• We talk about that ONE TIME when he filed a story from his Blackberry.

• We talk about Allen Iverson’s retirement and how he broke the news then wrote a column saying he didn’t believe the news to be true.

• We talk about celebrity and debate whether or not he’s  star (hint: I think yes, he thinks no).

• We talk about the quality of his work at the Inquirer and his original termination and subsequent reinstatement.

• We talk about his settlement, and how ostensibly he was only working back at the paper the last six months until that settlement could be reached. That’s why both sides are happy…because neither really wanted him to be there.

• We talk about the rumor that the Inqy was able to get out of his deal because of his appearance on the View.

• We talk about being a political pundit — as he puts it, not an expert, just an American with an opinion.

• We talk about the news that he’s in talks with Showtime for a new TV show and an upcoming book he’s working on.

This show is entirely fascinating. Leave your thoughts in the comments.
(Image via StephenA.com)

Seriously, watch the exchange between Jason and Spencer, which spills into the rest of the panel and includes others in the crowd (including Cook). It will give you some context. Or, go to MGoBlog as Cook transcribed the entire thing.

Look, ethics are somewhat of a sliding scale, depending on the site, right? See, there are different kind of ethics. Spencer challenged McIntyre for his lack of ethics in checking sources and running a story based on a made up email and a cursory Google search on April Fool’s Day. Spencer claims that illustrates The Big Lead’s lack of ethics in checking sources and being a responsible journalist, making the case that other sites — like SB Nation — suffer when bigger blogs act so irresponsibly.

Cook and I discuss the flip side, as well. I got an email (from someone in the industry) asking me if I thought what SPENCER did was ethical at all? He made up a story and sent it to a rival site in hopes that story would be run, then used the ruse to prove his point that the site was unethical.

So, as was posed to me, Cook and I discuss which was the less ethical act. And is it that easy?

Much of our conversation branches off of Alana G’s comment on the panel that blogs should be able to write whatever they want as long as they explain it could, in actuality, be a made up story. Whatever gets you pageviews, she explained.

That. Is. Insane.

She told Josh Zerkle that if he thought it would drive traffic he should have run a story about an NFL player’s personal life that was sent in, but he didn’t have time to check the source or do his own follow-up. All he had to do was explain it could be made up, she offered. As Cook points out, that’s about as unethical as you can come off on a panel about blog ethics.

To be fair, Alana has written a recap of her comments and some clarifications. Please read them on here site, by clicking here.

Again, it all goes back to what your audience expects and what you feel your responsibility is. Does Gawker care if Deadspin posts a story that is factually inaccurate or just care that it collected a million eyeballs? Is it okay that TBL decided a gossipy story about Mark Sanchez and who he was dating was worth posting based on an email and no fact checking because, as he put it, it was a Tuesday (note: it was actually a Thursday)? Is it okay that Sports By Brooks posted countless images of Steve McNair’s scantily-clad mistress AFTER the murder-suicide?

We also talk about the responsibility of writing about an internet rumor that’s not true, even if you write “this is not true.” It’s one thing in the case of LeBron James’s mom and Delonte West, but when Deadspin wrote about the rumor going around Villanova’s basketball team that had similar implications, wasn’t the sheer act of debunking it actually spreading the rumor to far more eyes than would have ever seen it in the first place? To some, the “this isn’t true” is muted by the “hey look at this.”

It’s not just those sites, but an argument that Spencer used against TBL and Cook explained on this show is that the bigger houses DO affect the property value for the rest of the neighborhood. If people don’t trust or respect the biggest blogs around, how will the average person be expected to trust what the smaller ones write?

Ultimately, Cook’s point — and the genesis of him coming on the show — is simple: athletes are people, so no matter what the story is, you might want to make sure it’s true before you go and ruin their lives. That, on its base, seems pretty ethical.

As always, there’s more to this show. You’ll have to listen to hear it all.

HOUSEKEEPING:

One quick five minute rant about how Stephen A. Smith is so out of touch it’s mind-boggling to imagine he has as many jobs as he does. He Tweeted today that his show on Fox Sports Radio would touch on Bryce Harper getting drafted. This is what SAS wrote:

I’m up starting my day everyone. Raring to go. Heading to Boston for Game 3 of the NBA Finals today. Not before the Stephen A. Smith Show though. On the docket: NBA Finals. Strasburg debuts for the Nationals. And this kid Bryce Harper. Draft No. 1 in MLB Draft. Skipped 2 yrs of H.S. to get his GED so he could ultimately play college and pro ball earlier and NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING??? What the Hell is that??? about 2 hours ago via web

I replied, as did others, that EVERYONE was talking about that when it happened. It was, in fact, a HUGE STORY. Every sports pundit in America had an opinion on what this meant for the future of college sports and high school sports and, heck, down to the pee wee leagues. This was THE story for a while.

Of course, SAS backed off, suggesting that he knew it was a big story, he was just debating whether or not it was HOTLY DEBATED. Guess what, Stephen A? It was. If you think otherwise, you weren’t paying attention.

Oh, that’s right…you weren’t paying attention. Of course his plan is to use the fact, in his mind, that nobody was talking about it (when everyone was) to claim that if it were a black kid (which it wasn’t) everyone would have been talking about it (which they were, but he wasn’t paying attention). And, as he writes, “Of course, I’ll get accused of being the race-baiter instead of pointing out something so flagrantly obvious.” (Which he is.)

I’ll tell you what..something about this is flagrantly obvious, that’s for sure.

Thanks for listening.

I’ve read too many stories talking about the disrespect McNabb is getting from Philadelphia, and from the Eagles. The only problem? The articles are combining the two concepts, which is completely unfair to both the fans and the organization.

You can’t blame the Eagles for wanting to get value for a quarterback they’re obviously not looking to re-sign to a long-term deal. Why play McNabb this year and let him walk for nothing, then give a contract to Kolb to be your starter in 2011 after another year on the bench? Actually, forget about Kolb for a second, and let’s ask why the Eagles shouldn’t try to get something back for McNabb if they don’t plan to keep him beyond this year? Isn’t that what smart football teams do with their players? Why is shopping a guy around for value a sign of disrespect? And how in the world is asking for a first or second round draft pick a sign of disrespect either?

If they took a fifth rounder for the guy, sure, THAT’S disrespect. But asking for top-round value for a guy who has been in the league for more than a decade? That’s actually a sign OF RESPECT, if you consider the fact that no team is willing to make the deal. The Eagles, based on the current market, have OVER-VALUED McNabb’s worth to the rest of the league. And if the rest of the league doesn’t see value in signing McNabb long-term – or at least trading away top picks to get him for a year with the chance to sign him long-term – why is it disrespectful of the Eagles to feel the same way? Because he’s played for them all this time? They should know the deterioration level of his skills more than anyone.

Second, to the point of the fans, yes a few idiots went to NYC to boo him when he got picked. I actually had one of them email me today to explain he’s not a bad guy and he does a lot of charity work and has apologized to McNabb in the past. That’s all great, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that the group of “fans” who went up to the draft to boo McNabb put a stain on the fanbase of this city for the last 12 years. Every time there’s a conversation about McNabb, writers go back to that day. So thanks for that, guys. Any rational assessment of McNabb’s skills, or any person who thinks that after this much time of not winning a title, a change of pace is better than status quo, is hit with “YOU BOOED THE GUY WHEN HE WAS DRAFTED.”

No we didn’t. A few fans who didn’t know what they were talking about did. And some of them realized they were wrong.

MJD used this tired reference in his (joking) post about disrespecting McNabb by sending him to Oakland. Mark Kriegel of Fox Sports actually wrote this as a reason for why McNabb is being unappreciated:

Consider his history in Philadelphia, which began with a round of boos from all those Eagles draft experts who had their hearts set on a stoner out of Texas, Ricky Williams. McNabb is coming off his sixth Pro Bowl season, and has won more games and thrown for more yards and touchdowns than any quarterback in Eagles history. Oh, and by the way, he’s led the team to five NFC championship games and a Super Bowl.

By all accounts, McNabb is a good husband and father. He’s never been arrested for slapping a woman or killing a dog, offenses that have inspired demonstrations of support for lesser men and much lesser quarterbacks.

What a curious case is McNabb: no gun possession, no DUI, no respect. From the right, he’s attacked by Rush Limbaugh, the noted expert on black quarterbacks. From the left, the president of Philadelphia’s NAACP chapter charges that McNabb “played the race card.” A distressingly high number of his teammates sided with Terrell Owens. In keeping with the prevalent locker-room metaphor, that’s like siding with cancer.

Now this.

So, Philly fans, don’t bother trying to use rational judgement of a guy’s skills on the field to determine if you want a player to be traded. He’s a good guy. He doesn’t have DUIs. Or dogfighting charges. Rush Limbaugh? We’re using what he said as a reason PHILLY FANS don’t appreciate McNabb? Now this? Come on, Mark.

Maybe a high number of his teammates sided with T.O. because McNabb wasn’t a very good leader. Maybe it was because they liked Owens more than McNabb and rather than keep the situation under control, like a leader would have tried to do, McNabb was just as much to blame for turning that into the circus it was. But national guys may not know that. It doesn’t excuse using any of those points to rationalize the team not trading him or the fanbase wanting a change. Were Atlanta fans who wanted the Falcons to trade Michael Vick and keep Matt Schaub wrong? Were they disrespecting Vick? Forget about all the fallout after that, Schaub has proven to be a better quarterback. And they let him go to keep Vick. Who’s to say it’s not the same situation with Kolb? Why is it disrespectful to McNabb to think that a second-round draft pick who knows the system and has performed well in short opportunities can do the job? At the very least, Kolb will demand far less money that the team could use to upgrade other areas.

Of course, the national guys wouldn’t care about any of that because it’s easy to swoop in and see the surface of this story: Borderline Hall of Fame quarterback may be traded. That’s the story they see. Unfortunately, our friendly-neighborhood general sports columnist Stephen A. Smith agrees with that sentiment.

It’s amazing to read a column by Stephen A. that’s about the NBA, then follow it up with a column about any other sport. He really knows his NBA stuff. He has a well-written, insightful column on Kevin Durant in yesterday’s Inqy. Two days earlier, he’s wildly ranting about how the notion of Kevin Kolb makes his nose hurt. Or something:

Think about it: You’re a quarterback who’s been around for 11 seasons, who’s gone to five conference championship games and one Super Bowl. You’ve done so without a bevy of offensive weapons, especially a running game, for most of those years. In the process, you’ve passed for 32,783 yards. You’re a six-time Pro Bowler, just 33 years old – and the Eagles are talking about letting you go.

So Kevin Kolb can start.

I’d laugh a lot longer if I could remove the stench from my nostrils.

Something smells, folks!

That’s a terrible line, and I respect the editors of the Inqy more and more every day I read lines like that and wonder how hard it must be to edit this kind of writing. Stephen A. talks about Brett Favre holding the Vikings hostage and that’s the reason McNabb won’t get traded there. In fact, the Vikings could make the trade if they wanted to, and tell Favre to shove off. Favre has nothing to do with the fact that the Vikings could or could not trade for McNabb. He’s not actually holding the team hostage. Second, there’s not mention of the Eagles trading McNabb to another NFC contender, which I would never do if I was in charge of the Birds. Never. I’d let him sit the bench before I’d set him up to beat you in the playoffs.

Third, and this is really where the crazy logic of Stephen A. begins, he’s once again arguing against his own point:

The St. Louis Rams supposedly have no interest. The same could be said for the Arizona Cardinals – because they have Matt Leinart. McNabb is said to be not worth a high draft pick in Buffalo, or a long-term investment. Why? Because Ryan Fitzpatrick or Trent Edwards will do just fine.

Then there are the Denver Broncos, who are evidently just peachy with Kyle Orton and Brady Quinn. Alex Smith apparently has enough star potential in San Francisco, so McNabb isn’t worth the 49ers’ giving up one of their two first-round (13th and 16th) picks. And although bothCleveland and Seattle ultimately went out and grabbed Jake Delhomme (now I’m really laughing!) and Charlie Whitehurst, respectively, it was Kolb they were reportedly interested in, not McNabb.

Listening to all of this, true justice would entail McNabb’s staying in Philadelphia, forcing the Eagles to reveal their real intention, and owning up to it for a change.

That last line notwithstanding, Stephen A. chronicles, by my count, SEVEN TEAMS that would rather sign guys off the scrap heap than give up a draft choice for McNabb. Can they all be wrong? Maybe his value around the league isn’t as high as the media wants to believe. Sure, quarterbacks can play until they are 40, but is Brett Favre the rule, or the exception? Is Kurt Warner a coincidence, or a pattern? So if seven teams that need a quarterback haven’t yet been willing to trade for a guy in his mid-30s with a history of injuries, why should we assume the Eagles should just keep him and, theoretically, re-sign him to a longterm deal? If they aren’t going to re-sign him, why wouldn’t they try and get something back for him if they think Kolb has as good a chance to win as McNabb?

Last, to the point of a lack of a running game; yes, McNabb has had much success without a dominant ground attack. But media people, including SAS in this column, use the lack of a running game in the same breath as they use McNabb’s stats to define his value. If it wasn’t for the lack of a running game — and the propensity to pass so much — McNabb wouldn’t have near the same numbers he has, both in yards and in completion percentage. He’s a far more effective passer, statistically speaking, because of the dinks and dunks of the offense. If it weren’t for all the screen passes he gets to throw, there’s no way McNabb would have more than 30k yards or the mediocre completion percentage (59%) he has in his career. Football people, I’ll assume, know this.

And again, Stephen A. how does this have anything to do with Favre?

Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Pleased to have Gary Thorne, venerable broadcaster and the voice of MLB2K10 on the show. We talk a bit about the game and the process by which he records all those sounds. I never knew they do it in a booth with no visual aids. They are basically calling an imaginary baseball game? Wait not just one game…like 70 hours of imaginary games.

We talk about the fact that Thorne isn’t given a script – that he’s hired for the way he calls the game as much as his voice – and how different the game is when there’s nothing to cross-talk about. Isn’t the cross talk what makes baseball announcing so much fun?

We discuss actual baseball as well, as I ask Thorne about the differences between calling national games and local games for the Orioles. And being in Baltimore, does he find his audience is much more dedicated, and therefore baseball savvy, than a larger audience of bandwagon jumpers may be in, say, Philadelphia or Boston? Thorne does agree that it’s important to know the audience, but not to talk over them and get to inside baseball.

Speaking of that, we do discuss the balance of stats and sabermetrics in a broadcast with the “Joe Morgan” types of announcers. Thorne’s wife has a company that trains former players to become broadcasters, so we discuss the importance “having been there” with “the numbers indicate”. What is the balance? And could it be that TV and radio – due to the audience and the time constraints of the game going on in front of you – lend themselves more to “experience” as expertise while the number crunchers can have more focus in print and other non in-game mediums?

We talk a lot about the idea of Floating Realignment, and if it’s a viable idea for change. In fact, is any change needed? Thorne does bring up the concept of buying a championship, which you can make the case that only a handful of teams can afford to do. Of course for every Yankees (or Red Sox of Phillies) there is a Dodgers or a Cubs, who can get to the playoffs, but can’t win anything – a concept to which Thorne rightly brings up the point that getting to the playoffs has been far too marginalized in baseball. It’s still a really big deal.

Last, we talk about hockey. Well, hockey and baseball and which Thorne likes to announce more and which he thinks he is more known for. The short answer: it’s like asking him which kid he loves more.

SPECULATION STATION:

Nick and I do our level best to not turn this segment into another Week in SAS, but rather discuss the Donovan McNabb trade rumors and how amazingly open the Eagles have been with the media. So strange and out of character for them.

PRINT’S NOT DEAD:

Or, according to this NY Times story, yes it is. We equate the struggle with advertising and media to the network and cable TV paradigm. Are they similar?

HOUSEKEEPING:

A huge housekeeping segment, including THE START OF THE PHILADELPHIA UNION TONIGHT ON ESPN2. Yes, exciting.

We also discuss March Madness, Tiger Woods’ plan to talk to the media which turns into a big of a rant by me on the way the media has handled this situation (shock, I know). Also, the Jets on Hard Knocks, the lady who tried to offer sex for tickets going to the jury(!?!) and Nick’s extended recap of his trip to Florida, which included his brother getting in an argument with Greg Luzinski over the cut-off man.

Oh, and the hard sell is on for our Baby Pool. Please sign up now. Money to winner and to charity.

• In which Nick gets me fired up about local radio hosts thinking Erin Andrews’ wearing skimpy outfits on DWTS is tantamount to getting peeped.

• In which Chris Dobbertean from SB Nation’s Blogging the Bracket talks about his prognostication prowess (or lack there of) when it comes to the field of 65 and their respective seeds.

• In which Dobbertean and I (and later Nick and I) equate the concept of Bracketology to an SAT Prep course, in that he’s not trying to figure out who will win the national title, but rather who will make the field of 65 and where they will be placed.

• In which Nick and I wonder if the selection committee pays attention to the likes of Joe Lunardi when filling out the final bracket and some of the seeding quirks are really a dig at all the Bracket Gurus out there.

• In which Jon Tannenwald of Philly.com’s Soft Pretzel Logic drops the biggest bit of Temple-Cornell knowledge you’ll ever need to know to pick that game.

• In which Tannenwald and I (then Nick and I) discuss what the heck to do with Villanova.

• In which Nick and I look at the week in SAS. Yes, our friendly-neighborhood general columnist is taking on the Temple Owls, with such delights as: “Before one captures glory, he must believe he can do it first. To believe it, he must envision it. And after four years at the helm of Temple, considering the legacy he was handed by the irascible one himself, John Chaney, along with the record and accomplishments of this 2009-10 team, Dunphy can hope for the best all he wants.”

• In which we thank you for listening.

Ridiculous. He should join our BRACKET CHALLENGE, which you can also join by clicking here. Lots of other blogs involved. Get in now before it fills up.

I then have the opportunity to talk with Kyle Whelliston of MidMajority.com to get some insight into the mid-majors who are dancing this year. Not only do we talk about the Butlers and the Woffords of the world, but we get into some of the theory about what makes a team a mid-major. The Mountain West is no longer a mid-major, but is the A-10? Is C-USA? Heck, with barely two teams in, is the Pac-10? We kid, about the last one, obviously, but there is a huge gray area surrounding The Mid Majority’s “red line” of demarcation for mid-major status.

We also discuss some of the teams you may not know much about in the bracket, and who has a real chance to do some damage in the tournament. Is anything really a true upset when it’s commonplace to have major conference teams like Washington and Florida as double-digit seeds and top five and six seeds going to traditional mid-majors?

Did someone on CBS — I want to give “credit” to Greg Anthony — really call New Mexico a sleeper in the East? They are a THREE SEED. But who are some sleepers? And is it fair to call a major conference team in the double-digits a sleeper, or just an underachiever? Are there any true sleepers out there?

Kyle also implores fans to follow the mid-majors all year, not just when it’s trendy to pick them in your bracket. He uses the analogy that they are cute puppies you can love forever, not goldfish you flush after a few weeks. This actually happens, and is so perfect an analogy it needs to be on a t-shirt.

MORE BRACKETS:

Nick and I discuss the CBS schedule for the games. The 5:00 p.m. game is the lost timeslot. And why are there so many teams playing at the same time as others in their conference. More on this at TSB.

HOUSEKEEPING:

I was on TV today, doing a quick Skype spot with Nicole Brewer from CBS3 in Philly about the Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols rumor. Plus, some more SAS talk and a quick note about David Beckham.

Brackets! Thanks for listening.

Soapbox:

Stephen A. Smith wrote a column about Brian Westbrook getting released, and turned it into yet another shot at the Eagles front office. So, if for no other reason than it’s fun to point out how ridiculous his words can be, we turn it into another shot at him. This could be a recurring show theme, so buckle up.

Housekeeping:

The big Blogs with Stones curling tournament is tonight. Here’s a bracket…vote to see who you think will win. Follow #blogswithstones on Twitter to stay on top of all the action. Even more Olympic conspiracies last night, making the IOC the only sports organization worse than the NCAA at this point. It has to be close, right?

Thanks for listening. Oh, and be careful in the snow.

SAS talks about how Donovan McNabb and Andy Reid are linked forever. It’s a new concept, it seems. He thinks that they should both be back, but if people want McNabb gone, he thinks Reid should be gone too. Rather than break it down here, just give it a listen. And if you think we went overboard, consider it a birthday present to myself.

“Ooh, I got a poorly constructed column to dissect! It’s what I always wanted! And it’s wrapped in newsprint…how clever.”

Thanks for indulging us. Be safe in the snow.