The journalist with 2 hats

Michael Russo may have burned a few bridges for his blog yesterday, but at least he got something off his chest I guess. I am not sure what prompted his latest 'Rant', but calling out one of the Minnesota Wild's young guns is probably not the best thing for a beat writer to do, especially when that reporter is constantly looking for material withing that locker-room. In fact, calling out anybody on that team is a lose-lose for Russo. But whatever the reason or motivation behind his blog yesterday, I don't agree with how it was laid out or where it ended up.

Without re-hashing his work, Russo basically blasted Burns for being inaccessible on his or the teams off-nights when a few stalls over, James Sheppard answers all of his critiques, no matter what the circumstances may be. I believe Russo's point is that Burns has been given a pass for his shoddy play, while Sheppard is being torched at every turn, by both the fans and media. And the one player of the two who you would expect to stand up and face the music is Burns, when in fact it is Sheppard.

Which brings me to this...which one is frustrated with Burns, Russo the reporter or Russo the columnist?

This is confusing to me too, but it seems that this newspaper journalist has taken on several hats in order to fit the job description. What I don't agree with is the platform that is used to bake players, as Russo the columnist posts this in his blog, while the print and web edition take on the reporter in Russo, where we are given 'just the facts please'. I guess the problem comes, and maybe this is what confuses me, when both devices to cover one subject is used. By doing this, readers don't know who is covering the team and it also comes across as if there are two different teams being covered. In fact, it would not surprise me if that, before answering any question or having any conversations with Russo, the players insist on knowing which guy they were talking to, the columnist or reporter.

Russo is a great beat writer and does an exceptional job at covering the team. His reports are usually spot-on. And on the flip side, his blog is equally as informative and enlightening. I would never suggest anything less than Russo gives fans but I sometimes wonder if he has overstepped his boundaries. This latest is an example of how his coverage may suffer because of the shot that he has taken at Burns, the outcome of which could include less material coming out of the locker-room. Then there was a blog written a few days ago. It had an allegedly funny story about another person banned from the X by our previous front office. Funny to Russo, and I'll give him the fact that the story was mildly entertaining. But to then hide behind the paper by not naming names was nothing more than not standing up like a man (Russo's inference about Burns) and revealing the whole story.

And I am wondering if Russo's latest blog should have not have named names as well.