I'm sorry about the long missive below but the two news stories -- Cohen's article and McGinn's pleading in defense of it -- have now evolved into being the much bigger stories than the original. Personally, I did not find much enlightenment in the timing and content of Cohen's article itself. It's credibility is also in question because of bias. And I'm truly fascinated by it's hypocrisy.
McGinn questioned whether the Packers, Vikings and NFL as a whole knew all about Guion's past in his quasi-editorial that seems like it's directed more at Gannet, the new parent company, than to us fans. The implication is that none of them may have been fully aware of every misdeed Guion has been alleged to have committed. It's clear that the JS was also not aware, for that matter, due to the timing of Cohen's article. Apparently, they did not see the need to vet Guion back when he was signed, either. It's certainly not stopping McGinn and his editor from claiming some sort of moral high-ground at this moment in time. In that case all parties must share in the embarrassment, including the JS.
It's only a left-handedly a current news event because somebody must have dropped a dime on Guion very recently -- possibly somebody from a Florida law enforcement agency or their DA's office, frustrated because they could not get convictions in the past despite the multitude of allegations made against him. Or maybe Guion's ex-girlfriend or her (now) ex-boyfriend (or his attorney) are trying to get an edge in the pending lawsuit. The way Cohen's article is written I tend to favor that the source of this information being law enforcement. They are trying to keep the money and truck they seized from him, after all, and they'll need to justify it.
I doubt it was one of those unnamed front office sources and scouts that we read a lot about since it has been implied that they did not fully know about his past anymore than the Packers front office did. If they had we would have known about these allegations a long time ago. McGinn would likely have been fed with this info early-on or shortly after his arrest months ago, especially from his sources with the Vikings.
Consider this: Just maybe the information used for this article is prejudiced. Nowhere in Cohen's article was Guion given an opportunity to address the allegations made against him by Cohen's sources. Journalists ask tough questions of everyone usually, including the accused -- especially when they have free access to them as he does. Cohen's version of journalism is strangely imbalanced regarding the input from ALL the principle parties involved. You better believe that if Cohen had asked Guion for a response he would have reported the response whether it had come from Guion himself or from his attorney or other designated spokesman.
So what was the purpose of the original article written by Cohen? To embarass the Packers, Vikings and NFL? IMHO he erred badly as did the JS and his editor in particular. This was information to archive until Guion screws-up big again, if ever, and hopefully never. Nobody from the team would have a ***** under that circumstance. Then, the JS could actually be accused of committing journalism. The best they can hope to salvage something out of this mis-timed, mis-judged and imbalanced "expose" is that Guion will screw-up again so they can eventually write, "I told you so."
Did not the JS write articles about Jolly's contrition? Yet, now they use his name in vain to argue that the Packers are the ones that are being hypocrites. There seems to be plenty of that to go around. Physician, heal thyself.
If I were Cohen I would be circulating my resume immediately. With the purchase of the JS by Gannet there now becomes a surplus of writers for the Packers beat by a single media outlet. The sellers did not sell because the newspaper business as a whole is in fiscal good health. Something has to give. Cutting staff is a given. If I'm the new boss I choose to retain writers who will actually stand a reasonable chance at getting interviews with the team we're covering in the future. Cohen's article makes it easier for me to make personnel decisions regarding the efficacy of my writers (and editors) for retention post the anticipated reorganization that will occur. Controversy cause by sloppy journalism and poor judgment would not make me choose their media outlet.
Even the survey question posed by the JS today on the Internet site was meant to pit the Packers versus the fans, regardless of the outcome. They should have asked readers whether the article represented fair and unbiased journalism.
My "statement" to the JS is that I will boycott their media outlet for the next full week, starting today -- including the Silverstein game blog this evening (and I really like participating there). Journalists claim that they give us what we want. Cohen's version of journalism and McGinn's defense of it is not what I want, and in a very small way I will make that known to the JS, Gannet and their advertisers through my boycott of the JS site.