What I *first* said was that we were getting contradictory and different reports of what Bulger said in his interview. And that we therefore needed a transcript. That had nothing to do with "the media" because some of the initial reports were from posters who heard the interview---and posters are not "the media." The idea was, that we didn't know yet what was really said because there were different versions. That's not a criticism of anything or anyone. Just an effort to be scrupulous. I never said anything about anyone blowing anything out of proportion...just that we did not really know yet.
I still can't download your link to the interview so I have not heard the whole thing. There's no transcript anywhere. But Schein did include parts of the interview in his article.
And as for the "next" I didn't say a thing about how "great the media is." I did question the generalization that they are ALL slimeballs, but I don't see how you get "how great the media is" out of that. Fact is I said nothing about "the media" one way or another, or make any generalizations about "reporters" and what they are all supposed to be like (great OR slimeball). What I said was that I did not see the big distortions...and I asked someone to point them out to me. That means what it says. Once I had the Schein version of some things Bulger said, rendered in direct quotations, I could compare the various versions, and I did not see any big distortions when I did that...but then I left it open: maybe someone does see that and can demonstrate it. Meaning, the response would be to demonstrate it, not to try and make the poster the issue for some mysterious reason.
As for your speculations about my motives---look, man, you didn't even get what I said right, so what are the chances you're going to accurately describe all my evil terrible motives? How about this instead. Leave the poster out of it, and that includes speculations about motives. That's said in good humor but it is good practice.
As for what side I am on? I never approach anything as having 2 sides. For me there are many sides to everything. There are gray areas. Few if any big generalizations hold up. So I look for the details.
It was like the Martz debates. Very early on, early in 2000 as a matter of fact, I was critical of some aspects of Martz's coaching. Including playcalling and being more of a coordinator than a head coach. Among other things. I got a lot of grief for that. Then, after the Warner fiasco, criticizing Martz started becoming common...but some of THAT was (as you probably saw yourself) way over the top. So I would repond to over the top artists and say no it's not THAT bad, the guy does do some things right (for example some of the over the top artists denied he every really developed the qbs---Green, Warner, Bulger.) I had a mixed response to Martz, was glad to see him go in the end, I like Linehan so far (mostly), but don't particularly agree with either the Martz is a Genius model OR the Martz is a Devil model. I thought it was a mixed thing. That only means---I see things as mixed, not stark. That does NOT mean I like to stir things up or whatever it is you said about my motives. It just means...I see things as mixed, not stark.
Same with this. I think it's a mixed thing. Bulger did not threaten to hold out. Then again no one put it that way (that I remember). It was smart to be cautious with the first reports on his interview (which mostly came from posters, not "the media.") Not that we have some direct quotations, we can compare accounts. I think the hold out thing was less stark than ONE print version set it out to be (just one, not "THE media"), but then, maybe Bulger isn't used to being in the national spotlight, cause, it's possible he should be a bit more careful with how he puts things. I saw him doing this---he can't rule out a hold out (he loses a playing card if he does openly rule it out). But I don't really believe he WANTS to do it. But if it came down to it in certain circumstances, I bet he WOULD do it. I just don't know what those circumstances are.
I don;t think there's just 2 sides to anything and I like to look at the details, where things are a little grayer and less black and white. I think the issue in this case is a matter of degree. I don't think it's a stark "sides taking" thing. And there are good press accounts...Schein has direct quotations.