1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TheSportsPredictor, Jan 12, 2010.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    He already had said no questions. This is going around in circles, but from the TV person's perspective, roll your cameras if he comes in the room and who knows what you get?

    As for "waiting to be fed," I didn't mean to insult anyone. I said over and over again on this thread -- after buckweaver quoted Wes without saying who it was or where it came from -- I didn't criticize anyone who wasn't able to get Lane Kiffin for an interview that day. But everyone in that room was in the same boat. They were sitting there hoping for something. If anyone had been able to get a one on one with Lane Kiffin or get him on his cell, they would have.
     
  2. jps

    jps Active Member

    I understand he said he'd take no questions -- that doesn't mean he wasn't going to provide answers. like sid said, he knows what their questions will be and he was prepared to answer those questions.

    (past that, have you never been in or seen a press conference where it was said at the front end no questions and then before they can get away from the podium a question is asked that they actually pause to answer?)

    and once again, we'll never know because of tv guy's little tantrum.
     
  3. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Look, I really have nothing to add that I haven't said so far, but I will say this:

    If people are going to get upset about "waiting to be fed," don't call it "a little tantrum."

    The guy was being put in a terrible position, and decided to stand his ground. You may not respect that, and that's fine. I understand why he did it, and I understand why people are pissed. To call it a tantrum is just wrong.
     
  4. jps

    jps Active Member

    see, that's where we differ.

    he stood his ground, said what he wanted to say, and was told that the rules weren't going to change. then he stood his ground, said what he wanted to say, and was told that the rules weren't going to change. then he stood his ground, said what he wanted to say, and was told the rules weren't going to change. then he stood his ground ....

    see the pattern? that's a tantrum. do it once and walk away. I'd disagree with but respect that. what he did was the equivalent of jumping up and down saying, "I want, I want, I want!"
     
  5. Trouser_Buddah

    Trouser_Buddah Active Member

    I still can't get over he said off camera is off the record.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    jps, Stalemate. I just see how from TV guy's perspective, cameras rolling if Kiffin comes out gives the possibility of more than TV cameras not rolling if he comes out -- for what TV guy does. You disagreed and said something about no video not impacting the TV coverage. I not only disagree with that, I believe Kiffin wanted to control TV because he was more concerned about video negatively impacting his image, than he was about the stories that were going to get written with or without what I think were going to be his carefully chosen words no matter how it all went down. I still ask anyone who doesn't see it that way to ask themselves why Kiffin made a particular point of trying to control what the TV cameras recorded? But I'll back off. We can go in circles for days. Thanks for the back and forth.
     
  7. jps

    jps Active Member

    if a tree falls in the forest, but tv guy's camera isn't rolling ... ?
     
  8. jps

    jps Active Member

    I do see the point -- but fail to see the approval of a guy screwing over the other folks in the room whether or not he was being treated fairly.
     
  9. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    And it's semantics at this point, but I would argue that Kiffin is screwing everyone, not the guy who stood up for himself.
     
  10. jps

    jps Active Member

    guess so - because really standing up for himself would be making his point and walking out.
     
  11. Trouser_Buddah

    Trouser_Buddah Active Member

    And I'll make this point for the last time. Whether you think Kiffin screwed everyone or not, that ship had sailed. The conditions were set. They weren't changing. At that point you either decide to move on and get as much information as you can, or you decide this is the time to pick a losing battle.
     
  12. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    And I don't argue with a word of that. I simply don't have a problem with the guy fighting the losing battle.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page