Oregon Media Insiders

As someone who received the TrailBlazers' email following up on Jason Quick's article about Nate McMillan calling out Zach Randolph for lack of effort, let me just say this -- this is all pretty darned funny.
For those unaware, Quick wrote a story that said Blazer coach Nate McMillan was ticked off at his team in general and Randolph in particular for lack of effort and commitment (here).
The Blazers' problem with the story? McMillan apparently never singled Randolph out.
Quick and the O's response was that it was only the headline and subhead that made McMillan mad, that the story itself was accurate though there were some things the two parties would just have to agree to disagree on. You can read the pathetic explanation by the O sports editor on Sunday here.
If you read the first couple grafs of the story, though, it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast that Quick was all too happy to point fingers at Randolph even if McMillan didn't.
"Personnel decisions are ahead for the Trail Blazers' brain trust, and if coach Nate McMillan has any say, one of the decisions will be on forward Zach Randolph.
Decisions, as in: Can Randolph play for McMillan?
Or: Do the Blazers go to another plan and build around a different player?"
And later "The topics point directly at Randolph, who at least three times this season has been tardy to team functions, at times gone through the motions on the court, and recently, expressed indifference -- at best -- about his desire to play in Portland any longer."
Quick, in another appearance on that paragon of journalism, The Fan (KFXX AM), said that what McMillan wanted was to call out his star but just didn't want his name behind it. I think that's probably true, but why on earth would a responsible journalist do the coach's dirty work for him? Why wouldn't Quick tell McMillan to be a man and make him say Randolph if he meant Randolph?
My guess is that McMillan doesn't want to alienate his mega-contract star player but wants to poke him in the ribs and make him play harder, and that it was just too easy to use Quick to do it because, as is true with most 'O' reporters, it's way more fun to report something controversial, even if there aren't yet facts available to support it.
Analysis is way more fun than reporting, but labeling stories as "Analysis" is such hard work, right?
What do you all think?

[Edited to fix page-breaking URL--c'mon guys, use an URL-shortening service or learn to make a link. Please?--L]