I don’t want this to be construed as anti-woman, anti-reporter, or a blind attack on the very field I love.

And I don’t want my words to be misinterpreted, so before I rant, if Ines Sainz was in fact verbally abused - yes, including something that may seem completely harmless on the surface - the Jets should be punished in some way, and Sainz, as well as the Association for Women in Sports Media, deserve big apologies.

But I have two problems with the coverage of this soap opera.

First, the demonization of all sports athletes in general for what, so far, is an accusation coming from a member of what, from all signs, seems like the National Enquirer of sports reporting.

TV Azteca has a storied past from what I’ve read, including the infamous wedding-dress-proposal in 2008, when a reporter asked Tom Brady for his hand in marriage. I know that Super Bowl Media Day is a circus, but if you send a JOURNALIST on-site for those shenanigans, you have some sort of integrity-based responsibility. That was obviously ignored.

Point being? This accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Until an admission of guilt is made, an investigation produces some sort of results or there is evidence that Sainz was messed with, no parties are guilty.

Furthermore, reports have suggested that Sainz has backtracked slightly on her initial claims. She qualified, as Mark Kriegel wrote, that she “never felt” like she was attacked, and that the situation has been blown out of proportion. Moreover, as a plethora of tweeps have noted, she has taken the opportunity to go on talk show-after-talk show to talk about the incident. Something that wreaks of a publicity move.

Despite all of these questions, nearly universally, reporters, male and female, have come out chastising not only the Jets, but in a way, all NFL players in general. Not necessarily directly, but read between the lines and you’ll get the feeling that some of the remarks made on Twitter and in public statements have an air of “All athletes are pigs.” I don’t want to single out writers in the industry, but there have been plenty of over-blown attacks resulting from this storm. Just read your feeds and blog rolls.

I think the attacks are borne out of an implied obligation from all journalists that when a female reporter is attacked, if you don’t come to her defense, you’re a bigot. What they’re missing is a fundamental principle of journalism; Sainz wasn’t definitely verbally abused yet. She was allegedly abused. Let’s keep that in mind.

Secondly, the Clinton Portis reaction has been ridiculous. Listen, the dude is an idiot if he believes what he said. Journalists are professionals. They’re not sex-craving nymphos looking for a glance at a dude’s naked parts. And if they are, I’m sure the NFL has means of anonymously reporting them.

That being said, don’t completely black list the guy. He shouldn’t have said what he said the way he said it. But maybe he has, in some roundabout way, a point. Maybe some male athletes feel some sort of vulnerability when being covered by female athletes. I’ve been in an NFL locker room. I know some dudes aren’t afraid to walk around buck naked. But at the same time, I’m sure there are just as many guys that would rather a female reporter (or male) not even see a belly button, let alone a backside.

What I’m getting at here is that Portis has shown his outspoken ways before. This is his personality. He doesn’t have a filter. But he shouldn’t be attacked so universally for it. He feels this way, and he said it. He deserves some credit for speaking his mind, instead of censoring stuff. Isn’t that what journalists want?

Yes, Portis owes an apology for the way he said it. And he did. But, if he really feels that way, maybe he should follow it up with some sort of mention of how he feels, and what he meant to say.

Maybe I’m putting words in his mouth. But if Portis was speaking for some percentage of professional male athletes, perhaps some sort of changes can be made; allowing more time for male athletes to get dressed in the locker room; opening a fully-clothed area of the locker room where ALL interviews - not just those conducted by female reporters - be conducted; something to allow for more privacy.

As far as I know, the rules in women’s locker rooms are that male reporters - with their female counterparts - speak to all female athletes when they are clothed.

Is it time for a male locker room to be looked at with the same sensitivity?