So he owes her an explanation for attacking her character because he took up for his player who had his character and toughness attacked by her? Yeah I disagree.

 

 

What do you do for a living? If someone stood up in public and told millions of people that something you did during the course of your job was wrong, yet did not explain what was wrong about it, you wouldn't feel owed an explanation? As she said in her follow-up column, journalists want to know when they screw up so they can rectify the mistake. Can't do that if the coach won't bother telling her or anyone else what was false about the column. Maybe it's because the coach is the one who told her those things initially, and he doesn't want others to know it so he doesn't come under fire for the same criticism he's railed against the reporter about?

 

The coach taking up for his player and attacking the columnist are two different pieces of the same story. I have no problem with him taking up for his player. But he still did nothing to substantiate his allegation that her column was "three-fourths fiction."

Here are my thoughts.....

1. As a member of the media, (On a much smaller scale) the number one thing is being correct with details and being able to back that up. That means NOT saying, "Rumours are that........." or "It is thought that........." or even relying on sources that are not trustworthy.

 

2. If you are going to be in the media you better be ready for someone to be critical of your work. Either very heated or very cordial you are going to receive greif for a piece of your work.

 

3. She brought personal matters into her work that did not belong there. Saying that the player did not play when he was hurt and would not gut it out was out of line. Does she have a medical degree or is she a trainer and know how bad he is actually hurt? Making refrenece to him being a Moma's boy was WAAAAAYYYYYY out of line. Criticize him for his play on the field or for being in trouble with the law, but not for the things that she did.

 

 

 

Well said Philip Hay! :thumb:

 

Being in the media to an extent myself you have to be very careful as to what you say and or how you say it. The bottom line is...it's apart of the job you have to understand...you fire on someone/something...they can and usually will fire back at you.

 

If someone comes at my kids, my family, friends or me in that fashion you better believe that I would go verbally postal on them.

 

Kudos to this coach for standing up for his player and what he believed in!! Sure he was pretty dramatic but he was ANGRY and he said his peace. If more people in this world would do this on a daily basis you wouldn't see or hear some of this crap from the media on a daily basis.

Well said Philip Hay! :thumb:

 

Being in the media to an extent myself you have to be very careful as to what you say and or how you say it. The bottom line is...it's apart of the job you have to understand...you fire on someone/something...they can and usually will fire back at you.

 

If someone comes at my kids, my family, friends or me in that fashion you better believe that I would go verbally postal on them.

 

Kudos to this coach for standing up for his player and what he believed in!! Sure he was pretty dramatic but he was ANGRY and he said his peace. If more people in this world would do this on a daily basis you wouldn't see or hear some of this crap from the media on a daily basis.

 

I agree with this to a degree. What I can't help wondering if his anger is not also self-serving — that he's angry because things he and/or his staff intimated to this columnist ended up aired in public, because it might ultimately make him look bad? Clearly, the columnist isn't the first person to express the opinion Reid is soft. Maybe Gundy and his staff wanted to have it both ways?

I agree with this to a degree. What I can't help wondering if his anger is not also self-serving — that he's angry because things he and/or his staff intimated to this columnist ended up aired in public, because it might ultimately make him look bad? Clearly, the columnist isn't the first person to express the opinion Reid is soft. Maybe Gundy and his staff wanted to have it both ways?

 

I get what your saying and I am sure that is a possiblity.

 

I know that every coach is different on how they manage themselves from a PR prospective but I do believe that if you had more coaches/people fire back at the media the way Gundy did...you wouldn't see this type of crap as often.

 

Off my soap box and back to my shy, reserved and quiet self!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What do you do for a living? If someone stood up in public and told millions of people that something you did during the course of your job was wrong, yet did not explain what was wrong about it, you wouldn't feel owed an explanation? As she said in her follow-up column, journalists want to know when they screw up so they can rectify the mistake. Can't do that if the coach won't bother telling her or anyone else what was false about the column. Maybe it's because the coach is the one who told her those things initially, and he doesn't want others to know it so he doesn't come under fire for the same criticism he's railed against the reporter about?

 

The coach taking up for his player and attacking the columnist are two different pieces of the same story. I have no problem with him taking up for his player. But he still did nothing to substantiate his allegation that her column was "three-fourths fiction."

 

First off it does not matter what I do for a living. One thing I do not do for a living is write columns to be critical and hurtful towards young college students (not about their abilities or performance on the field, but about their toughness). I do not think the coach owes the columnist anything. He stated his opinions and is moving on. I don't blame him for not dealing with her anymore.

First off it does not matter what I do for a living. One thing I do not do for a living is write columns to be critical and hurtful towards young college students (not about their abilities or performance on the field, but about their toughness). I do not think the coach owes the columnist anything. He stated his opinions and is moving on. I don't blame him for not dealing with her anymore.

 

Yes it does matter, because you clearly do not want to see why the columnist feels like she should get some kind of explanation as to why the article she produced is "three-quarters fiction." If someone was publicly critical about how you do your job, you'd probably at least be a little steamed about it, and would want to talk with that person about what issues they have with your work. Since Gundy won't do that, the columnist has every right to claim slander on his part.

 

Here's why this is a touchy subject with me: Five years ago I was covering the Tennessee gubernatorial campaign for a paper just west of Knoxville. I went to an event where the wife of a candidate with local ties was speaking to the local women's auxiliary. The candidate's wife recounted the story of her husband asking for her permission to run for governor. I printed the quote.

 

A few weeks later, the candidate himself used a campaign speech at another local event to say that the local paper had made up the story about him asking his wife's permission to run. He didn't name me, but it wasn't too hard to figure out who he was talking about. Needless to say, I was furious that the candidate had attacked my credibility in a public fashion — for using a direct quote in this case, one I still have the notes on — but didn't bother raising the concerns with me or the paper (the publisher at the time and he were longtime friends!) directly. He didn't return calls afterward, despite the fact I had proof that he lied about me in open forum.

 

I have no right to redress in this situation; no right to protect my name? After this man attacked me in public? Again, the columnist for The Oklahoman didn't necessarily need to frame her column the way she did by using the momma's boy stuff, but that still doesn't mean her entire work should be attacked as malicious lies when all she tried to do was explain (again, in not the best possible manner) why the QB got benched, using information I guarantee she has in her notebook that would be quite embarassing to the OKST coaching staff were the whole thing made public.

 

Again, I doubt Gundy is as mad about Reid being attacked as he is about the fact that it might come to pass that he and other members of his staff were the ones saying Reid's soft, and that's where the columnist got the information from, and he might eventually end up as the bad guy along with the columnist.

 

The columnist is worthy of criticism from the public. But she also has the right to confront her accuser when that accuser has drug her name through the mud the way Gundy has. Both parties are at fault in this one.

Yes it does matter, because you clearly do not want to see why the columnist feels like she should get some kind of explanation as to why the article she produced is "three-quarters fiction." If someone was publicly critical about how you do your job, you'd probably at least be a little steamed about it, and would want to talk with that person about what issues they have with your work. Since Gundy won't do that, the columnist has every right to claim slander on his part.

 

Here's why this is a touchy subject with me: Five years ago I was covering the Tennessee gubernatorial campaign for a paper just west of Knoxville. I went to an event where the wife of a candidate with local ties was speaking to the local women's auxiliary. The candidate's wife recounted the story of her husband asking for her permission to run for governor. I printed the quote.

 

A few weeks later, the candidate himself used a campaign speech at another local event to say that the local paper had made up the story about him asking his wife's permission to run. He didn't name me, but it wasn't too hard to figure out who he was talking about. Needless to say, I was furious that the candidate had attacked my credibility in a public fashion — for using a direct quote in this case, one I still have the notes on — but didn't bother raising the concerns with me or the paper (the publisher at the time and he were longtime friends!) directly. He didn't return calls afterward, despite the fact I had proof that he lied about me in open forum.

 

I have no right to redress in this situation; no right to protect my name? After this man attacked me in public? Again, the columnist for The Oklahoman didn't necessarily need to frame her column the way she did by using the momma's boy stuff, but that still doesn't mean her entire work should be attacked as malicious lies when all she tried to do was explain (again, in not the best possible manner) why the QB got benched, using information I guarantee she has in her notebook that would be quite embarassing to the OKST coaching staff were the whole thing made public.

 

Again, I doubt Gundy is as mad about Reid being attacked as he is about the fact that it might come to pass that he and other members of his staff were the ones saying Reid's soft, and that's where the columnist got the information from, and he might eventually end up as the bad guy along with the columnist.

 

The columnist is worthy of criticism from the public. But she also has the right to confront her accuser when that accuser has drug her name through the mud the way Gundy has. Both parties are at fault in this one.

 

Here is the thing. He is obviously upset at the columnist. So what better way to "get to her" than to just not acknowledge her anymore. Obviously he said in his original statement that what was untrue was basically saying he is a momma's boy and not a tough player. It sounded to me like the coach was saying he is a tough player and that saying he was not tough was simply untrue.

I agree with your other two observations, but I kind of have to part with you on this one. Accuracy is the key, I will agree. But given the nature of high-profile college athletics, which thrives on rumors and innuendo — or have we forgotten all the ridiculous swirl around our recent search for a UK hoops coach? — sometimes to get information and answer questions readers have, you have to use some off-the-record stuff.

 

And football coaches are some of the most paranoid people in the world. Some of them act as though revealing who might be banged up this week is on par with giving away the nuclear launch codes to China.

 

The writer in question tried to get a straightforward answer as to why Reid got benched. The head coach obviously would provide none. Columnists and beat writers get to be pretty familiar with the teams they cover, so they're hearing all kinds of information about things going on out of the public eye, and they have a pretty good idea who's feeding them crap and who's feeding them juicy stuff.

 

So, armed with information off-the-record from assistant coaches — and perhaps even from the head coach, which would explain his over-reaction — and with a story that fans/readers are dying to hear more about, the columnist did what political and sports writers and columnists do every day, which is write a piece based on informed speculation. Sure, it's speculation, but it's not like she went out on a willow tree branch here. She used information culled from trusted sources she works with on a daily basis, while not outing those sources.

 

This is the problem that all coaches have with the media today. Its why Marvin Lewis belittles members of the media. It's why the OK St. coach blew up. You don't HAVE to use off the record stuff, you CHOOSE to use it. And your choices reflect your integrity as a journalist. Coaches allow members of the media to be around their programs and what do they get in return? The perpetuation of speculation and rumors. If she wants to be the head coach she should apply for the job. If she wants to spread scandal and gossip sign up for the tabloids. But if she wants to be a JOURNALIST, then please, please, have some integrity.

This is the problem that all coaches have with the media today. Its why Marvin Lewis belittles members of the media. It's why the OK St. coach blew up. You don't HAVE to use off the record stuff, you CHOOSE to use it. And your choices reflect your integrity as a journalist. Coaches allow members of the media to be around their programs and what do they get in return? The perpetuation of speculation and rumors. If she wants to be the head coach she should apply for the job. If she wants to spread scandal and gossip sign up for the tabloids. But if she wants to be a JOURNALIST, then please, please, have some integrity.

 

Want to know why reporters sometimes have to use unnamed sources to confirm rumors (other than the fact that those sources are concerned about repercussions for going on the record)? Because the readers want it and demand it.

 

Admit it: If you're a UK fan, you devoured every single piece of information — substantiated or not — about the UK coaching search. The reporters covering the search were getting all kinds of phone calls from sources of various levels of credibility (how do you think they were able to compile a list of candidates and interviewees for the job when those candidates and the school are not commenting on it?) that they have to confirm, discredit and/or ignore.

 

Why did this happen during the UK coach search? The readers demanded it. Probably the same way OKST fans were demanding information as to why their star QB had been benched.

Want to know why reporters sometimes have to use unnamed sources to confirm rumors (other than the fact that those sources are concerned about repercussions for going on the record)? Because the readers want it and demand it.

 

Admit it: If you're a UK fan, you devoured every single piece of information — substantiated or not — about the UK coaching search. The reporters covering the search were getting all kinds of phone calls from sources of various levels of credibility (how do you think they were able to compile a list of candidates and interviewees for the job when those candidates and the school are not commenting on it?) that they have to confirm, discredit and/or ignore.

 

Why did this happen during the UK coach search? The readers demanded it. Probably the same way OKST fans were demanding information as to why their star QB had been benched.

 

 

Huge difference between wanting to know any information possible about a new coach and wanting to know that someone that won't admit who they are, says a player is a momma's boy and not tough.

"The readers demand it", thats a weak excuse for compromising integrity. You seem to be condoning that to satisfy the readers, but surely I am misunderstanding you.

 

And my feelings are college athletes are fair game, as long as it is about their performance. But if you cross over into personal issues (like being a momma's boy) then it is out of line.

"The readers demand it", thats a weak excuse for compromising integrity. You seem to be condoning that to satisfy the readers, but surely I am misunderstanding you.

 

And my feelings are college athletes are fair game, as long as it is about their performance. But if you cross over into personal issues (like being a momma's boy) then it is out of line.

 

I am very critical of a lot of opinion columnists when it comes to sports. I believe that too many of them are self-proclaimed experts, but in reality don't know much about what is going on. And it annoys me to know end when a columnist makes comments like this for whatever reason. She probably wanted some attention, but really what she has done is annoy most sports fans out there.

Or maybe the coaches "don't have the guts" to go on the record with it, instead talking about it to the reporter privately.

 

The writer strings together some events that she thinks points to a pattern of him being soft. Is she right? Heck if I know. But she's around the program and talks to people close to it, so maybe she does know.

 

If you're attacking the character of a college kid, you had better be able to back it up. She cannot - even if it did come from coaches.

Very nice commentary on the "other" side of Coach Gundy's tirade.

 

I agree with you, "JimShue" that these highly recruited college athletes are in the public's eye and bask in the glory of star worshipping, yet their coach paints a picture of them being this highly sensitive individual who has a difficult time even facing the public.

 

I do have mixed emotions about this issue, but you raise some great points.

 

The coach gave her free reign to criticize his ability. Any kid in the public eye has to expect that. Where you and others are wrong is that them playing a sport does not give writers the right to attack his character especially when you're backing it up with rumors and innuendos.

 

Completely different than questioning his arm strength or ability to read the Cover 2.

Five years ago I was covering the Tennessee gubernatorial campaign for a paper just west of Knoxville.

 

Mind me asking which paper?