There seems to be a trend among the multitude of sports pundits that's getting a little tiresome. The constant and suspect use of the “anonymous” source. I call it suspect because it's always attached to a negative report and used to posit rumors designed to create opinion. And as one would guess, it would be the opinion of the person offering the report.

Giving examples would require a semester of reading, but we've all seen them. The latest is with Tim Tebow and the anonymous Jets players grumbling, but you can call out any topic and there's a willing “source” who is willing to cast aspersions, but not their name. Or are there?

If you read the work of particular writers, over time you get a feel for their perspectives on certain topics. And whenever one gets on their high horse to lecture, you can be sure they will quote an anonymous source supporting their perspective. If the source is truthful about their opinions, they would share their name. The childish notion that it would cause them trouble to talk out of school (so to speak) is just that; childish.

It is more for the convenience of the writer who needs to add credibility to their work. In that respect, most anonymous sources are most likely fabrications by the writers.

If they have an opinion they want you to accept, they will insinuate a source to show you that the insiders agree with their premise, and hence, so should you. I would wager that 90% of the writers never leave the sofa to interview the people who are the target of their articles.

Today an anonymous source close to the Mega Millions lottery who spoke on the condition he was not authorized to speak publicly (don't you love that one!) says I'm going to win the big one on Friday.

Where would we be without the mass media spoon feeding the public it's take on the the people or events they cover. It's a shame really that so few people can create such “hate” for those they set their sights on.

The most glaring case at hand is the ridiculous treatment of Tim Tebow. Whether you like his religious behavior or not, why is it that so many feel uncomfortable with him? Is it because a total of maybe 20 writers in the major markets tell you to be? Does anyone wonder why every article about him starts with the claim that Tebow is “the most polarizing player” in the NFL. Would anyone have cared about his “Tebowing” if the media didn't make it the lead in every story about him? To this day it is always in the first paragraph. His incredible accomplishments from high school, college and the NFL take a back seat.

Ask yourself: If the media didn't make it an in your face constant affront, would you really care? Save for the real loons, I think not.

But the media doesn't always create “haters” by tearing down. Take the case of Tiger Woods. As an avid golfer I get to spend a lot of time with other golfers. And most don't just dislike Tiger, they have a particular venom for him. Considering he's one of the best golfers ever to play the game, why the vitriol? Simple; the media. Wall to wall, 24/7, Tiger Woods. He hasn't won in over 2 years. Other golfers are doing amazing things (McIlroy, Donald, Watson etc.) yet that is all the golfing public sees or reads: Tiger.

A pet peeve of many is the way the networks ignore tradition on the leader board. If two players are tied with the same score, the one who has played the most holes in that round gets the top spot and so on down the line. Not with Tiger. If three people are tied, he's always first regardless of where he is on the course. No one else gets that treatment. If Tiger is six shots back it doesn't matter, we still see him walking or practice swinging to the disregard of those actually leading the tournament.

The unfortunate effect is a lot of people dislike Tiger. Not because of his play, but because of the the media shoving him down their throats. Fox Sports is not immune to the Tiger aura. The only golf writer for this website has such man-love for him that on any day in the Golf section there are four articles about him. And ONLY him.

There isn't much anyone can do about the priorities of writers or networks, short of starting your own. But that's not really an option now is it? So the only advice one can give to the “haters” is to consider the source before forming your opinion.

Is there really any other way to describe the brain trust (Bowlen, Ellis and Elway) at the top of the Denver Bronco's?

With the effluence of religious commentary aside for the moment, what is the reasoning behind dumping a rookie that took your team to the playoffs in spite of a 1-4 start, in favor of an aging, end of career player with a neck injury that could end his career in a tragic way?

The statistics on Tebow may not be Hall of Fame caliber during his first half year as a starter, but then which HoF quarterback posted such numbers in their first half year? A comparison with the lead mouse, John Elway, shows Tebow had better stats by far. Was there a hue and cry for Elway's replacement? Did the team immediately look to free agency to dump the loser? Of course not. The management at the time had faith that the rookie would come around with some work. And so it was.

How much could Tebow improve if he was the starting quarterback and took the first string snaps for a full training camp? As much as Elway improved? They'll never know.

What we do know is there's plenty of chatter about football being a business. Let's look at that aspect. Sold out stadium: check. Scalpers were getting top dollar:check. Networks battling each other to televise the games: check. Merchandise sales through the roof: check. Fans being elated again after several miserable seasons (see Redskins for a definition of suffering fans): check. Players supporting the young leader: check. There is no more room for financial gain to the team. No other source of revenue can be tapped.

The next chimera is winning. That was answered. They made the playoffs and defeated the Steelers in the first round. A game where Tebow shined with his passing, including the game winning 80 yard strike to win in overtime. With all the self proclaimed “experts” deriding his passing technique, he won the game with his arm. Something Elway must have chaffed at. If they had made it to the Superbowl, would they still have signed Manning?

The answer to that is obvious. Yes. The mice didn't like the idea of the fans forcing their hand. They didn't like that they were made to look the fool for not having the confidence in him. They showed it with faint praise as he was winning and seemed to smirk “I told you so” after each loss.

In the end it was their disdain for his religious beliefs, even though prayer circles at midfield after games is common practice. And it was that disdain, not his on field performance, that gave rise to signing the aging old pro with the bad neck.

What's in store for either player is uncertain. Manning's bona fides are written, Tebow's yet to come. But with an Atheistic media fixated on Tebow's religion, you can be sure his will be the tougher row to hoe.