Nothing is Impossible (or something like that)

Today's New York Times story on Don Imus settling his issues with CBS has an interesting admission.

The story says: "While some Imus associates suggested yesterday that his final payment was at least $20 million, Karen Mateo, a spokeswoman for CBS Radio, characterized that figure as too high. In fact, it was impossible for an outsider to know for sure yesterday how much CBS had agreed to pay him"

“Impossible?”

And how did the reporter ascertain that? I love when reporters justify (primarily to their editors) not being able to come up with a figure. I mean, you couldn't get it nailed down, no biggie, but to add this caveat as an excuse is a little much. More surprising is that the editors let it stay in the story. Whatever happened to the “terms were not disclosed.”

I know this is part of the "transparency" movement in journalism, but enough is enough. I also love in the NY Times when the reporter, in explaining that a person couldn't be reached for comment, says calls to the person's home were not returned, or calls to their cell phone, etc. We get it, you tried to reach him. That's enough. I don't need to know that you got his cell number and he didn't answer. I don't need to know that you got his home phone and he ignored it. Just tell me you couldn't reach him for comment and let it go!