I know I have complained about reporters who think they are plugged into what is happening on the Owner Level.
Which is why I look at this report from Yahoo Sports about Brett Favre saying "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Vikings with a good deal of disgust. I don't give two shits about the Vikings, and don't really understand why anyone does. They've been a comically woeful franchise--either being awful, or hilariously underperforming in the Big Game since their inception. I could not care less whether Favre becomes a Viking or not, though I find the whole thing very interesting to watch.
So why do I care about a report from Yahoo Sports that says Favre isn't going to become a Viking?
This isn't an FBI agent complaining about civilians being tortured, or disclosing the number of Arabic speakers getting dismissed from the US Armed Forces because they were gay. This isn't Watergate. Why the fuck is Yahoo unable to do better in their sourcing than "a source close to the team"?
Dear Rick Schwartz, Yahoo reporter: "a source close to the team" isn't going to lose their job if you report their name. How about you don't give this kind of protection to an employee who doesn't need it? It is either true, and therefore no big deal. Or, it is bullshit and you are being used as a smokescreen. Congrats! You are either a drama queen or a sucker.
And really--no more specific than "a source close to the team?" That appellation could be used to describe Viking's Owner Zygi Wilf or Suzy Longstocking, Bernard Berrian's babysitter. It is meaningless. You couldn't even give us a general title, like "an upper level executive"?
All of this--the unnamed sources, the kvetching from the Star Tribune guys for a team that went 10-6 in a soft NFC Central last year? A team that is banking on an overrated secondary, and a receiving corps that begins and ends with Bernard Berrian? A 40 year old QB is going to transform that shitty receiving corps? Maybe. He ain't going to do shit for that questionable secondary, though.
My point is simple enough--this ain't the launch codes The Anonymous Source is giving away, and it should not be treated as such. The Anonymous Source shouldn't be anonymous. It isn't important enough to be quoted off the record. Yahoo, you make journalism a bit of a joke when you can't name your source for a story that is either going to be confirmed or blown out of the water by Monday. Either way, you didn't make your profession better by passing on a rumor from your unnamed source close to the team.