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.

 

My philsophy has always been that I would rather report something that is accurate and not be first then just throw something out there that might be right just for the sake of being first.

 

You mentioned the UK coaching search. IMO I think the ones that were looking to beat everybody to the punch and were wrong look foolish now and have lost a tremendous amount of credibility.

Somebody said that Gundy said 3/4 of it was a lie and you'd like to know which part. Well, just listen to it. He goes through all of the lies, pretty much one by one...

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/290829.html

 

As far as I am concerned Jason Whitlock just hit another home run. He seems to be doing that a lot lately.

Gundy should have waited for this one, his team just one a huge game and this is what took center stage. I think the article was pretty pathetic myself but the TEAM should have came first. He could have waited a day or so to go crazy.

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.

 

But does that make it right? Is it the ethically correct thing to do from a journalistic perspective? When I was 10 I demanded that my parents buy me a pony. Guess what? They didn't.

 

I can understand and respect why you have strong feelings towards the issue. But IMO your situation and the situation of this reporter are clearly different. Surely you have enough integrity to not go around spreading rumors? Since you are a journalist I will ask you this: What is the point of something being "off the record"? Obviously the coach is trying to answer a reporters question without having it printed in the media. Pretty fair if you ask me, he could simply be a jerk and say "no comment" to the question. Clearly by suggesting that it is "off the record" he does not want it repeated, especially in a national publication. However it seems that more and more today journalists feel that off the record material is readily available for use in their columns. And they wonder why coaches don't trust them?? :lol:

"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.

 

Absolutely. :thumb::thumb:

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/290829.html

 

As far as I am concerned Jason Whitlock just hit another home run. He seems to be doing that a lot lately.

 

Now here is someone with some integrity. Great read, my favorite part was the last two paragraphs.

 

I don’t know a sports journalist, particularly a female or minority one, who would appreciate having their careers analyzed based on “back stories told on the sly.”

 

Good journalists make mistakes. Rather than juvenilely asking Mike Gundy to explain why three-fourths of her column was inaccurate, I’d rather hear Carlson explain what journalism class at Kansas taught her to shred a kid’s character with “rumors and rumblings.”

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.

 

.

 

Readers demand also fuels such publications as National Enquirer, People, and other rags at the checkout counter.

"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.

 

Never said it was a good excuse, nor am I condoning it. Just saying that's why it happens. What you guys are conveniently ignoring, of course, is that journalism is a business. And unfortunately in this day and age, much to my dismay, the public trust far too often takes a back seat to the bottom line.

Mind me asking which paper?

 

The Roane County News

My philsophy has always been that I would rather report something that is accurate and not be first then just throw something out there that might be right just for the sake of being first.

 

Right, and I do too, but you have to admit the media outlets we work for, respectively, allow us that luxury. If we worked at the Courier-Journal and WHAS radio covering college sports, we would have a completely different set of pressures and demands to answer to.

 

You mentioned the UK coaching search. IMO I think the ones that were looking to beat everybody to the punch and were wrong look foolish now and have lost a tremendous amount of credibility.

 

I'm of the opinion that once the swirl ended and a coach was named, most everyone in the general public completely forgot any missteps by those journalists caught up in it.

But does that make it right? Is it the ethically correct thing to do from a journalistic perspective? When I was 10 I demanded that my parents buy me a pony. Guess what? They didn't.

 

By the same token, you were also not in a position to hurt your parents in the pocketbook for not meeting your demands the way a restless fan base can adversely affect a newspaper's profitability. I thought it was all about populism — "Give the people what they want" and other such capitalistic mantras?

 

I can understand and respect why you have strong feelings towards the issue. But IMO your situation and the situation of this reporter are clearly different. Surely you have enough integrity to not go around spreading rumors? Since you are a journalist I will ask you this: What is the point of something being "off the record"? Obviously the coach is trying to answer a reporters question without having it printed in the media. Pretty fair if you ask me, he could simply be a jerk and say "no comment" to the question. Clearly by suggesting that it is "off the record" he does not want it repeated, especially in a national publication. However it seems that more and more today journalists feel that off the record material is readily available for use in their columns. And they wonder why coaches don't trust them?? :lol:

 

More often than not, a source will tell me something off the record that he/she just wants to get off their chest that they maybe don't want to say publicly. It can be done to help me better understand a complicated decision or process. Or, a source can give me something off the record he knows I will also ask of other sources to get confirmation.

 

Information garnered off the record usually has less to do with the source's desire for the information not to be published than it is the source doesn't want to be associated with the information. It's never as cut and dried as some of you want to believe.

The Roane County News

 

Nice. I'm originally from Oak Ridge.

Somebody said that Gundy said 3/4 of it was a lie and you'd like to know which part. Well, just listen to it. He goes through all of the lies, pretty much one by one...

That's what I think too. He pretty much detailed to her in his outburst the reasons he's upset. What other information does she want? He's already laid it out there in his speech.

That's what I think too. He pretty much detailed to her in his outburst the reasons he's upset. What other information does she want? He's already laid it out there in his speech.

 

Now waitaminute. His whole beef was that she attacked the player as a momma's boy, the way I interpreted everything. He didn't dispute anything factually, just her assumption, based on off-the-record conversations with OKST staffers, that Reid was soft and that's why he was benched.

 

And besides: It was an opinion column. Her opinion might prove to be incorrect, but there's no way to know that because no one on the OKST staff has the sack to step up and say, "I was the one who told her that stuff." And I'm not holding my breath that we'll hear such a statement any time soon.