generally defend Dukeuch, but Geezus H!!

I almost wish S.T. hadn't taken the plea deal so that the facts of the case can come out.

The Person claiming to be pistol whipped filed a civil lawsuit which was thrown out as frivolous. The standard of proof being less in Civil matters than in criminal, but hey, why should facts get in the way of assassinating the character of a man who is no longer with us.

It's much easier to believe that he is a thug who's past came back to haunt him that way it makes the rest of us living in Suburban homes with alarm systems feel like this couldn't happen to us. What a crock of SH............

[Hr fan]

I didn't say it made a right, I just believe that calling out one person for something, but giving a nonsensical excuse that he's "not familiar" with another, so he won't discuss him is ridiculous. If Wilbon's wrong, they're all wrong and all should be criticized. Singling one out is ridiculous imo.

Exactly.

[smoak]

I didn't say it made a right, I just believe that calling out one person for something, but giving a nonsensical excuse that he's "not familiar" with another, so he won't discuss him is ridiculous. If Wilbon's wrong, they're all wrong and all should be criticized. Singling one out is ridiculous imo.


Agreed that all should be criticized, but have you taken a leave of your senses in thinking that just b/c someone saw person x that they should be accountable to know the reaction of the ENTIRE US media??? I probably missing a lot of the prior conversations b/c it seems way too illogical. Personally I was most offended by Deion's self righteous ego-driven vomit at the mouth <<expletive>>, but I refused to get too worked up b/c he isn't important in the grand scheme of things. I was annoyed by both Wilbon and Shapiro, but I'll admit it was second hand annoyance... Czaben was another one, but his comments were more insensitive and not worth repeating.

At the end of the day, we probably need (and I thought there was one) one all encompassing thread for "Media Reaction", but I why nitpick at each other over it. Peolpe are all going to grieve and deal in their own way, right? Who cares if Cane is mad at the Almighty over this as he is entitled to his reaction right?

Side note: Why was Jessie Jackson a speaker at the funeral? I may have missed something b/c I was too emotional to listen to the clips, but my perception is that he stuck his nose in for the publicity. Did he know Sean or the family prior to this or did they ask him to speak as a Reverend??

[Cane26]

I almost wish S.T. hadn't taken the plea deal so that the facts of the case can come out.

He had too much to lose. If i recall correctly, if he was found guilty of the charges, there would have been a mandatory jail sentence under Florida law.

[smoak]

I think you should have let him correct it. I believe Rich wanted to make a point about facts and getting them straight.


Yeah, that is why I left his original disrespectful and asinine comment unaltered ;)

[Keino]

He had too much to lose. If i recall correctly, if he was found guilty of the charges, there would have been a mandatory jail sentence under Florida law.


It's why I said almost, but I think he would've beat it. He simply couldn't take that risk.

[Cane26]

Wilbon is a national media personality and should be held accountable.

We have a Bingo.


:thinker:

[Ibleedburgundy]

Thank you for the daily "I'm not a Redskins fan but I'm going to use the death of Sean Taylor to bash [fill in the blank]" thread.

[BandWagon]

You know this is just another example of how the media is morphing (or perhaps has already completely changed) from journalism to opinionism. I had an interesting talk with my brother the other day and he brought up something that I'd never really put the whole picture together...about how the Wash Post is dominated by writers who aren't even from D.C. and this goes beyond the sports section. He's disgusted by that. I think that had an effect on this topic. Regardless, in the end, there are a couple points here worth keeping in mind.

Much like the radio, if you don't like it, please don't listen/read. That's the only message that can be sent that will make a difference. Second, I can appreciate why a lot of these guys took a calculated risk in making the assumption there were ties to Sean's past. Heck, even some of his own friends did that. The reality of the world we live in is that someone was going to make that leap and the pressure and competition of "making the story" pushed a lot of these guys. Agreed it would be nice to hear them apologize/retract/show remorse whatever, but I don't lose any sleep over it. It is what it is. I think an earlier poster was correct in saying some/many of the articles had said "we don't know the facts yet, but..." Well that was a pretty big "but" but at least the articles that I did read (and for my own sanity I didn't read them all) did try to make that point.

The thing that also sucks, that'll never change, is that in many, many cases perception is reality and sometimes that ends up hurting people. Sad, but true.

[Cane26]

Thank you for the daily "I'm not a Redskins fan but I'm going to use the death of Sean Taylor to bash [fill in the blank]" thread.

Another uninformed post.

Here are titles of the threads I have started.

Wilbum is a Bum

Good Luck Today Skins fans

Great Sean Taylor Article

ST Funeral Arrangements

Coles weighs in on ST

Widespread grief over Taylor's passing in DC and Fla



I'll await your next inaccurate post with bated breath.

[hessy36]

We don't tell people to shut up here.

I'll remember that.

[thickskin]

Agreed that all should be criticized, but have you taken a leave of your senses in thinking that just b/c someone saw person x that they should be accountable to know the reaction of the ENTIRE US media??? I probably missing a lot of the prior conversations b/c it seems way too illogical. Personally I was most offended by Deion's self righteous ego-driven vomit at the mouth <<expletive>>, but I refused to get too worked up b/c he isn't important in the grand scheme of things. I was annoyed by both Wilbon and Shapiro, but I'll admit it was second hand annoyance... Czaben was another one, but his comments were more insensitive and not worth repeating.

At the end of the day, we probably need (and I thought there was one) one all encompassing thread for "Media Reaction", but I why nitpick at each other over it. Peolpe are all going to grieve and deal in their own way, right? Who cares if Cane is mad at the Almighty over this as he is entitled to his reaction right?

Side note: Why was Jessie Jackson a speaker at the funeral? I may have missed something b/c I was too emotional to listen to the clips, but my perception is that he stuck his nose in for the publicity. Did he know Sean or the family prior to this or did they ask him to speak as a Reverend??

imagine how hard it must be to be a sports writer. there are only a handful of stories that play out over and over: the underdogs getting the big win, the underdogs falling short, the great team striving to carve out a place in history, the veteran on his last leg, the rookie coming into his own, so on and so on. and yet they have to churn out articles and run their mouths on tv everyday. you have to manufacture "new" stories to continue to sell yourself. so, who populates your narratives? who are your star characters? kids half your age, a third your age, often teenagers. it must be hard to day-in-day-out blow smoke up their rears, esp when, after some success in your field (and they are under the illusion that their field is somehow worthwhile) you feel like you are accomplishing more than the kids whose praises you sing. this resentment manifests in comments like we've seen with taylor. there's nothing illogical about them, they're just in questionable taste. and, to me, it's their motivation that really turns my stomach. maybe some of these guys really are cut-and-dry sanctimonious pricks, but i feel certain that some of them are something worse: they're jealous and resentful of the success and attention of the athletes upon whom they are parasites, and so they relish the opportunitites to report info that tears down the athlete, while ingratiating themselves; typically these are the so-called character issues. i propose that this latter group of sportswriters is not far removed from the boy-molesting clergy. i don't know wilbon personally, but all i'm sayign is:

if news broke tomorrow that someone at espn were caught with their fingers in the little-boy jar, wilbon would be the first to come to mind. i would be sad, but not surprised

[Ibleedburgundy]

imagine how hard it must be to be a sports writer. there are only a handful of stories that play out over and over: the underdogs getting the big win, the underdogs falling short, the great team striving to carve out a place in history, the veteran on his last leg, the rookie coming into his own, so on and so on. and yet they have to churn out articles and run their mouths on tv everyday. you have to manufacture "new" stories to continue to sell yourself. so, who populates your narratives? who are your star characters? kids half your age, a third your age, often teenagers. it must be hard to day-in-day-out blow smoke up their rears, esp when, after some success in your field (and they are under the illusion that their field is somehow worthwhile) you feel like you are accomplishing more than the kids whose praises you sing. this resentment manifests in comments like we've seen with taylor. there's nothing illogical about them, they're just in questionable taste. and, to me, it's their motivation that really turns my stomach. maybe some of these guys really are cut-and-dry sanctimonious pricks, but i feel certain that some of them are something worse: they're jealous and resentful of the success and attention of the athletes upon whom they are parasites, and so they relish the opportunitites to report info that tears down the athlete, while ingratiating themselves; typically these are the so-called character issues. i propose that this latter group of sportswriters is not far removed from the boy-molesting clergy. i don't know wilbon personally, but all i'm sayign is:

if news broke tomorrow that someone at espn were caught with their fingers in the little-boy jar, wilbon would be the first to come to mind. i would be sad, but not surprised

This strikes me as a little over the top. I know you are trying to give him a dose of his own medicine but it's just a bad analogy.

[Keino]

This strikes me as a little over the top. I know you are trying to give him a dose of his own medicine but it's just a bad analogy.

What strikes me as over the top is the number of people who made various comments regarding the Late Mr. Taylor's associations haven't been man enough or woman enough to post a retraction on the message board in which they posted said comments sans evidence or knowledge of the facts.

It's a great analogy. Thick has no proof, but based on how various media members present themselves wouldn't be shocked if they were caught preying on children. That is the exact line that Wilbon and others took and they too, have failed at offering a retraction.

[Ibleedburgundy]

What strikes me as over the top is the number of people who made various comments regarding the Late Mr. Taylor's associations haven't been man enough or woman enough to post a retraction on the message board in which they posted said comments sans evidence or knowledge of the facts.

It's a great analogy. Thick has no proof, but based on how various media members present themselves wouldn't be shocked if they were caught preying on children. That is the exact line that Wilbon and others took and they too, have failed at offering a retraction.

1. We still don't have all the facts. Probably never will. Maybe you believe the preliminary confessions of armed robbers...I don't.

2. The analogy stinks because Wilbon has no history in anything related to preying on children.

[Keino]

1. We still don't have all the facts. Probably never will. Maybe you believe the preliminary confessions of armed robbers...I don't.

2. The analogy stinks because Wilbon has no history in anything related to preying on children.

1. We have more facts than we did and they point to you (And tons of others) being dead wrong with your assessments. Why wouldn't you believe the confessions? Because they don't fit in with your Mob/Cosa Nostra Hit theory. Gimme a friggin break. I have no respect for you or your ilk.



2. The analogy is apropos because Taylor had no history of having bad associations or being a thug. There was one incident in which the facts never came out, but it was pretty clear that he was more the victim than anything.

[dj_stouty]

What strikes me as over the top is the number of people who made various comments regarding the Late Mr. Taylor's associations haven't been man enough or woman enough to post a retraction on the message board in which they posted said comments sans evidence or knowledge of the facts.

Thank you for calling IBB out...I was just about to do the same.

Make all the excuses you want, IBB. You over-dramatized Taylor's past and you had "all the answers" to this case before any information was available. Come to find out it WAS indeed a burglary and not retribution for Taylor's past, and you are STILL in denial over it by saying we don't have all the facts? Don't quit your day job and stop watching so many CSI: Miami reruns.


"Intellectually dishonest is you pretending the guy was an angel."


Pistol whip some of that...

[thickskin]

2. The analogy stinks because Wilbon has no history in anything related to preying on children.

he also doesn't have hordes of journalists whose job it is to manufacture stories about him, and who aren't acountable for their misinformation or responsible for providing good evidence. the analogy isn't really the point. these sports writers are wrong all the time and often in injurious ways. but bc they're never the subject of discussion, they just move on to the next story and leave their mistakes behind them. but the athletes who are the subjects of their commentary are never able to live anything down. the bottom line is the bottom line. the story that sells is the story they run. if an athlete turns his life around, and that makes a good headline, they'll sing his praises. then, when, through no fault of his own, he gets caught up in violence, they will flip the script on him and spin the object-lesson headline if they think it will sell the most papers, get the most hits, or, as i was saying earlier, give them a sense of superiority, which is the suspicion i have about wilbon.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Thank you for calling IBB out...I was just about to do the same.

Make all the excuses you want, IBB. You over-dramatized Taylor's past and you had "all the answers" to this case before any information was available. Come to find out it WAS indeed a burglary and not retribution for Taylor's past, and you are STILL in denial over it by saying we don't have all the facts? Don't quit your day job and stop watching so many CSI: Miami reruns.



Pistol whip some of that...

So you think those kids would confess to anything more than a burglary why? So they could get hit with premeditated murder instead? That makes no sense.

At this point I would still put more trust in the words of Antrelle Rolle and Sean's cousin: that he had enemies and they were scared something might happen.

[Ibleedburgundy]

1. We have more facts than we did and they point to you (And tons of others) being dead wrong with your assessments. Why wouldn't you believe the confessions? Because they don't fit in with your Mob/Cosa Nostra Hit theory. Gimme a friggin break. I have no respect for you or your ilk.

I don't want your respect. You can save that for your murderer friends.

[dj_stouty]

So you think those kids would confess to anything more than a burglary why? So they could get hit with premeditated murder instead? That makes no sense.

At this point I would still put more trust in the words of Antrelle Rolle and Sean's cousin: that he had enemies and they were scared something might happen.

Cue the black helicopters....

[Keino]

I don't want your respect. You can save that for your murderer friends.

You don't have it, and I DARE your ass to come to the game Thursday night and say some mess like that to me.

[Keino]

From a guy named Broohaha who posts on the Washington Post/Lacanfora blog:


Folks, I am at my wits end. It amazes me how 99.9% of the nation has been simply misled by the media into thinking that Sean Taylor's death was his fault and caused by bad associations. This DESPITE the fact that the police have caught people and announced that they did it just as a robbery. And DESPITE the fact that the police have always said they saw no connection to Taylor personally.

Every message board I go to or conversation I engage in I hear the same thing: did you hear Rolle's comments? Did you hear that there was a knife on his pillow? They broke down the door to get to him? They're ALL saying that they dont believe it was "just" for money and that they were out to get Taylor.

I just watched PTI and Kornheiser and Wilbon expressed EXTREME skepticism at this turn of events. They more or less said, "We know who Sean Taylor was. We have a really hard time believing the cops are right here. Everything we've heard seems to indicate it was a "hit."

People are ridiculously off base here because of four things.

1) The knife on Sean Taylor's pillow --] sending a message!
2) Why would they break down his bedroom door to shoot him??
3) Why would the intruders not steal anything either time? Must have been a "hit"!
4) But Antrel Rolle said so!

Here's the thing: 1, 2, and 3 are NOT TRUE.

THERE WAS NO KNIFE ON THE BED AS A MESSAGE!
IT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE THAT NOTHING WAS TAKEN EITHER TIME!
THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON WHY THEY STARTED BREAKING DOWN THE BEDROOM DOOR; THEY WANTED TO GET AT VALUABLES, NOT SEAN TAYLOR!

But the media has sensationalized this story from the very beginning. How have they done this? By failing to properly report on the most elemental piece of evidence involved: the initial police report. I will discuss #4 at the end.

I am going to explain simply and clearly how the media is COMPLETELY wrong and has been spreading false information from the very start. It requires very few assumptions or inferences and the entire argument is quite sound overall (especially when you consider that the people "on the ground" -- the police, the family, the lawyer, all say that Taylor was not targeted).

How can you guys help? Not sure. Maybe you can copy/paste this to other message boards. Send this to some blogs. Send it to writers at your local paper. Encourage them to point out how disgustingly flawed the reporting has been from the very start. All I know is that I was able to Google the initial police report and piece together just about exactly what happened from the very start to realize that Sean Taylor was just an innocent victim of people who were after his belongings. He was NOT a target. This was not a ridiculous mob movie type Hollywood vendetta.

So let's start. Here is the police report from the first break in at Sean Taylor's house:

media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/11/26/15/taylor_policereport.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

(If that link doesn't work for you, Google "sean taylor"" "police report" and click the third link. It is the last item in the blue box about halfway down the middle of the page)

Now that you have the police complaint from the first break in, note one very important thing: SEAN TAYLOR WAS NOT AVALIABLE TO TALK TO POLICE. HIS MOTHER FILED THIS REPORT.

The first rumor/innuendo spread by the media:

1) The knife on Sean Taylor's bed as a "message"

Look at the text of the report: "C-2 also advised that a kitchen knife was left on her bed."

Note that it says HER bed... c-2 is, I presume, Sean Taylor's mom (complainant 2?) who filed the report (again, he was not in town). All of the articles said "a knife was left on a bed." Isn't that ridiculously sensationalistic? Not only did they not specify, as the police report did, "kitchen knife" (meaning, likely, a butter knife), they did not even bother to say ""a knife was left on SEAN TAYLOR'S MOTHER'S BED." Don't you think that would instantly kill any inference that there was some sort of message being sent? Not only that, the very first day, Sean Taylor's lawyer and family friend, Richard Sharpstein, clarified that investigators thought the knife was left there by the intruders after they had used it to try to pry open things in one of the rooms in the house. Did the media clarify any of this? No. They just said "a knife was found on a bed" and I think some said "A knife was found on Sean Taylor's bed." God, it disgusts me.

The second rumor/innuendo spread by the media:

2) Why would they break down his bedroom door to shoot him??

2nd paragraph on pg. 2: "S-1 (suspect 1?) entered several rooms in the residence and went through several drawers and a safe in v-1's (victim 1's?) bedroom."

In other words: The burglars scoped out the place once and knew that the valuables were in the bedroom. Granted, it requires a couple of assumptions (i.e. that they only took some of the valuables the first time and came back for more - they didn't park their cars in the driveway and load everything in, after all, they just grabbed and took whatever they could hold onto their persons, most likely; or maybe they were unable to open some stuff in there the first time and came back with stronger tools) but it seems plausible that's why they went to the bedroom and tried to break down the door (because they thought it was locked to protect the valuables, not because they wanted to get at Sean Taylor specifically). Even though we need to make these modest assumptions, it seems clear that they were trying to break into the bedroom during the second break-in because they knew that the valuables were kept there: the safe and what might be in the drawers.

3) Why would the intruders not steal anything either time? Must have been a "hit"!

Page 2, 1st paragraph: "At this time, it's unknown what property was taken, v-1 (victim 1... Sean Taylor, I think it's safe to assume) was not on the scene."

Also, look at paragraph 3 on pg. 2: "A property loss form was also left on scene ..." Now, it's conceivable they leave a property loss form with everybody, even if they're certain nothing was stolen. But come on, there's a STRONG inference here that they left the form BECAUSE they had to list as "unknown" the contents stolen since "v-1 was not on the scene." It doesn't take a huge leap of logic or super duper investigative reporting to figure out that the reason it was unknown what was stolen was because Taylor was not there to specify. It seems unlikely his mother, who did not live at that house, would be able to tell them everything (or even anything) that may have been missing.

I mean, if a diligent reporter reads this carefully and takes it to a random police station and asks them to explain operating procedure, I'm sure they would have enough reason to say in an article, "although the police report said that it was unknown what, if anything, was stolen, police experts say the police report suggests that police were unable to determine the extent of the property taken because of Taylor's absence from the residence" or something.

So there you have it, all three ridiculously sensationalistic aspects of the Sean Taylor saga almost completely rebutted on the basis of a look at the most elemental thing: the initial police report. Combine that with asking a few police officers about operating procedures and you can lay out a very clear and factual account of what happened and all of America would not assume that Taylor was downed in an old gang fight or whatever.

As for Antrel Rolle. I don't even know where to begin on that. Basically, the media took the comments of a random person that knew Sean Taylor and made it about 50x more important than what EVERYBODY "on the ground" was saying: the police detectives, the girlfriend, the father, the friends, the family, the lawyer... all of them said that everything indicated that it was a case of burglars trying to steal from Sean Taylor, not old, scary acquaintances looking to take him out gangland style.

But the media was too eager to run with the Rolle story. They took his completely unfounded and completely speculative comments, based it in fact because it was "his childhood friend," connected that with what they thought they knew about who Sean Taylor was (e.g. he was a thug from "tha U" - don't even get me started there, that's an entirely separate, 10x longer post that I will undertake some other time) and presumed that that, plus THE KNIFE, plus THE BEDROOM, plus NOTHING BEING STOLEN (all three clearly refuted above) meant that Antrel Rolle corroborated what everyone thought: this was a "hit."

Wrong. This was a bunch of hoodlums who wanted to steal stuff, stuff they had seen in the safe and the drawers in Sean Taylor's bedroom the first time they broke into his home. Sean Taylor locked the door. When they tried to break down his bedroom door, he went at them with the only thing he had with him, a machete. Thereupon, they fled, shooting wildly at him twice while fleeing, one shot missing, one shot mortally wounding him in his upper thigh/leg area (how many assassins shoot someone in the leg?).

That is what happened to Sean Taylor. It is clear as day. The police investigators have come to that conclusion. Everybody "on the ground" has come to that conclusion. There is NOTHING to suggest otherwise -- all three other stories (the knife, the bedroom, nothing being stolen) are, as established above, FALSE.

This is a case where the media has ineptly and sensationalistically reported a story that is ridiculously simple and elemental. A close look at the very first police report would instantly eradicate the rumor and innuendo that surrounds this whole episode. Since they're failing to do so, I am making a hail mary effort to get this out there.

[Ibleedburgundy]

You don't have it, and I DARE your ass to come to the game Thursday night and say some mess like that to me.

LMAO! Did you learn to talk like that from the thug life?

[dj_stouty]

LMAO! Did you learn to talk like that from the thug life?

Watch your mouth, IBB.

I'm not sure what your motive is, but you need to chill ASAP.

Cut the crap...

[Keino]

LMAO! Did you learn to talk like that from the thug life?

Im not a thug, but I can handle mine. Test me if you want to. I'll be in Lot C21 Green on Thrusday from about 6PM on.

[akhhorus]

LMAO! Did you learn to talk like that from the thug life?

I know you Duke back each other no matter how inane or false either of your posts are in the political forum, but your comments in this thread are beyond the pale.

[akhhorus]

Agreed that all should be criticized, but have you taken a leave of your senses in thinking that just b/c someone saw person x that they should be accountable to know the reaction of the ENTIRE US media??? I probably missing a lot of the prior conversations b/c it seems way too illogical. Personally I was most offended by Deion's self righteous ego-driven vomit at the mouth <<expletive>>, but I refused to get too worked up b/c he isn't important in the grand scheme of things. I was annoyed by both Wilbon and Shapiro, but I'll admit it was second hand annoyance... Czaben was another one, but his comments were more insensitive and not worth repeating.

At the end of the day, we probably need (and I thought there was one) one all encompassing thread for "Media Reaction", but I why nitpick at each other over it. Peolpe are all going to grieve and deal in their own way, right? Who cares if Cane is mad at the Almighty over this as he is entitled to his reaction right?

I'm sorry, but this isn't grief. And he can believe and post what he wants to, but I'm equally entitled to point out why I think his selective outrage smacks of just whining.

[CNYSkinFan]

the assinine comments in thsi thread are amazing. I for one suspected more was to taylor's death, not because I felt he had anything to do with it, but because I feared reprisals from those he turned his back on in 2005. I posted as much here.

However when the truth came out I was also man enough to accept it. The fact is that it is a far greater tragedy what happened to Sean then any murder for hire scenario out there. IBB you should be ashamed of your comments. Not because it offends anyone on this board, but because it shows a window into your soul. And that window is dark indeed.

For someone who is a supposed liberal in the political forum your comments are a tad racist. If a white NFL player was in his house and guinned down in a Robbery I doubt your comments would be so caustic. I doubt you would have the willingness to believe sketchy reports that call him a thug for no good reason. I doubt it very very much.

[hail2skins]

I see this has gone downhill again. Closed.