Quote
RockRam
Yep. This is the age we're in.
If you're accused loud enough and sensationally enough and it's published, then the accused MUST be guilty. Because we, of course, must believe the "sources".
Even if the accused says it's all a smear campaign and NONE of those people have any idea what went on in the private conversations between Rodgers and McCarthy AND what THEY felt their relationship was, then these former employees who were let go for various reasons must be the truth tellers and the accused must be delusional or a liar.
Wow.
This isn't about the age we're in, sensationalism, or just mere accusations.
This is about EVIDENCE.
The author of the article wrote a very detailed piece with lots of evidence from named and unnamed sources about specific situations to paint a picture that they're relationship wasn't good. It has very little to do with private conversations.
If Rodgers shrugs off a call from his HC, his teammates know this. That's not a private conversation. It's not a mere accusation if corroborated by others. Is it a smear campaign when your teammates say that you ordered them to disregard the instructions of the HC and would freeze them out if they didn't?
Is it a smear for players and team personnel to notice that the HC doesn't seem engaged and absent from team meetings?
Little tidbits, none private conversation details like the above examples are littered throughout the article.
A source giving those factual details is evidence. One bit of evidence doesn't make a case but when you have several sources, it's like building a house brick by brick. A named source adds credibility and gives weight to the evidence.
OTOH, there's much less credibility for an accused that's testifying on their own behalf.
