You take up for these guy's every time. Wonder why?:lol:

 

Because many people on this board haven't the first clue as to the role of the media in society. It's not their job to play cheerleader for the hometown team. They have to also shed light on the bad side of things. They do that by asking questions, much like what Mark Story has done in this piece.

Did Story write anything that wasn't true? He raises some questions that some UK fans have been raising about Calipari on this board, possibly by some of the same posters that are now embracing his apparent hire.

 

Here's an "open letter" to UK fans ... the Lexington Herald-Leader is not your enemy, nor is it the enemy of the UK basketball program. Mark Story, John Clay and Jerry Tipton don't have the destruction of the Wildcats in mind when they're writing stories about what's going in within and around the team and program.

 

They are simply doing their job.

 

 

They choose to criticize all the UK coaches which is their right. And I choose to criticize them for what they say, how they say it and so on. You seem to enjoy criticizing us for doing the same thing to them as they do to others. Whats the problem?

By the way the last guy that was "just doing his job" has publically apologized for chasing BCG through the hallways of the Craft Center.

I didn't defend him, either ...

They choose to criticize all the UK coaches which is their right. And I choose to criticize them for what they say, how they say it and so on. You seem to enjoy criticizing us for doing the same thing to them as they do to others. Whats the problem?

 

Because we just don't understand that it is the media role in society to be critical. Understand?

I didn't defend him, either ...

 

That's good.

They choose to criticize all the UK coaches which is their right. And I choose to criticize them for what they say, how they say it and so on. You seem to enjoy criticizing us for doing the same thing to them as they do to others. Whats the problem?

Because one poster called Story a clown and a dork.

 

You, on the other hand, seemed to be questioning his motives, regardless of whether or not the questions he raised were valid.

 

Story didn't get nearly that personal. He simply raised some relevant issues. I guess some of you don't like it and, as Jim Schue said, think he should be a cheerleader for UK athletics.

 

UK fans like yourself tend to see things through blue-colored glasses. Story, Clay and Tipton cover things through a much clearer lens.

 

I see that, and I don't mind pointing out from time to time.

Did Story write anything that wasn't true? He raises some questions that some UK fans have been raising about Calipari on this board, possibly by some of the same posters that are now embracing his apparent hire.

 

Here's an "open letter" to UK fans ... the Lexington Herald-Leader is not your enemy, nor is it the enemy of the UK basketball program. Mark Story, John Clay and Jerry Tipton don't have the destruction of the Wildcats in mind when they're writing stories about what's going in within and around the team and program.

 

They are simply doing their job.

 

Actually, ... yes he did stretch the truth a bit concerning Rich Brooks. Here is what he wrote:

 

UK went out and hired a new football coach (Rich Brooks) without even checking to see if that coach had a prior history of NCAA violations in his past (he did).

 

Here are the facts.

 

Oregon was sanctioned by the NCAA in 1981 for violations committed by an assistant coach. Brooks coached at Oregon from 1977-94.

 

The assistant coach resigned, but Brooks was never linked to the violations, which involved academic fraud and players obtaining free plane tickets.

 

He also stated that UK did not check. In fact Mitch Barnhart was told by Brooks prior to the hire, and Barnhart did not tell Lee Todd because it was 21 years prior to being hired by UK, no link to Brooks and NO HINT OF ANY ISSUES SINCE.

 

This being said, ... something about Calipari does make me a little bit leary. I have stated that in earlier posts. But the one or two sources I have are saying the UK has been investigating everything they could find on several potential coaching candidates for weeks and found nothing they were concerned about. I still say that Izzo was my top candidate, but if it is Calipari, I will cheer for him and expect him to stay within the rules.

He's not being a cheerleader for UK, which seems to be what most UK fans think the Herald-Leader's role should be.

 

I agree that they should not be cheerleaders, but do they have to be the watch dogs?

 

Go to Knoxville and read the New Sentinel they are defenders and leave the detractors to the morons. I like the way they defend the Vols, which makes me even madder when I read the Lex Her......

Because one poster called Story a clown and a dork.

 

Check and Check. You left out no talent pot stirrer. It's easy to sit back and hack on everybody and every decision and then just act like it didn't happen when your wrong, ie. Rich Brooks. I personally think Brooks owes him a butt whopping.

Actually, ... yes he did stretch the truth a bit concerning Rich Brooks.

He said Brooks had some NCAA violations in his past, and he did. Whether or not Brooks committed them personally, they happened on his staff and on his watch.

He also stated that UK did not check. In fact Mitch Barnhart was told by Brooks prior to the hire, and Barnhart did not tell Lee Todd because it was 21 years prior to being hired by UK, no link to Brooks and NO HINT OF ANY ISSUES SINCE.

That's fine ... I have no reason not to accept your premise.

 

But Barnhart erred on not relaying the information to Todd, especially given Kentucky's brushes with the NCAA in the past.

Because many people on this board haven't the first clue as to the role of the media in society. It's not their job to play cheerleader for the hometown team. They have to also shed light on the bad side of things. They do that by asking questions, much like what Mark Story has done in this piece.

 

Are you saying that all (or at least, most) of the media should be skeptical of the hometown team? Shouldn't there be any "positive" media pieces.

Check and Check. You left out no talent pot stirrer. It's easy to sit back and hack on everybody and every decision and then just act like it didn't happen when your wrong, ie. Rich Brooks. I personally think Brooks owes him a butt whopping.

 

 

Speaking of butt whoppings. I have a friend that used to e-mail Story all the time about columns he had wrote about Brooks. This same guy walked right past Story at a football game, and didn't have the guts to say a thing to him. He had his chance right then and there to really let him have it, but he wimped out. He decided he would just hide behind his computer I guess. :lol:

Because one poster called Story a clown and a dork.

 

You, on the other hand, seemed to be questioning his motives, regardless of whether or not the questions he raised were valid.

 

Story didn't get nearly that personal. He simply raised some relevant issues. I guess some of you don't like it and, as Jim Schue said, think he should be a cheerleader for UK athletics.

 

UK fans like yourself tend to see things through blue-colored glasses. Story, Clay and Tipton cover things through a much clearer lens.

 

I see that, and I don't mind pointing out from time to time.

 

 

Heres what I don't like. The columns saying that a coach needs to be fired or let go. (I understand thats well within their rights to do that) And they have both done it a lot to Rich Brooks, Tubby Smith, and Billy Gillispie. Now UK fans get criticized all the time for being too hard on coaches, particularly Tubby Smith and Rich Brooks. Now why is it okay for Story and Clay to do it?

 

As for me I simply disagree with a lot of things they say and choose to criticise them because of it.

Check and Check. You left out no talent pot stirrer. It's easy to sit back and hack on everybody and every decision and then just act like it didn't happen when your wrong, ie. Rich Brooks. I personally think Brooks owes him a butt whopping.

You're entitled to your opinion. Bottom line, though ... you're calling Story names because you disagree with him.

 

Sorry, you have to come with a little more ammunition than that.

 

Story, like all of us, is entitled to his opinion. He may be right and he may be wrong, but at least he gives you an explanation of why he feels a certain way. I don't agree with him all the time, either, but he usually can make a pretty good case.

 

And I don't start calling him childish names, either.

So are people upset because the story was about Calipari or because it was right?