I've tried my best to present all the sides and scenarios of this Shawn Andrews injury mystery. We know what Andrews said, we know what the team has said, we've heard from a number of reporters who claim sources within the team that have told them different things.
What I haven't done was try to be sensational for the sake of being sensational. In fact, I criticized PFT for their misleading headline on the story and I feel compelled to call someone else out again. This time, it's the Daily News.
They've titled Les Bowen's article this morning Sources: Andrews' injury could be serious. Now, you're probably thinking "Uh Oh! Bowen must have some sources within the team that are giving him the inside scoop?" Ummm... No.
What he did was take some things Andrews said and then went and asked a random doctor what they think he possibly could have been talking about. Frankly, I don't think it's a bad idea for a story. The problem is how it's sold. Seemingly in an attempt to make the story more interesting and salacious, Bowen(or the DN editors) decided that rather than just saying the name of the doctor they'd call them "medical sources." These are not team medical sources he talked to nor are they medical sources involved with Andrews' treatment. In fact, no where in the article does he even say they are... but by naming them "medical sources" rather than just "a doctor I talked to" certainly gives more sizzle to the story.
There's just no need for it. It's an insult to the intelligence of whoever reads the story. They took a perfectly fine idea for a story and since it wasn't sexy or shocking enough tried to dress it up like something it wasn't. I don't know why professionals with daily access to the team and a front row seat for every press conference need to resort to stuff like this.
That's the end of my rant. My "medical sources" told me I should get outside and exercise more... so I have to go now.