Nothing to write about?

You're right, Chad, Peter is a fan, and he's talking like a fan. You may find that distasteful, but I don't. Why should writers be different than broadcasters? Was Johnny Most a Celtic Fan? Is Jack Edwards a Bruin Fan? Nothing wrong with that. Peter is like many Red Sox fans. We want to know who ratted them out. Then we could make our own decisions on whether or not the information was credible.

In this case the readers SHOULD know who the snitch is. Would not want that player watching my back. Wish Beckett would go all the way and call that person out by name.

Ha-ha! You used ethical and reportorial in the same sentence. :)

Chad, as a fan I feel that the continuing references back to last September are just tiresome at this point. Who cares? Secondly, as a fan, I don't mind criticism of this year's team, but I'd like to read columns that are fair. The media can't criticize the Sox for not spending money and then point out that they're in the top five in payroll in the same column or talk show. It's preposterous to criticize John Henry for owning a soccer team, when the press has no clue about the inner workings of his business organization. Under his ownership the Sox have won two World Series, all while he also continued to own John W. Henry & Co. The guy can walk and chew gum. I'm not looking for cheerleaders among reporters. I'm looking for reasonable people.

Did Finn read his own story? In the quotes above, Gammons acknowledged that Hohler couldn't reveal his sources, and essentially admitted he had been mistaken when he said otherwise. He was not out of line in saying that Hohler's source should identify himself, though of course that will never happen. Finally, I and a lot of other real Red Sox fans I know felt and still feel that the personal slurs on Francona were wholly unnecessary to the story, were gratuitous, and were included solely for shock effect. Shame on the Globe.

Chad is absolutely correct. A journalist is not the same animal as a local TV broadcaster, who is paid to do play-by-play of the LOCAL team. Gammons should know better than to question the intent and credibility of a fellow, let alone, Boston sports reporter. He sounds as bad as Beckett. Only he's smart enough to know better. Props to Chad for calling him out.

Peter Gammons is and always has been the most overrated sports journalist in America, not to mention a fan-boy hypocrite of the first order. I defy anyone to go back and read his work from the 70's on, and not choke on the local boosterism, the snide comments about opposing teams and players, and the phony, hyped-up trade fantasies that populate his work. I always marveled at his slickest gimmick, writing one year about how the Red Sox were much better off than at the same time the year before. Of course, he was counting on the fact that no one would go back and see that he never made the implied criticism the previous year, thereby allowing him to always promote the team going forward. Not to mention his friendship with Theo, which allowed him to use "anonymous" sources freely during the past 10 years. How unprofessional is that? Yes, he is a good writer, with a history of amazing productivity. But any analysis of his judgments over the years will show the fundamental bias that has always driven his work.

What a pile of garbage Finn just heaped upon the page. In the article he just printed Gammons admits that Hohler can't reveal his source. I feel the proper question is why Hohler chose to print this unsubstantiated and private matter from someone so cowardly he would refuse to attach his own name to it. Doesn't THAT tell you all you need to know about this "source"? No. Hohler chose to put this accusation in print...sullying a good man's name and reputation...perhaps costing him a job opportunity. Really putting an extremely sour exclamation point on this whole sorry scapegoating affair. So now we are left to wonder WHO would do such a disgraceful thing to a good and honorable man who may have been the best manager this team ever had. Fine thanks from John Henry...Larry Lucchino and company. Of course Hohler can't reveal his source. But he never should have printed that story in the first place. He's a disgrace to his profession. Finn shames himself by rushing to his defense.

finn manages to avoid several keys points; whether or not the source should be outed once promised anomynimity, before so promising he should have figured out whether the real story was that front office source was using the media to get francona fired. Then there is also the fact that Holher seems to have not bothered to double checked the facts with francona and others, a basic move espically when the source insists on not being named. Then there is finn's sanctomonious atack on gammons for being artial to the red sox while his buddies such as bob ryan are incredibly biased homers when writing about there local sports dudes. By the way, I don't write this out of support for gammons. I agree with all the criticisms of him in the other comments. He is silly and dishonest AND uses sources that are obviously using him to plant and spread stories. He is no different that a politician's press secretary attempting to act like an honest, straight shooting dispesner of "news"

"Betraying the trust of a confidential source would be journalistic suicide. The use of such sources in Hohler's story was essential to provide answers to the question that hovered over the end of the season: How in the world did this collapse happen? Anyone with legitimate first-person knowledge likely had something to lose by going on the record. Anonymous sources are never a reporter's ideal approach, but sometimes a story - particularly one of this magnitude - cannot be told in full without them." Maybe so, but use of such sources also undermines the credibility of the story. What's more, sending in Woodward and Bernstein to cover a sports story smacks of twisted priorities. A couple of minor pieces of dirt--chicken-and-beer, and Francona's alleged personal problems--are placed under the microscope and take on the apparent significance of such major breaches of public trust as Watergate. I honestly don't believe either of them had anything to do with the Sox' collapse last year--they are nothing more than scapegoating. The real problem with Hohler's piece is that its intent is too broad, its focus is too narrow, and its viewpoint inevitably grossly distorted. "Sports journalism" in this country, and especially in sport-crazy towns like Boston, sits in a very uncomfortable spot between entertainment reporting and political coverage. Maybe we as fans should think a bit about why we have made sports so important in our lives, when they are meant to be a diversion from the difficulties of real life. There are far more important things to worry about.

With the proliferation of news media covering sports, it was refreshing and enlightening to read Bob Hohler's article last year. I wasn't aware of Gammons' remarks, but they are indicative of the chummy relationships now prevalent in Sports, especially baseball and the advent of the MLB networks. To listen to the folks who work those programs the fact the most egregious thing about the chicken and beer fiasco was the lack of interest in the pennant race and lack of support for teammates. You except professionals getting paid huge sums of money to have at least the same amount of enthusiasm for the game, that the fans who pay the bills do. Shame on Gammons, he has sold out his previous impeccable journalistic credentials.

Sorry, but Gammons is simply saying what most fans, and yes, readers, would like to know the source of the disparaging remarks aimed at Tito. All Gammons was suggesting was someone should man up, or cowboy up, and be willing to stand behind his comments. Otherwise, it appears to be the Globe doing the dirty work for Red Sox management. Now who's the homer?

Yawn...don't we all know the source was Luchino, anyway? Kind of sad to see the Globe continue to defend the complete abandonment of journalistic integrity that masqueraded as its sports section last fall.

We need Mike Barnicle's perspective on Globe columnists and their sources.

Barnicle wouldn't need no stinkin' sources. He could just make the whole thing up.

I understand Mr. Finn's position and the need for protected sources. I remain a little concerned about the need in a sports story to use confidential sources to explain/smear (choosing either word betrays a bias) a manager's personal life. I think this is particularly true in the case of an organization that appears to have a history of throwing bombs at people as they depart. This is after all sports. No matter how much emotional weight we fans may place upon it, it remains entertainment not the "real world." There seems to be an increasing trend to focus reports on the personal habits, failings and idiosyncrasies of athletes and coaches. Frankly, barring criminal behavior, I don't care. I also prefer intelligent analysis to cliche-ridden, post-game interviews.