The No. 1 trend on my Twitter feed right now (it’s 3:42 p.m. ET on President’s Day) is “Lions have spoken to multiple teams about trading” Darius Slay, based on the report from ESPN’s Adam Schefter on Monday stating the same basic story.
“The Lions have spoken to multiple teams” is a very carefully worded phrase. That’s deliberate. It conveys what is almost certainly true despite not having on-the-record confirmation; there is no reason to doubt that the Detroit Lions have talked to other NFL teams about the possibility of trading the Pro Bowl cornerback. Of course they have! To not at least talk to other teams would be negligent.
[lawrence-related id=38656]
It’s the nature of the talks that don’t get clarity in the very specific language chosen by Schefter and/or the source(s) who gave him the info. And that is not an accident, something I can attest to firsthand.
Going back to the Senior Bowl in Mobile in 2008 (my first year there), I had a personal experience that exemplifies the trickery of word usage. Back then, it was before Reese’s became a title sponsor, when there were still bushes surrounding the field at Ladd-Peebles Stadium and when all credentialed media had open access to everything during practices. That includes sitting in the stands with NFL coaches and GMs, something that doesn’t happen anymore — not even for high-profile NFL reporters like Schefter.
One day in a sunny AM practice session, I was seated three rows behind New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. He was by himself, two or three rows up from the various Patriots coaches and scouts. Along came New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton, and why semantics and journalistic judgment are important.
Payton somewhat startled Belichick with his greeting. It made me double-take too, as it did to the Washington Redskins scout I was seated with.
“What would it take to get that Brady guy off your hands,” Payton opened with as they made eye contact. Payton was quite obviously joking, and Belichick quite obviously knew he was joking too. We were witnessing a clear inside joke, an icebreaker and nothing more. They laughed as Payton sat down for a couple of minutes before he got up. While I wasn’t privy to their breaths, it did not appear the two said anything else to one another beyond “good luck” as Payton parted.
I could have credibly reported, “Saints and Patriots engage in trade talks over Tom Brady”. Technically I would have been correct, even though it was plainly misconstruing and misrepresenting what happened. It would have been hooey, and everyone would have instantly known it. But by the letter of the language, it would have been “true”. My editor at the time didn’t want the sensationalism and wisely protected me from myself and did not publish it in my daily practice summary.
The point of this anecdote, one I’ve used before on several different radio shows, is to make you aware of the use of language and how it can manipulate facts. I’m not saying whatsoever that Schefter is purposely misleading here, not at all. I am saying to be careful and not read too much into the deliberate, nonspecific language in the reports you read. That’s where facts get twisted.