Yesterday, I wrote a post about the Reds beat writers.

It’s one thing to be wrong. (And because I offer so many opinions here, I’m wrong plenty of times. Even “loud wrong” as Tony Kornheiser says. Remember this?

Commit this thought to heart: The Yankees are going to sign Robinson Cano. The Yankees are going to sign Robinson Cano. The Yankees are going to sign Robinson Cano. The leak of the Yankees’ interest in Phillips smacks of way-obvious negotiation strategery on the part of New York. Because the Yankees are going to sign Robinson Cano.

That’s me being loud wrong about the impossibility of Phillips being traded to the Yankees.)

Back to the point. It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s another to be unfair.

Yesterday, I was frustrated with the lack of progress from the Reds at the winter meeting. I was incited by an inaccurate article by John Fay in the Cincinnati Enquirer. But instead of understanding the right source of my irritation, I fired a broad, cheap and too easy shot at the messengers, and regret it.

After receiving some friendly input, I took a closer look at the reporting done by the beats last week. I’d missed a few things among the tweets, blog posts and stories.

Mark Sheldon not only confirmed (first posted at midnight) the rumors about the Phillips-for-Gardner trade offer, but he was the first to report the important information that Phillips had a no-trade clause with the Yankees. He also had quotes from the Yankees side of things that implied they weren’t all that into BP and were looking for pitching instead. And separately, Sheldon reported a conversation with Bronson Arroyo and debunked rumors of the Pirates’ interest in signing the free agent pitcher.

C. Trent Rosecrans sourced a report that the Pirates were going to meet with Arroyo. He also reported sources saying the negotiations between the Yankees and Reds continued even after reports that the Yankees had shot down the Reds’ offer.

Even though I agree with John Fay’s conclusion about trading Chapman, I stand by my comments about his post (which he’s now corrected). Yet, it was wrong and unfair of me to suggest the Reds’ beat writers hadn’t broken any stories or mined sources during the winter meetings.

While there are aspects of being a beat writer I’d probably enjoy quite a bit (as would most fans), other parts leave me cold. As I pointed out yesterday, much of their job is difficult and undoubtedly frustrating. They’d probably appreciate it if bloggers like me didn’t blame them for the fact there was nothing much to report in the first place.