The only differences between the two, is that one slams a member of the press and the other slams the Brewers’ FO. One was probably done as grudge (of course, you offer no proof) and other was done either to intentionally embarrass the Brewers or because the blogger was too lazy to work for a living.

I don’t believe I quoted you out of context. Here’s the link and the readers can judge for themselves.

The whole story

We don’t really know how Verducci voted, do we? Of course, we have his word which is probably better than Chass’s source, but we know for a fact that the trade was false. Perhaps other members of the committee will confirm Verducci’s version or perhaps they won’t. Did you attempt to get confirmation from other committee members?

In the final analysis, a journalist’s reputation rests on his ability to be trusted to get stuff right. If a journalist is often wrong in the small stuff, how can he be believed in the big stuff?

The real problem in both cases is that the basics of journalism were tossed out the window. Ask for a comment/confirmation/denial from the people involved. Even “our call was not immediately returned” shows a professional attempt to make sure the story is right. And, yes, good journalists do get things wrong. We can cut them some lack when they do their homework. When they don’t , they aren’t good journalist.

If you don’t see how those things are same, I guess we don’t see eye to eye on what professional journalism is.

But, hey, as I said before, it is great fun to bash reputations on hearsay. What else is the web for?

While I have yet to see someone actually confirm Verucci’s yes vote, there are many people in that group — including media guys — who could debunk Verducci’s claim here and they haven’t yet (they would have done the same to debunk Chass if Verducci hasn’t first).

We don’t really know that Verducci voted for Miller. We only know he said he did. Well seriously…is it so impossible to consider that, because of what is clearly a poor relationship with Chass, that he only said he did because he got ripped so badly over not voting for him? There is absolutely no way anyone could ever prove otherwise. After all, the ballots are secret for a reason.

It is not unusual for someone to defend himself against an accusation when he knows full well there is no way anyone could ever prove otherwise. That’s a natural human inclination. But bear in mind that we don’t actually know anything more today than we did before Verducci’s response. All we know is that he didn’t like being lambasted in public over something nobody could prove.

Chass and Miller couldn’t prove a thing, and should’ve never opened their mouths. But Verducci can’t prove he voted for Miller, either, and while we may feel inclined to take his side (because he didn’t start this mess) it’s still true that we have no idea whether he actually voted for Miller or not. This all becomes a matter of personal opinion as to what we believe, but nothing’s actually provable.

There is a big difference between a blind item trade rumor on the one hand and saying that Verducci did something he did not do (and slamming his skills as a reporter to boot) without bothering to check.

If you don’t see the difference between those things, well, we just don’t see eye to eye.

“The conventional reaction is for people to wring their hands and talk about irresponsible reporting and how back when they were riding dinosaurs to the newsroom, people did not play so fast and loose with such matters. I’m not a fan of this reaction.”

I suppose you can have it both ways. Verducci has a right to be upset. Chass, like the rest of you gossip columnists, just throw stuff against the wall and sees what sticks. Reputations and livelihoods be damned. Hey, it is, “great fun”.

His anti-blogger stance is as comical as it is sad.

Verducci took him to the toolshed and rightfully so. Chass has got to lick his wounds and put the integrity back in his word… which is what we bloggers strive to do daily anyways.

Great theatre for us to see but also very sad that guys like Miller, Chass and Morgan are bitter against a game that provided their vocation at what ONCE made them great but sad to say, very small now.

See, I told you I am the king of petty…even when I am calling someone out for being petty, I, myself, am being quite petty. Petty. Petty.

But he def failed on the Miller/Verducci/Palmer reporting because he didn’t take the time and didn’t utilize his resources to find out all the facts. Sounds kind of like a young blogger just trying to make his name in the world.

Verducci was totally in the right here given what Chass and Miller were spreading.