“SOURCE” DENIES OUR CARDINALS STORY, BUT WE STAND BY IT
Posted by Mike Florio on March 3, 2009, 9:39 p.m. EST
Kent Somers of the
Arizona Republic has posted an item in response to our story about
the stiffing of Cardinals assistants who left the team after the Super Bowl.
Here’s what he said: “A
source is denying a report by profootballtalk.com that assistants who left the team after the season were not paid Super Bowl bonuses.”
Though it’s regarded as a breach of etiquette among writers to speculate about sources because if such speculation is accurate the sources in question have a tendency to stop being sources, it’s pretty clear to us that Somers’ unnamed “source” is someone with the organization, given Somers’ use of the term “denying.”
The subject of an allegation “denies” it. Third parties who aren’t being accused of doing anything would “dispute” or “debunk” or “discredit.”
And given that Somers covers that Cardinals and that the affected employees no longer work for the Cardinals, it’s even more reasonable to think that he simply called someone in the front office, ran the gist of our story by the “source,” and accepted the response at face value.
But we wonder whether Somers has tried to contact each of the persons who left the organization, voluntarily and involuntarily, after the Super Bowl. Or whether Somers has contacted the league office to see if there’s any type of a dispute brewing over all of this. (We don’t know whether there is, but it would be a reasonable place to check.)
Bottom line? We put more effort into confirming this one than usual, given that the subject matter is a bit sensitive. (Then again, it’s not the first time “Cardinals” and “cheap” have been used in the same paragraph.) And we stand by this one, fully and completely.
Indeed, in the wake of Somers’ item, we have received assurances from our sources that the story is accurate.
So, again, we stand by it.
We wonder whether Somers will do the same after talking to any of the folks who left.