Until we see the words Marvin Harrison Arrested the incident outside Harrison's North Philly bar is a non-story, and the people pushing the baseless rumors as if they were facts (Mike Florio, Michael David Smith) continue to make the rest of us bloggers look like amateurs. Despite what Florio and Smith have suggested, Marvin Harrison is not a suspect in the shooting. In fact, we don't even know if the gun recovered was his.
Bullets found at the scene of a shooting in Philadelphia last Tuesday came from a handgun owned by Indianapolis Colts receiver Marvin Harrison, according to reports on ESPN and the Philadelphia Daily News, both citing unnamed police sources. But Philadelphia police are not calling Harrison a suspect.
"He's not a suspect at this point," police spokesperson Tanya Little told The Star this morning, declining further comment.
Translation: The reports are not officially from the police. They are from ESPN and the Philly Daily News, via "unnamed sources" they claim are within the police department. We have no idea what their credibility is or even if they are police assigned to the case. They could be a desk sergeant or Moe the janitor. "Unnamed sources" are never good sources, and are not used by real journalists reporting on anything credible. Anyone who works in journalism will tell you that. And no, I do not consider Sal Paolantonio, the ESPN reporter covering this incident, a real journalist, nor do I consider anyone else who uses "unnamed sources" in this way. The always "objective" Paolantonio also came out recently and criticized Marvin Harrison for committing the sin of all sins: Opening a bar in a bad neighborhood, which Marvin just so happened to grow up in.
If the gun recovered did indeed belong to Harrison, and if the shell casings did indeed come form that gun, you would think Marvin Harrison would be a suspect. However, since the police have stated that Harrison is not a suspect, that should call into question ESPN's reporting, especially these "unnamed sources" they are rolling out as credible.
And since we have absolutely no firm, concrete proof on the key details of this investigation, it was irresponsible of people like Florio and Smith to blog about them as if they were fact. To even suggest that they were facts, using "unnamed sources" that they know nothing about as back-up, is bad journalism DEFINED. Now, I've never fancied myself a journalist, but Mike Florio works for The Sports News, and Michael David Smith works for the NY Times.
Somehow, I don't think both those entities would agree with how these two have conducted themselves. I'm sure ESPN is fine with Paolantonio though, which is typical ESPN.