To comment, rumour needs to be 'fact'

Even as a foreigner, I've understood that Martin Samuel of the Daily Mail has a certain standing in his profession, and certainly a wage to fit. 'Sports journalist of the year', no less, if his byline is to be believed. It's hard to believe, though, as his work undermines any trustworthiness.

His comment of the day on Arsenal breaks every kind of principle there is to journalism - reporting rumour as fact and then speculating on the repercussions!

Samuel's point isn't a bad one: how can Arsenal attract world class players if all the world class players already there are leaving?

But it's the basis of the commentary piece which just isn't there. It's just hearsay and vague interpretations of something Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri have said, of something an agent or other has whispered to the Sun, or the Mail, or whoever.

"We know who is going: far too many of the good players."

Oh, we know, do we? That Gaël Clichy was leaving Arsenal for Manchester City was obvious from the point that he let himself be pictured dining with their officials and entering a Manchester hospital for his medical. But Fábregas and Nasri, named by Samuel, haven't even been in the country before today!

As I've written earlier, nothing in any statement of Fábregas or Nasri says with any certainty that they will leave Arsenal. Fábregas has remained neutral all summer, Nasri has admitted that he's unwilling to sign an extension now and onviously enjoys his position in the negotiations. What Samuel bases his 'knowledge' of goings on is just plain Silly Season rumour ramblings.

"Even Tottenham Hotspur, while yet to enter the market, have made a pretty serious statement about their commitment to keeping Luka Modric and Gareth Bale."

Oh, and Arsenal, while yet to enter the market, have not stated anything... so they're not committed? How many Silly seasons have Samuel watched in his writing career? In how many of them have Arsenal put out statements about who they will buy or sell?

The only instance where Arsenal have gone public was last summer, when Barcelona so obviously tapped up Cesc. A public 'not for sale' sign was needed, not least as a warning that the matter would be reported to FIFA. In all other transfer windows in all other Wenger years, Arsenal have kept silent, not admitting anything to anyone, not even salaries and fees after the deals are finalised.

"With so much uncertainty it is only a matter of time before rivals try their luck with the English players."

Oh, because the English players are for some reason more attached to Arsenal as a club or employer than the foreign players? Fàbregas have been at the club considerably longer than Theo Walcott, but the latter is supposedly more loyal because he's English? Is this where the moniker 'Daily Heil' comes from?

"Chelsea are now linked with Walcott and Jack Wilshere will be next because Arsenal are suffering football's equivalent of a brain drain."

Oh, Walcott is linked with Chelsea, you say? By who, do you think? By the Daily Mail, of course! Yesterday, Samuel's colleague Bob Cass wrote a piece with the headline "Chelsea move for Walcott as winger ready to follow Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy out the door". The first sentence of the piece reads as follows:

"Chelsea are about to add further misery to Arsenal's summer by launching a bid for Theo Walcott."

That is the first, last and only mention of Walcott in the whole piece! Noone is quoted, noone has spoken on condition on anonymity, no source is mentioned of even the most shadowy kind. Not at Chelsea, not at Arsenal, not in football in general. And certainly not Jack Wilshere!

This is the kind of 'journalism' that the Daily Mail not only finds fit to print, but find fit to base their editorial comments on in their sports pages.

And this is what English sports reporters do all summer, all through Silly Season. Even the most basic principles of journalism is emptied, vacated, left to die in the back lot. Instead of checking their own sources, they read each other. Rumours from one paper are soon quoted as fact in another - well, not that anyone are actually quoting any other, as that is admitting that another paper beat them to a particular story!

Thus, a rumour is established as 'fact'. Not a checkable, true, proven fact, but a piece of information printed and published enough times in a period of time to be 'fact'.

Remember this when reading the papers. Because if the sports pages are made up, what are the other pages like?

[Added: Another reporter/commentator falling in the same trap is Dominic Fifield of the Guardian, tonight blogging about Arsenal's reluctance to pay the wages of their competitors. Again, a valid point, but again weakened by turning the speculation of players' futures into 'fact'.]