ESPN Drags Out Chad Johnson Trade Rumor BS
Despite there being ZERO indication from the Bengals that Chad will be traded, ESPN continues their efforts to resuscitate a dead story.
"I don't know why people continue with the speculation of moving Chad," Marvin Lewis said. "Many times we've reiterated, I don't know if we're keeping count on this, Chad's not getting moved."
That quote came two days ago after Marvin was bothered about the Chad trade talk for the 400th time in two seasons. And yet today ESPN reported during NFL Live and just about every other program:
"Bengals will listen to trade offers; trade unlikely."
What the hell does that even mean? Every team in the league will field calls about their players for no other reason than to gauge their value. Basically ESPN is trying to breathe life into a story long enough for the speculation to carry into the draft so Chris Berman, Keyshawn Johnson and Chris "They've lost their right to talk to me" Mortensen will have some filler material during their draft show.
My basic gripe with this entire situation is that I have, for the most part, killed every trade rumor about Chad since last season. Last Winter I basically lost my mind during a radio broadcast over the Chad trade nonsense and pulled one of these. I believe it's time for him to be moved but I believe Mike Brown will never yield.
My not so basic, journalist gripe is this story is not newsworthy. ESPN reported the Bengals are listening to Chad trade offers and also reported that a trade is unlikely in the same sentence. So the report cancels itself out before it even ends. It's like ESPN is Larry and Richard from Weekend at Bernie's and they are just propping this story up for their own means for as long as possible.
It's time for ESPN to show respect to their viewers/readers by honoring the basic journalism principles by which the majority of media adheres. Let the Bengals earn their exposure through real stories instead of this nonsensical crap.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?