I wrote to Peter King, senior writer for Sports Illustrated, about his opinion today on cnnsi.com that the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper was wrong for removing sports writer Tony Grossi as Brown’s beat writer for publishing a tweet criticizing the Cleveland Browns owner. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/01/30/superbowl/index.html

Grossi sent a tweet intended to be private for a friend. By mistake, he published it publicly. The tweet said called the Brown’s owner a “pathetic figure, the most irrelevant billionaire in the world.” King “disagreed vehemently” with the newspaper’s decision to remove Gross.

I sent Mr. King my opinion that I disagreed vehemently with his opinion. Here’s why:
1. if the tweet was intended to be private, he knew it was wrong to publish it publicly
2. publishing a message by mistake has zero credibility. If he didn’t mean to send it publicly, the message is meaningless.
3. 140 characters or less is a baseless, unjustified opinion. Without evidence to back it up, the opinion is meaningless – zero value, zero credibility.
4. S/he who asserts must prove. The name-caller has the burden of proof, the onus to present evidence. Calling a person “pathetic” and “irrelevant” without evidence proves nothing. It’s meaningless name-calling.

Those who can, do. Those who can’t resort to name-calling.