As do I. It’s a “collaboration” with the Reids, according to the editor. Hasn’t the media been raked through the coals for “collaborating” with the Bush Administration on various issues in recent years? A puff-piece profile is one thing, but a newsworthy item about how a coach’s personal life is affecting his job? Seems odd at first blush to allow him to read it pre-publication and, shockingly, to allow him to make even minor edits.

The online excerpt of the article certainly includes conversation about Andy’s job, something of great public interest. Call me crazy, but I would never agree to allow any player, coach, owner, GM or anyone else to read an interview or article I’m writing that includes insight into their job, how they do it, etc….

I guess that’s the difference between bloggers and ‘journalists’. Bloggers seem to take things at face value; journalists, especially self-righteous ones like the editor of Philadelphia magazine, will ignore accepted journalistic practices to make nice with a subject. Thank the First Amendment that bloggers are here to stay.

“The question-and-answer format article, which [Robert] Huber said yesterday on WIP Radio was read over, edited and approved by the Reids, references several rehab stints for Garrett, 24, including the treatment in Florida for which Andy Reid took a 6-week leave-of-absence from the Eagles to attend with his son last spring.”

So, was Huber wrong? Did he misspeak? Did Bowen get it wrong?

As explained by the editor (who you probably could have called or e-mailed before writing this hatchet job), they were letting the Reids give the story in their own words. They ran quotes by them to make sure they were accurate. That’s not only acceptable, it’s a good practice. Better to get it write than to have to retract it later, which is what you should do with this post.

If Andy and Tammy Reid wanted to give an intractable, free-flowing interview, they would have gone on Larry King or some other live media venue.

What information is missing from the article? You should think that about every story you read.

A profile like this is reliant on the source, and letting the source read the article ensures it is accurate. That doesn’t mean it can’t be all inclusive and even critical … it just means it will be accurate, from the family’s point of view, which is why we’re reading the story.

What makes this entire thread laughable is that it occurs in the context of sports, where every one knows beat reporters routinely self-edit, in fear of being excluded by the athletes. Need an example? Steroids in baseball? How many sports journalists asked those hard questions and pushed for answers?

As long as the publication is honest, and it appears this mag was, the outcome can be better for the reader.