Having read the entire article and feeling confident that I would be able to tell a good source from bad, I’m left scratching my head. Is the Daily News a good source or a bad source for this article? I’m feeling more confused than A-Rod in his paranoia now…

This is like you Grand Ma telling you that you are the sweetest boy in the world. You might be the biggest SOB on the planet but that ain’t Granny’s point of view.

Or, this is like your old girl friend going around telling everybody you sucked in bed. You might have or you might be a stud but that doesn’t help her make her point about you generally sucking.

The point is consider the source. They hired and continue to employ Mike Lupica, .. what the F%$& does the NY Daily News know about journalism?

I read this story the same way as Craig did, at first. Then I wondered whether A-Rod’s people put this out so they could challenge the legitimacy of Bosch’s records and the motives behind their going public. By sliming Bosch and alleging a “conspiracy” to weasel out of a $114 million contract, A-Rod’s lawyers could be signaling to MLB that they’ll challenge every document and witness, implying that if you don’t have pictures of A-Rod injecting PEDs, you don’t have anything.

And that’s the problem with the story. Without knowing the source, whether it’s Randy Levine or A-Rod’s attorneys or someone else, you can’t get what the angle is. A-Rod might just want the Streinbrenners to show him some love and support. Who knows?

Towards full disclosure, .. the Daily News gave me my first “job”. Paper boy back in the early 70s. So I guess I know what the culture is on the “inside”. And, .. I have a source.

I have no doubt that the Daily News is practicing what passes for news reporting, not just sports news reporting, since at least the 1970s–Fit the reporting to the overall theme as established upstairs. It’s not just ESPN, the Post, and the Daily news, it’s EVERYONE. Whether it’s politics (NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc.) or sports, the method is the same–a story breaks, management tests the wind and decides a slant, the reporters write to fit. You stand a chance of getting some facts early, if at all; after that, it’s all spin.

But Alex brings most of it upon himself and

How so? The first set of steroid issues was in ’09, which he should have been vilified for. However, that’s 5 years of abuse he’d taken from guys like Lupica even after winning two MVP awards. Players do stupid stuff all the time, yet none receive half the vitriol spewed at them like Arod does. I’m not referring to the PED issue, I’m talking about things like the centaur painting or getting fed popcorn by a girlfriend.

“or the way that you mock articles that take a stance against PED use and praise those that pose the silly question “why are anabolic steroids bad but cortizone is ok?”

I don’t mock all articles that take stances against PED use. I mock those that are incoherent, intellectually dishonest or internally inconsistent. And the “why are anabolic steroids bad but cortisone is ok” article raises a good point that neither leaves anything out of the equation to push its argument nor has opened itself to any terminal criticism. If that article bugged you, why?

“Should the News have looked for multiple sources to confirm that Alex is indeed paranoid? Probably.”

Thanks. That was my point.

“But then again, before accusing the News of pushing an agenda shouldn’t you look for someone to confirm that’s what they’re doing?”

If you cannot see based on the past week alone, let alone the past decade, that the Daily News will do anything it possibly can to portray A-Rod as a monster, you either haven’t been reading it or else there’s nothing I can do to convince you, apparently,

That’s a fair take; but couldn’t the same be said about every media outlet, whether it is ESPN ignoring the Ray Lewis murder stuff so as to not interfere with the “Ray Lewis is an inspirational leader” story line or the way that you mock articles that take a stance against PED use and praise those that pose the silly question “why are anabolic steroids bad but cortizone is ok?”

Should the News have looked for multiple sources to confirm that Alex is indeed paranoid? Probably. But then again, before accusing the News of pushing an agenda shouldn’t you look for someone to confirm that’s what they’re doing?

Of course they do. And they have an obligation, in my view, to explain why what the Yankees front office is saying is exceedingly problematic. You cite their laziness in doing so. I’ll make many criticisms of the Daily News (and the Post) but laziness has never been one of their faults. Indeed, they work their asses off to get where they want to go.

The issue is not laziness. It’s that, in being critical as they should be, they lose the opportunity to push their “A-Rod is a finished” headlines. Just as, if they go to, say, a different source who may know A-Rod’s current thinking, they’ll likely get a different portrayal of his psyche and thus can’t go with the “batty A-Rod” is scared and paranoid line.

They have a story they want to tell and they are selective about what they report in order to tell that story. That’s my issue with them.

“Implausible” is not the same thing as being “wrong.” I agree with you that the insurance thing is unlikely for a myriad of reasons. However that’s not the only way the Yankees could make Alex go away (outright release if they’ve determined that the production of a 38 year old with two bad hips isn’t worth the horse poop that comes with him); but that’s neither here or there. If someone from the Yankee front office comes to a news outlet and says “We’re working on ways to get rid of Alex, I can’t get into specifics, but if you want to say ‘Yankee Sources’ you can.” they have to run with that.

I agree that it would have been nice for Bill Madden to use some critical thinking on the avenues available to the Yankees if they want to send Alex packing; but being lazy doesn’t make him wrong. And, for what it’s worth, Christian Red who is one of the authors of this latest A-Rod piece is one of the guys who has been out in front on this steroid stuff for a long time and not one for floating silliness.

They assume an insurance claim on his contract is a simple matter of paperwork when it certainly is not. They speculated that A-Rod may not bother to rehab when there was no basis for thinking so (and which as refuted by A-Rod himself and Yankees sources later in the week). They talk about the possibility of the Yankees and A-Rod settling on some sort of buyout of his deal when there is zero incentive for him to do so and no mechanism (per the MLBPA and the CBA) for him to actually give the Yankees any sort of discounted buyout.

They either have their own agenda to run A-Rod out of town or are carrying water for the front office in its effort to make that happen. In doing so they have failed to acknowledge the basic impossibility of this short of the team simply releasing him, which no one — not even their own sources — have suggested is a possibility.

It’s wishcasting and fantasy.

Given Alex’s reputation I have no doubt that he would go down this road.

Where has the Daily News been wrong thus far on this? They stated that the Yankees are going to try and divorce themselves from Alex – which they very well still might.

I have no problem believing that Alex thinks the Yankees and MLB are out to get him, for the simple reason that we’ve seen others (Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens) accuse MLB of the very same thing.

For someone who likes to call others out on false narratives, you’re quite good at stirring some up of your own.

Remember, though, that no one is going to buy a newpaper that pleads for rational thought. “Just give ARod a chance to explain himself before your hysteria takes over” is never a headline you will see.

Rather, A-FRAUD sells. Everybody’s buying.

These reporters keep beating a dead horse!