When a Yahoo! Sports article surfaced last week claiming that there was an ongoing rift between Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre and head coach Brad Childress, it cited unnamed sources (or "multiple team sources") as evidence there were problems in Minnesota.
Naturally, I was skeptical given that the writer didn't declare who said: "Brett thinks Childress has no clue about offense." There were other derogatory remarks.
Apparently, other members of the media piled on, creating a lot of confusion and causing Favre to recently clear the air in a meeting with his teammates—saying the article was completely bogus—a smart move from a guy who apparently returned to the Vikings for a second stint because the chemistry was so good, because he loved the organization and his teammates so much.
Following Sunday night's 15-10 preseason loss to the San Francisco 49ers—in regards to his relationship with Childress and in response to the rumors—Favre said, "It was a totally ridiculous article ..... That was addressed and I think that's behind us now."
Favre also spoke about how all teams, especially successful ones, are going to have some disagreements along the way during any given season. And that the Vikings were no exception.
I think unnamed sources are ridiculous.
If a player is going to talk to the media, they should be aware their name is going to be attached to the words they say. There shouldn't be any kind of agreement between a player and writer that a name won't be attached to negative comments.
If you've got a problem with someone on your team, tell that person to their face, not to some writer who will agree to anonymously publish your feelings of distress.
And as far as the media is concerned, I believe sources must be named rather than having to defend (or attempting to justify) what was written. Anytime a writer uses "multiple team sources" and doesn't name names, it loses all credibility in my eyes. I'm not just picking on Yahoo! Sports here.
It happens all the time in an Internet age of bloggers trying to either get a story out as quickly as possible or create some sort of sensationalism to get noticed.
It's absurd journalism. It isn't even journalism.
It's an embarrassment to the profession. And it also makes me wonder whether half the stuff I read is even true anymore.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!