Seriously, though, I appreciate such comments – they usually instruct my thinking when it’s gone awry. There’s a bit of truth to this, as Easterbrook is a columnist and this, as such, is his job. I think my problem with it is that he otherwise paints himself as a football film student/investigative reporter, and this column belies that whole setup. As I wrote in the beginning, I have no problem with a Colts = good, Patriots = bad column in principle, but I felt this was egregiously poorly executed w/r/t the actual facts, many of which he got wrong. (Saying the Colts were happy to play in a small town [they were largely drafted to play there], saying the Colts have not complained at failure [far from true], and trying to read evil intentions into facial expressions, which is just silly.) If you’re going to write that the Patriots are evil, don’t go hunting for silly non-facts like Tom Brady’s smirk to back up your argument — just say you don’t like them.

You wrote:

“He creates a narrative based on his feelings, instead of creating a document based on football observations…”

That is exactly what his job description requires him to do. He isn’t a documentarian, he’s a columnist. If he didn’t write columns based on his feelings, he’d soon be without a job.