If Our MSM Political Reporters Wrote Sports Stories..

Coach Belichick undermines the legitimacy of the NFL by making unsubstatiated claims of NFL bias and baseless insinuations of unfair treatment of Tom Brady in the inflategate investigation. 

No doubt, this statement appears "hostile" to Coach Belichick and involves a bunch of presumptions that may or may not be based on evidence. The basis of this statement comes directly from the article linked below... and how a similar statement about Donald Trump was a passed off as "reporting" by a news outlet.

But let's break it down.

Does questioning an organizations motives or bias "undermine their legitimacy"? I would argue they would not, unless those questions actually have merit. In fact, in some ways, if there an organization showed obvious bias, and there was a complete lack of anyone calling that organization out on it... that would do just as much to "undermine the legitimacy" as anything. In other words, accusations of bias will only go as far as those allegations can be seen by people or proven as such.

What should be considered "unsubtantiated"? Objectively only that which can be supported by tangible evidence is technically substantiated. But there is certainly "some evidence" to back Trump's claims that the election process is "rigged' based on his description of that particular word. The forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz was based on evidence of "rigging the primary" for Clinton. The leaked emails showing that the Clinton campaign recieved the debate questions in advance would also be considered evidence of "rigging". The timing of the release of the Billy Bush audio could also qualify as evidence of bias, which would be "rigging" in terms of Donald Trump's explanation of the term.

However, the manner in which this reporter uses the term unsubstantiated, suggests he believes  much higher level of evidence must exist to make a claim like this. Another way to define unsubtantiated, is to determine that if your evidence falls short of "absolute proof" it would be considered unsubstantiated. Fair enough. However, that would make pretty much any and all opinions "unsubstantiated". Whether that opinion be that the Patriots are a favorite to make it back to the Superbowl, or the opinion that Donald Trump is unfit for the Presidency,  those opinions would be considered "unsubstantiated". But you won't read any reporter suggest that a prognosticator picking the Patriots to get to the Super Bowl or the Presidents opinions about Donald Trump are "unsubstantiated". You will just read what the prognosticator or President stated, which is how a reporter should report. Same thing "should" hold true for Donald Trump. What he states is what he states. Ironically, in this scenario, a reporter suggesting that his opinion is "unsubstantiated" is also technically just offering an "unsubstantiated" opinion in and of itself. It's actually a blatant act of hypocrisy.

Lastly, using the term "baseless insinuation" is just a more biased manner of injecting personal opinion than using the term "unsubstantiated claim". In the case of the Trump story, the baseless insinuation was that Hillary Clinton was taking some sort of performance enhancement drug to provide her with extra energy during the debates. Whether said statement is "baseless" depends on your point of view. Certainly she did not disprove the allegations by agreeing to take a drug test prior. So it cannot be disproven. Was she (as he stated) much more energenic and sharp at the beginning of the debate, and did she tail off towards the end? That would be the opinion of most people who watched the debate. That would also be the "basis" for suggesting she had taken some sort of performance enhancement that wore down as the debate moved on. It may or may not be a "good" basis or even enough of a basis for most people to make the claim. That being written, I have personally talked to a great many people who wondered the exact same thing (even before Trump made that insinuation). So there must be "some" basis for something observed by a great deal of people.

Bottom line: There are no more "reporters" out there folks. There are only journalists peddling their opinions as fact. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I do mean to undermine the legitimacy of the main stream media, and admit that my opinions are only substantiated by whatever evidence I personally see. You may see my claims as baseless, but that is just your unsubstantiated opinion leading you to your baseless insinuation as such.


Hat Tip: Column-dishonest media your bias is showing