wow this is a first

Well, Deadspin is good people. And they wanted it to be wrong the whole time.

However, in the less stringent "court of public opinion," you may continue to declare Mihlfeld guilty.

I think deadspin should have left this as the top story there all day.

And those people from Can't Stop the Bleeding really hate deadspin.

Well, Deadspin is good people.

Really? In which culture's moral code? Because by the standards of Judeo-Christianity, they're anything but.

PHBTPHBTPHBTPHBPTPHBTPHBTPHBTPHBPTPHBTPHBTPHBTPHBPTPHBTPHBTPHBTPHBPTPHBTPHBTPHBTPHBPTPHBTPHBTPHBTPHBPT!!!

wow

a journalist got ethics and he take responsibility for what he say and he apologise for being wrong right up front and not a by the way somewhere in the middle of something so as you dont notice

a whole lot of mike russos not gonna be real too happy with will apologising like this.

this is one of the reasons i have complained about all this believeing what some unnamed "source" say because once it is written and everybody read it and believe it the damage done

OMG TEH HITLER Posted: October 02, 2006 at 04:04 PM (#2194771)

And those people from Can't Stop the Bleeding really hate deadspin.

- um, i think a lot of it is cubs/cards rivalry

And those people from Can't Stop the Bleeding really hate deadspin.

I asked him about that one time (the CSTB guy), but I can't remember his answer, other than not liking Will Leitch for some reason. Meh, Will's an Illini, but CSTB links to me, so I'm not gonna take sides.

Really? In which culture's moral code? Because by the standards of Judeo-Christianity, they're anything but.

Your post's arrogance and your handle clash nicely.

a journalist got ethics and he take responsibility for what he say

But not so much responsibilty that he do any work investigating the veracity of the initial claim that Mihlfield's name was among those redacted.

Deadspin is made up of little more than brief bits of slack, colorless prose between blog links people e-mail Leitch, most of which seem to center around a juvenile fascination with the social behavior of ESPN personalities.

Well, the Pujols steroid genie "link" is out of the bottle, so they are still scum and a "woops!" ain't gonna do it.

I sincerely doubt Deadspin was the only new source approached with this false info, so given that nobody else was sure enough in the source to report it I don't think we need to give too much credit to Deadspin. The guy dragged two names through the mud because he didn't have the resources to verify the story as a real news organization would have until four months later, when the Times did his work for him. A public apology was the least he could do.

However, in the less stringent "court of public opinion," you may continue to declare Mihlfeld guilty.

Winner! This is almost as good as "Goody Tejada often laughs in church."

Deadspin is made up of little more than brief bits of slack, colorless prose between blog links people e-mail Leitch, most of which seem to center around a juvenile fascination with the social behavior of ESPN personalities.

I think this says more about the readership there than the editor. I'm not pointing fingers -- I LOVE Deadspin. I think it's one of the greatest sources for sports humor and other sports tidbits you simply do not get anywhere else. And Will's keen eye (or folks emailing in, no matter) on a lot of great and/or humorous writing is what keeps me coming back.

I also think an additional sell of Deadspin is that they're willing to take risks not many suit-and-tie pubs like ESPN or SI are. He went with this scoop, said the source had been trustworthy before, and merely reported what the scoop said. Now, it turns out they were wrong, he apologized (without any "but" "and" or "although"s, as baseball chick mentioned), and I very much doubt he'll use that source again.

I'm sure this will lose Will his fair share of readers, but as for me? I'll be back tomorrow, same time, same place.

As for CSTB, well... I don't go there often. Maybe that says more about me than it, but I doubt that. CSTB sucks.

I'd rather live in a country that allows unnamed sources to be quoted than in one that does not.

I'd rather live in a country that allows unnamed sources to be quoted than in one that does not.

Richard Nixon disagrees.

On a similar note, from an SI Article

The federal prosecutor overseeing an investigation of steroids in baseball said Monday that a newspaper report indicating that five players, including Roger Clemens, had used illegal performance-enhancing drugs contained "significant inaccuracies."

As the saying goes, believe only half of what you read and less of what you hear.

So wait - it's possible that Deadspin was right, yet he was so unsure of his info that he apologized? I think its clear that Deadspin doesn't know what the #### theyre doing. Forget the source, just stop believing Deadspin.

So wait - it's possible that Deadspin was right, yet he was so unsure of his info that he apologized? I think its clear that Deadspin doesn't know what the #### theyre doing. Forget the source, just stop believing Deadspin.

srul,

gee i thought we done ALREADY decided roger, andy, jay, miggy and brian all guilty in the other thread this morning

because

1 - we can and putting them down as cheaters based on no decent evidence just nowitsky runnin his fool mouth make us feel good
2 - if you read it why then it MUST be true
3 - all the 5 guys denied it and anyone who denies something must be lying
4 - we KNOW theres lots of ML ballplayers who used steroids and hey why not these guys especially the ones who are good?

>>>Deadspin is good people. And they wanted it to be wrong the whole time.

When your write, "I hope it isn't true, but..." and then proceed to treat hearsay as fact, the lady doth protest too much.

I don't buy the trope that the mainstream press is more ethical than the netstream, but bloggers trying to spin their hobbies into money-making propositions shouldn't be trusted on blockbuster stories, esp. the way this story was handled from the beginning.

no wait - it's possible that Deadspin was right, yet he was so unsure of his info that he apologized? I think its clear that Deadspin doesn't know what the #### theyre doing. Forget the source, just stop believing Deadspin.

Bingo.

I really hate seeing stories from Deadspin or via Deadspin linked here. It just adds a certain level of taint to them. Not that anyone cares.

I don't buy the trope that the mainstream press is more ethical than the netstream, but bloggers trying to spin their hobbies into money-making propositions shouldn't be trusted on blockbuster stories, esp. the way this story was handled from the beginning.

Will Leitch, editor-in-chief and main writer of Deadspin.com, used to be the editor-in-chief I believe of The Sporting News and I would imagine is one of the finer and best-paid sports bloggers out there. As such, I'm sure he has very good sources in many places. He's actually turning his profession into a money-making proposition. Go figure.

Will Leitch, editor-in-chief and main writer of Deadspin.com, used to be the editor-in-chief I believe of The Sporting News

That sure doesn't sound right. John Rawlings has been editor-in-chief of the Sporting News since 1990, and Tom Barnidge for about a decade before Rawlings.

The NYT profiled Leitch a few months back. If you've got a subscription, then you can probably dig it up. IIRC he was a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch many moons ago and then quit after realizing mainstream newspapers are evil.

He worked at the Sporting News, but wasn't editor in chief. He may have been editor in chief of the Daily Illini, but I'm not even sure that's accurate.

I think this says more about the readership there than the editor. <blockquote>

Doesn't the editor create the content that attracts the readers? In other words, if an entrepreneur creates a really terrible bar in a undesirable neighborhood with watered-down drinks, terrible techno music and tacky decor and finds itself attracting a douche-y clientele, isn't it the entrepreneur's fault?

<blockquote> As for CSTB, well... I don't go there often. Maybe that says more about me than it, but I doubt that. CSTB sucks.

Well, you clearly have a man-crush on Leitch, so I can see why CSTB's intense hatred of "The Human Whoopee Cushion" might grate on your nerves. IMHO, CSTB is far funnier and more entertaining than Deadspin. And I don't even dislike Deadspin -- I just find it's widespread appeal to mystifying.

{Whoops....fixed the tags}:

I think this says more about the readership there than the editor.

Doesn't the editor create the content that attracts the readers? In other words, if an entrepreneur creates a really terrible bar in a undesirable neighborhood with watered-down drinks, terrible techno music and tacky decor and finds itself attracting a douche-y clientele, isn't it the entrepreneur's fault?

As for CSTB, well... I don't go there often. Maybe that says more about me than it, but I doubt that. CSTB sucks.

Well, you clearly have a man-crush on Leitch, so I can see why CSTB's intense hatred of "The Human Whoopee Cushion" might grate on your nerves. IMHO, CSTB is far funnier and more entertaining than Deadspin. And I don't even dislike Deadspin -- I just find its widespread appeal to mystifying.

The correction/apology is sufficient. The damage done to Deadspin's reputation is punishment enough. Next time he tries to make a big splash, it will be a boy crying wolf.

Deadspin should have his children taken away.

Okay, done some fact-checking, and I don't know who to believe. On Deadspin's FAQ, Will never talks about TSN at all. But let me quote the very first couple of lines in an SI article about him:

Until this year Will Leitch had never written a blog; he didn't even have Internet access in his Manhattan apartment. But the former Sporting News editor [emphasis mine], 30, was a fierce sports fan, and he felt the blogosphere needed a site with a more irreverent point of view. So in September he launched Deadspin, a bitingly funny blog that is to sports what Wonkette is to politics.

<a href = "http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/preview/siexclusive/2005/pr/subs/siexclusive/12/13/media.web1219/?url=http://premium.si.cnn.com/pr/subs2/siexclusive/2005/pr/subs/siexclusive/12/13/media.web1219/">article</a>

It's quite possible that only means that he was a copy editor or section editor, but in that phrasing it sounds like one of the big editors, editor-in-chief or managing editor or whatever. Don't know.

Doesn't the editor create the content that attracts the readers? In other words, if an entrepreneur creates a really terrible bar in a undesirable neighborhood with watered-down drinks, terrible techno music and tacky decor and finds itself attracting a douche-y clientele, isn't it the entrepreneur's fault?

Sort of, but I think your analogy demands many bad things happening to/with the subject (bad neighborhood, bad dranks, bad music, bad decor = bad clientele), but I think Deadspin is good even if it isn't highly moral or intelligently-demanding. I think it gets that way because the readers just don't want another ESPN.com, they want funny drunk pictures of Kyle Orton, they want silly season previews, etc. So it's part Will's desire to bring something unique to the masses, and part his reaction to what folks want.

Well, you clearly have a man-crush on Leitch[...]

Guilty as charged.

IMHO, CSTB is far funnier and more entertaining than Deadspin.

Perhaps I should give it a second chance and just not read the Deadspin-bashing posts.

Can someone fix the columns?

As for Deadspin, I just wonder when we're going to start posting articles derived from the Drudge Report.

Garth...CSTB has the answer for you...

Screech was an associate/online editor for The Sporting News. He did, however, discover the internet and was personally responsible for finding the Lindbergh baby.