Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark M
Totally understand. And don't necessarily disagree that a bit of respect is needed both directions.
But until (or, rather, if) more info comes out, I'm guessing that BW said something that led to the alleged crackback (2-14 comment).
And you know this ... how? Seems like you are speculating along with the rest of us. 
Whitlock can say "sources said ... " and "Waters couldn't be reached for comment ... " all he wants. I don't buy it.
No one in that organization is talking about anything to anyone at any time. So I completely and totally refuse to believe that a head coaching search goes on in super-duper-double secrecy with practically zero leaks, while an argument between a player and coach makes the media in less than 48 hours ... unless the coach or player involved is the source.
Sorry, but there's simply no other logical explanation. Waters whined to Whitlock, and Whitlock is covering for him by saying BW couldn't be reached for comment. Happens a lot more in the media than you think.
MM
~~  |
I don't know for sure. But if Whitlock says that Waters could not be reached for comment when in fact he was, that's lying. And that is a major breach in the professional code for journalists. Much as we may rip on Whitlock, he's experienced enough to know how the game works. I would agree with you if he didn't say "Waters could not be reached for comment" later in the piece--that's a biiiigggg no-no in the journalism world.