I'm guessing this response is about more than just this one instance.

 

I agree that Tipton and the Herald-Leader do not owe the basketball program anything. But, neither is the opposite true. If they feel like Tipton is doing some questionable reporting or is trying to dig up dirt, why should they grant him any access? I wouldn't.

 

Figured I'd carry this over so it's clear. I commented about the part that "neither is the opposite true," which you used following the statement that the H-L doesn't owe the program anything.

 

My whole point was that the University, as a public entity, does not have the right to close its doors, so to speak, to the Herald-Leader, any other media entity, or any regular citizen, for that matter.

 

I don't know how else it could have read Jim. We're talking about reporters and interviews in this thread. Why on earth would I go off on a tangent related to public records?

 

To be clear, I meant that access to the players for interviews is not something the HL is entitled to. I thought that was clear enough the first time around.

 

And if the UK hoops program does think it can go the next step and cut off the Herald-Leader from interviews with players, it better be ready for a public relations bloodbath. As it was once said, "don't make enemies with people who buy ink by the barrel, because you'll never win."

It's less about protecting the players than it is about controlling the message. Same thing as the recent heavy-handed incident with the Kernel.

 

By the same token, if questions such as those are never asked, how then do readers find out about heartwarming redemption stories of overcoming great tragedies, or when players use said tragedies to motivate them?

 

At 19-20 years old, those "kids" can go vote and fight for their country. They are young men at that age, and it does them a disservice to coddle them as though they were 8-year-olds.

 

Eh, I don't agree, Jim. If it was a matter of clarity it should have been asked in the question or bracketed in later so the reader would know it was an editorial addition. Switching it out inconspicuously actually does change the context. I'm not familiar with the Gilchrist story, but there's more than reason to believe he may have answered differently had the question been worded in that manner.

I just disagree with the whole changing things for clarity argument. I think you ask your question and you report it as you ask it. I don't think it's acceptable to change the context of the question because the answer wouldn't be the same if the question was asked in a different manner.

By the same token, if questions such as those are never asked, how then do readers find out about heartwarming redemption stories of overcoming great tragedies, or when players use said tragedies to motivate them?

 

At 19-20 years old, those "kids" can go vote and fight for their country. They are young men at that age, and it does them a disservice to coddle them as though they were 8-year-olds.

 

I agree we shouldn't coddle them...i would only say if you are going to print something about "how" his father died (which is obviously controversial) then ask the kid that. If he says I have no comment then so be it...

 

I would say things went down like this...Gilcrest talks to press....next day the paper comes out and the HL adds this information and it upsets the kid ...he says something to someone, or to Coach Cal, and they realize they need to protect their player.

 

To misrepresent the question that was ask is not good...Maybe he answers the question differently....

Jerry Tipton is not paid by the University of Kentucky and it is not his job to be a public relations person for the basketball program. His job is to write stories about UK basketball, no matter if the information is flattering, neutral or controversial. UK hoops already has someone on staff to take care of their PR.

 

A reporter's job is to tell the whole story, not just the rosy stuff.

 

I understand and I agree but the LHL does not need their basketball beat writer to be someone who would rather write about the players needing to develop their speech tones and someone who repeatedly brings up to players he doesn't even know their past concerning their fathers death (Gilchrist/Wall/etc.)

 

 

 

I wouldn't care if Tipton wrote fairly about stories surrounding the b ball program but the things he writes about sometimes are just ridiculous. Sometimes he seems like he wants to go out of his way to make some kind of crazy story out of nothing about things that are usual irrelevant.

That's not how it reads.

 

But yes, in an interview setting, the interviewee certainly has the right to refuse to answer a question if the interviewee feels it is out-of-bounds.

 

Gilchrist was denied the right to say for himself if the question was out of bounds. To me, that's where the problem lies.

Let's not forget that Mr Schue is/was a journalist, and he will ALWAYS take the side of the reporter. When that position also lets him be anti-Kentucky, then he likes it even more.

Let's not forget that Mr Schue is/was a journalist, and he will ALWAYS take the side of the reporter. When that position also lets him be anti-Kentucky, then he likes it even more.

 

He also refuses to leave the dark ages and realize that newspapers don't have the power they used to. To think UK basketball needs the HL more than the other way around is laughable.

He also refuses to leave the dark ages and realize that newspapers don't have the power they used to. To think UK basketball needs the HL more than the other way around is laughable.

Has he said something to that effect?

Jerry Tipton is not paid by the University of Kentucky and it is not his job to be a public relations person for the basketball program. His job is to write stories about UK basketball, no matter if the information is flattering, neutral or controversial. UK hoops already has someone on staff to take care of their PR.

 

A reporter's job is to tell the whole story, not just the rosy stuff.

I agree with you 100% as long as the reporting is unbiased both ways.

 

Jerry Tipton does seem to be a bit of a pot stirrer, if there isn't a pot to be stirred he will bring his own...:lol:

Let's not forget that Mr Schue is/was a journalist, and he will ALWAYS take the side of the reporter. When that position also lets him be anti-Kentucky, then he likes it even more.

 

Whatever. If you're going to go that route and provide some all-encompassing generality, then all Kentucky fans are racist.

 

All I've tried to do is offer suggestions as to why things might have went down the way they did, based on my experience. Never once said I agreed with Tipton or even that I cared for him as a writer. You and many of the others in this thread just heard what you wanted to because it suited your preconceived notions.

 

Seems to me that within this thread there are a lot of people automatically predisposed toward taking UK's side on this because they're fans, totally ignoring the fact that if it were a different school involved in such things (the current incident and the one with the Kernel) they would be the first to side with the journalist.

He also refuses to leave the dark ages and realize that newspapers don't have the power they used to. To think UK basketball needs the HL more than the other way around is laughable.

 

UK basketball does need neutral observers, because if they weren't there, how would anybody know about crooked stuff like the Emery package? It certainly wouldn't be fanboy sites like Matt Jones' or Wireman's.

 

But given past history, you guys clearly would rather shoot the messenger.

Gilchrist was denied the right to say for himself if the question was out of bounds. To me, that's where the problem lies.

 

Fair enough. While I don't necessarily think that the question change would have made that big a difference, maybe it would've, and with that in mind, it perhaps should've been left alone. Of course, we still don't know whose choice it was to change things -- Tipton's or somebody at a higher pay grade than him.

 

And I (nor does anyone else) know for sure how that whole scene went down. Maybe he asked the question both ways.

Whatever. If you're going to go that route and provide some all-encompassing generality, then all Kentucky fans are racist.

 

You sure didn't hesitate with that one. And if you think my statement about a single person is the same as a sweeping generalization of millions, then you have pretty poor logic.

Your statement is a sweeping generalization of journalists. Jim just isn't so ham-fisted and inflamatory as to just parody your post word for word, but if he did:

Let's not forget that this poster is a Kentucky fan, and he will ALWAYS take the side of the Klan.

it would be the exact same thing as what he said.

 

By setting your construction up as "Jim is a journalist, therefore he is like this," that's a sweeping generalization of any journalist. There's really no way around that.