No, Steve, you are quite incorrect. Your entire premise is argumentum ad ignorantiam, a false dichotomy.
I might as well say to you, "Steve, it is well known that the South African press has been reticent in investigating and publicizing the level of Springbok sexual abuse at the hands of academics...I challenge you to show me how the South African press has aggressively reported on Springbok academic sexual abuse."
You probably would reply that my premise is silly - that you are being asked to prove a negative. That it should be up to me to prove that the South African press is soft on reporting academic animal sexual abuse, and furthermore, that an absence of evidence regarding the South African Press reporting on that subject is not a sign of a lack of aggressive reporting of a problem, it more likely is a sign that there has been no academic-Springbok sexual abuse to report.
And you would be right. Which is why I asked Josh to provide evidence of our local press being substandard in reporting negatives about the UF football program, rather than me try to find instances when they busted UF's balls about NCAA violations. Because me saying "prove it" to Josh does not impose a burden on me to prove that which is alleged, me saying "prove it" does not magically impose upon me the duty to validate the absence of the unsupported allegation.
Which is why you are engaging a tactic that is classic argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because an absence of recent articles where the local press aggressively reported NCAA rules violations by Florida does not mean the local press is not aggressive in reporting NCAA rules violations - it likely means that UF is not blatantly violating any NCAA rules.
