Not a good start to Dana Holgorsen era at WVU

My point all along was that when Stewart makes that phone call, it's a story that has to be written then. And if you want to sit on it and not act on what happened, that's obviously the reporter's right. But you can't have it both ways, that you sit on the story when it's in your lap, then talk about 7 months later when (coincidentally) you're no longer on the beat. If you want to keep quiet at the time of the call, then you shouldn't change your mind 7 months later.

I think it's pretty obvious what his motivation was, to get someone to dig up dirt on Holgorsen so they would have to fire him and keep Stewart as the coach. I don't see how that is even in question.

Sorry, like I said I thought this was a good point for discussion. And being a journalist's board, I thought it was relevant. If you don't agree, then I'll live with that. But don't expect me to seek your permission for what I should post on here and what I need to handle via IM, because that's not going to happen.

And for the record, the "salute" was not intended to be a slap in the face.

 

On Dec. 14, Stewart called me -- and another reporter who is still on the beat --- and asked us to write pieces that would kill Dana's character. He wanted us to "find what he had heard" but also said (to me at least), "hell, I don't care if you make it up, get it out there that this is a bad guy." We both said no to writing the story.
Stewart also, later in the week, lied to me about being in Houston having met with Dana the week before. Stewart was part of the process to bring Dana to West Virginia but acted as if he didn't know who the man was when rumblings first started that Dana might be up for a coach in waiting spot --- even as Stewart had met with him in Houston.

Anyhow, when the Chuck Landon stuff started to trickle out earlier this month -- the recent story that he wrote about Holgorsen being drunk in numerous places --- there were very strong suspicions that Stew was his anonymous source. So, I was called up by a host and asked to do a radio spot on the station I work for, 93.7 The Fan.
When asked if I thought if Stew could (emphasis on COULD) be the source, I simply answered honestly. I said "yes" and alluded to the conversation he and I had -- and he and the second reporter had --- back in December when he attempted to get us to write the pieces about Holgorsen.

Remember something very, very important. I was only on the show because a major, internal investigation within the football office by Oliver Luck and the WVU athletic department had already begun as to a possible leak for the Landon story. My words did not begin this. Bill Stewart could be out of a job today whether or not I said what I said --- that hasn't been stated enough.

If Stewart was the source for Landon's piece makes zero bit of difference now as it did then. I was asked if I thought it would be in Stewart's nature to do something like that -- and, from what he did in December, it quite obviously is something he could do -- again, emphasis on COULD.

I have phone records to prove the conversations on Dec. 14 happened, as does the second reporter --- and to be honest, the second reporter spoke to WVU but never come forward publicly. WVU corroborated our stories. That's his decision to stay private. The only "problem" I have with the second reporter is that he continued to report on this story the past few days, even saying things in media interviews about "the second reporter" when he was, well, "the second reporter." Seems like a conflict of interest to report on the story when you had been contacted by the university as part of the investigation.

Anyhow ..

Think about it...imagine if Stewart would have gone on, kept baiting reporters about Holgorsen and he actually got them to write things. And, eventually it would have yielded enough where Holgorsen would have been fired or reprimanded. Had I never spoken up now, imagine how I would have felt had that happened.

When he first said something in December, I passed it off as the actions of a desperate man and didn't say anything. There will be many of you who say I should have gone right to my boss or Stewart's boss and I get that, I understand, fully. But this situation was incredibly unique, as these were the actions of a very desperate man
But when some perceived a pattern began to form the past few weeks, and I was asked the question, it was my duty to answer honestly.

Keep this in mind...had I broken the story in December, it would have been the biggest story of the span of time between the end of the regular season and the bowl for the team I covered -- and I would have been the only one to write it, most likely. To do it then would have been a very big deal.

In the past three days, I have passed up opportunities to do Outside the Lines, get my photo in the New York Times, a bunch of TV and radio spots both locally and nationally and some other ESPN stuff --- and I told them all no. I'm not interested in gaining visibility from this at all. There have been many who have said I did this for exposure -- nothing is further from the truth. I recently walked away from this 24-hour, daily grind of journalism because I just want a life with my wife and my twins.

So let's get something straight ... I didn't "go public" with anything. I was asked a question and answered it. That is all. Hope that clears everything up.

And, Hate-Miser, you seem to have a particular interest in this (and problem with my actions)...you can email me: dunlapcolin@gmail.com. I invite anyone to email me if you'd like. There are some who think I am a villain, and that opinion will never change. Remember something fundamentally in all of this: I told the truth.

 

IF reporter writes a story that coach called me and asked me to dig up dirt on so-and-so, do you think coach will ever speak to reporter again?

Why the hell a coach would do that (if true) just shows that coach didn't want the other guy anywhere around to begin with.

 

Holgerson will be on Leach show today at XM 2:30 Eastern . should be interesting.

 

I'm checking out this thread 13 years after its most recent post, and it's tricky.
I think it's dangerous to cast stones at Colin Dunlap here for two reasons:
1) He was dragged into this story and became a participant against his will when Stewart called him.
2) He was put on the spot on live radio.
I don't know what I would have said on live radio in this instance.
The closest thing I can come to thinking I have a "right" answer is to say I'd find a way to decline to answer the question. But that's with the benefit of refection and the freedom from the immediacy of the moment. Again, live radio. Especially difficult given the way in which the question was phrased to come up with an artful Fifth Amendment-inspired response.

 

I think if you are asked the question in such a situation if Bill Stewart or anyone else is the source you say "I refuse to speculate because I don't know".

 

I had no idea sfgate was around in 2011. I’ve only started seeing it in the last few months.

 

It started off as a page for the Chronicle and Examiner. Now sfgate is a separate page and newsroom from the Chronicle.