As evidenced on this board, often times the sole purpose of a so called "anti-agenda" is to garner attention to it.
Why would that be any different in McGinn's world? I bet he considers himself a realist.
LOL. Now that is funny. Realist. Right.
I think you are right, that McGinn puts himself out on the edge to garner a following, but I also agree with CPK in that it has always seemed to me that he has an anti-Thompson agenda. His piece on the Bears really was part two of an anti- "draft and develop" series. At the time, he gambled on the possibility that we would lose to the Bears, so he published this piece on the Bears' free agency moves to try and get in on the fan anger of starting poorly.
Like I said in an earlier post, he tries to sound authoritative with his anonymous sources. The problem for the reader is that we are forced to blindly accept this, and have no capacity to evaluate the source's credentials or reputation. We can't even know if the quote reflects majority opinion of those in the know, or if he cherry picks for the benefit of his angle. Lately, it just seems to me, the pattern reveals that these sources don't really know much.
I feel bad for him in some ways. It is hard for newspapers these days, and they have a hard time selling papers. He's trying to help with that. I think his style is counterproductive as his unabashed negativity turns me off of the Journal Sentinal in favor of the Press Gazette.