FanNation

These non-football days are hard on me: as a result, I tend to over-focus on any NFL or NCAA news, even when it is not-so-news.   An example: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/05/09/vick/index.html ; Interesting article.  As someone who grew up in the ATL and who went to school at UGA, it interests me.

One small critique however: Mr. Banks (who I respect) constantly references "sources who spoke on condition of anonymity".  It is my understanding that, according to the the principles of journalism, you cannot base an article completely upon the reports of 'anonymous sources', given that there is very very little to prevent them from saying anything that they feel will generate a response, since they are freed from any culpability for their statements due to the fact that their identities will be kept secret.  I understand that the protection of newssources is paramount in certain situations, such as "****" for Woodward and Bernstein investigating the Watergate scandal, but in this situation is not one of those, I think.

Bottom line: I do NOT think that Mr. Banks should've gone forward with this article.  Given that there have not been formal allegations filed against Michael Vick, he is simply reporting innuendo and rumor, and given his forum, there is too great of a chance that some (many) might misconstrue the article as being factual. Another risk is that he is likely creating an unfair bias against Michael Vick.

I'm not saying that Vick is innocent, I'm simply saying that he deserves the same protections that even the most common American citizen gets, even if it might be more profitable to ignore them and exploit the situation.  If you can't find a single source that is willing to go on the record and accuse Vick of these crimes, I would think that your journalistic integrety would demand that you pass on this story, Don Banks.  Otherwise, you risk turning Sports Illustrated into the Sports page of the National Enquirer.