Report: Packers official tried to intimidate journalist over Letroy Guion story

[Sky King]

While I was watching the Bears blow an opportunity to help the Packers in the division, I took a look at the Cohen & John Diedrich article on Guion. So I’ve edited my previous post. That is not true. From the article: So he was given the opportunity to respond and chose not to. And Guion’s attorney, Robert Rush, throughout the article challenges the information presented, so Guion's point of view was represented.

As for the source of the information, there’s no need to speculate: I’m surprised you didn’t mention any of this in your post.

I have some honest questions (not questions to make a point) regarding the other aspects of your post:
• What do you see as the author’s bias in writing the Guion story?

• What makes you think McGinn’s editorial was aimed at Gannet?

• Why should journalists share in the blame or embarrassment for not vetting an NFL player? And it was after all, the JS that uncovered the story. With regard to the responsibility of the media, do you blame Woodward and Bernstein for not exposing the Watergate scandal earlier? Do they share responsibility for Nixon’s reelection? (Offered as an analogy only: That was obviously a hugely more important story.)

• How does the fact the JS reported on the Jolly story – both the detail of his crimes and his contrition – make them hypocritical in mentioning him along with Lyerla as an example of the Packers’ willingness to acquire players not in the “Packers people” mold?

• The bottom line for me when evaluating journalists is are they reporting facts and representing both points of view if possible? It looks to me like Cohen and Diedrich did just that. My only problem with the article remains its timing.

BTW, one of the more disturbing things about that article appeared in the beginning. Outside the police station in the hours after his son’s arrest:

I weighed-in on the matter. So have you. Nothing personal, but that's enough for me since it really does not matter to me whether or not you agree with me, nor do I feel the need to have your approval and vice-versa. If you want to pick my posts apart then be my guest. You can even declare yourself the winner of this thread, if so desired, and it will not offend me in the least.

Nothing in this thread has changed my opinion that most of what you post makes for enjoyable reading. But I prefer not to be a participant in turning this thread into yet another marathon pie fight. Besides, my criticism lies with the JS's story, only. And since they buy bandwidth, paper and ink by the truckload I'm confident that they are more than capable of defending themselves, just as McGinn tried to do earlier today.

 

[TJV]

I weighed-in on the matter. So have you. Nothing personal, but that's enough for me since it really does not matter to me whether or not you agree with me, nor do I feel the need to have your approval and vice-versa. If you want to pick my posts apart then be my guest. You can even declare yourself the winner of this thread, if so desired, and it will not offend me in the least.

Nothing in my post was personal towards you. You posted something that was just plain wrong about the article and I pointed it out, saying only that you were wrong about it. But most of my post was asking honest questions about how you came to some conclusions that weren’t obvious to me from reading the story and you made some bold accusations. Sorry you’re so sensitive about it.

 

[Mondio]

OK, I'm going to go on record here as saying I had serious doubts about Guion when he came from the Vikings. I mean, seriously, I knew back then that he had problems. A Vikings player who already has problems coming to the Packers? The mere fact that he wore purple gave me the *******. Then the fact that he had problems? That's a real head scratcher. I was especially critical of the Williams brothers who ignored the rules when they played for the Vikings. Now the Packers have an ex-Viking derelict and we take it out on a reporter???

As I've said before, I didn't read the 1st article because I still don't figure it would be worth my time. These things allegedly happened years before he was with this team correct? What was the story with the claims? I have to believe the NFL, the Vikings, and the Packers knew a few things before this incredible investigative "journalism" piece came out. Maybe the circumstances around the allegations were ridiculous made by ridiculous people? Maybe that's why nothing was ever done. With what transpired this summer I have a hard time believing that relevant history was not taken into account by the NFL especially considering how they were coming down on players for current and past transgressions. Regardless, I would have been more accepting had this article been written before he was ever signed. Where was this hard hitting piece then? or even last summer, and questioning if he should be re-signed and back with this team? Why not? These actions didn't just happen and apparently Guion or the Packers nor the NFL had any input into the article or even a referenced "no comment", as a poster above pointed out, I question the slant and bias of anything he may have written.

I'm taking it out on the reporter because I do think it's junk. If you choose to write an article like this, you better damn well have all the information, and you better include it all. Nothing from Guion, the Packers, nor the NFL? come on man. It has the appearance of someone wanting to smear Guion for something and feeding some information to a willing pawn that was all to eager to spew it in a format that would be read by more people.

as for the article in defense of him, again, i'm not reading it. I did read PFF's take on it and I laughed. What a whiney little girl. "ohhh, a big scary black man looked at my friend and it made him uncomfortable. whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" what a pansy.

 

[TJV]

These actions didn't just happen and apparently Guion or the Packers nor the NFL had any input into the article or even a referenced "no comment", as a poster above pointed out, I question the slant and bias of anything he may have written.
...
I'm taking it out on the reporter because I do think it's junk. If you choose to write an article like this, you better damn well have all the information, and you better include it all. Nothing from Guion, the Packers, nor the NFL? come on man. It has the appearance of someone wanting to smear Guion for something and feeding some information to a willing pawn that was all to eager to spew it in a format that would be read by more people.

I get not reading the article - I didn't until yesterday. But what you posted is just not true. From the article:

Guion, McCarthy and general manager Ted Thompson all declined to comment for this story through a team spokesman. Seth Katz, Guion's agent, also declined to be interviewed. A spokesman for the NFL said the league had no comment.

So Guion, his agent, McCarthy, Thompson, and the NFL were all contacted for a response to the information in the article. Guion (and the others) were given the opportunity to respond and chose not to. And Guion’s attorney, Robert Rush, throughout the article challenges the information presented, so Guion's point of view was represented. Sky King and now you are just wrong about that. The article also named the sources interviewed. Again, I get you don't want to read it, but since you didn't perhaps you shouldn't attempt to characterize something you didn't read.