I read all the posts you quoted and I compared the French article, upon which the AP report is based:
and the Swiss one posted by durr:
And you're right, the "pas mal" is not at all the same as "pa tant". So the French article and the Swiss article have a factual difference. The French article makes Roger look worse. I don't know which one is the accurate one. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is the Swiss one. That wasn't the only thing Roger said. BOTH the French and the Swiss articles quote Roger as saying the following (you can check the links).
"Stanislas Wawrinka n’a pas fait son meilleur match en simple vendredi. C’est dommage, à cause de cette défaite, on n’a pas pu mettre les Etats-Unis sous pression.
«Stanislas Wawrinka n’a pas fait son meilleur match en simple. C’est dommage, à cause de cette défaite, on n’a pas pu mettre les Etats-Unis sous pression.»
The only difference is the reference to Friday. So, if we accept the Swiss version, then we have to accept that Rogers said that. That's throwing Stan under the bus. He's saying that he played badly on Friday and that's why they couldn't put pressure on the US. Is it fair not to mention his own defeat as part of the cause?
In the other posts that you mentioned to me there are quotes by Matt Cronin on Twitter. Afetr discussions, Matt Cronin actually contacted a reporter who was in the Press Room and asked directly what he/she had heard. This is their exchange (which Matt later retweeted):
Matt Cronin @TennisReporters
@svenja_sportch And what did you hear Roger say about the doubles Svenja?
Svenja Mastroberardi @svenja_sportch
#federer critized wawrinka more than once. I mean c'mon, he also lost two matches
Retweeted by Matt Cronin
When you have a French article, a Swiss article and an AP reporter all writing, with varying degrees of innuendo, that Roger went into the Press Room and blamed Stan, I tend to believe them ,unless I have a very strong reason to desbelieve ALL of them. When Matt Cronin contacts a colleague who was there, asks him/her whether it's true and he/she confirms it, you would need a gigantic conspiracy theory that would include the Swiss Press trying to make Roger look bad. Why would they do that?
Now, if you take into account all the other unfortunate comments that Roger has made after painful losses, then there is more confirmation.
So no, I don't believe everything I read, but when I read the same (more or less) in different places, by different sources, from different countries, and what's being said makes sense and is consistent with previously known facts, then I would need very strong evidence to doubt them all.
I would love to have a verbatim video (like the one we had of his presser after his defeat at the hands of Novak at the USO semis)
. I'm sure his PR
people will provide one, once they realise that everybody's talking about it, if they feel that such a video would settle things in Roger's favour.
Precisely. My overall point is that one should not trust anything like quotes taken out of context, excerpted, hearsay, etc. at face value as being completely factual, especially in this region. It may be mostly true, it may be partially true, or it may be mistaken for whatever reason, or be pure bs. It soon becomes a this one says this, and this one said that, etc. Even your twitted quotes above have been taken out of context because they omit the replies(I hope accidently, twitter can be difficult to navigate) and thus misrepresents the order of what was said. Here is the correct sequence regarding Svenja and the doubles question.
Post: Matt Cronin Matt Cronin @TennisReporters And what did you hear Roger say about the doubles Svenja?
Reply: Svenja Mastroberardi Svenja Mastroberardi @svenja_sportch I'd have to listen to the tape again for the exact quotes
Reply(2): Svenja Mastroberardi Svenja Mastroberardi @svenja_sportch that they played a good match on a high level and the americans were a better in the end
The second post you mention actually came prior (look at the date)
to Matt's question regarding doubles - it was not
Anyway my point is that because one can't trust it, one shouldn't draw conclusions anything like "he threw him under a bus". It is well known that much (not all) of the press in that region has a, how should I say, a certain slant on their reporting that will make issues provocative.
The problem (and it is global, not only in this region) is, many people read something and form an immediate opinion without considering the source or authenticity of the statement. Then the "story" gets spread, and soon almost everyone takes it as the "truth" even if is far from it. Once that happens, it is difficult to restore credibility to the subject, even if it is layed out in front of people, because most people have already formed their opinions (which generally reinforce their own thinking), and they believe what they want to believe, no matter what is finally established.
That is why misinformation and disinformation are such destructive forces and why the news media needs to be as objective as possible. Sadly, over the years (I think mostly from the 80's and 90's on - with the internet being added as a new medium) the news media has been infiltrated by the sensationalist press and we have more of the the soundbite, provocative, sensationalist news coverage instead of serious investigative reporting that use to be a hallmark of news media. Why? Provocative sells. Investigative reporting takes time, effort, and usually produces less sensational results. Also, a majority of the people today appear to neither have time or inclination to read something at length. They want it presented to them on a plate, and move on to the next thing. It's unfortunate, but I think generally true.
The site I mentioned - tsr.ch - has many video and audio clips, I believe including the one with the interview in question, but my French is not good enough to provide the correct translation.