End of Saban/Herald/Radio story

DD, that might be directed at me, I don't know. I'm the one who suggested the original Saban thread get locked, not because the Saban discussion wasn't interesting, but because it had degenerated into this whole "Did Darlington already have the job?" thing. And in my opinion (and only that) it seems to me that when we get into the personal ethics (all discussed based on hearsay and rumor) of a named individual, with most of the posters NOT named so we have know idea who they are or what they really know, we are indeed stepping out of bounds. It's not close to the same as a thread saying mean things about Rex Grossman, and obviously, you're smart enough to know that.

Again, only my opinion, and nobody was obligated based on that to lock anything. I don't personally have that power.

The irony (word misused), of course, is that I'm the one who started THIS thread based on the Big O apology, and it's basically continuing the same discussion as the locked thread. So whatever.

 

Well, blondiebomber is either going to prove that he is right or kill a thread trying.

 

wow. the original locked thread was MUCH better. this one has sucked for at least three pages.

wasn't the interview with saban a sitdown with just three reporters? the three reporters -- including jeff -- obviously agreed the intended "off-the-record" remarks that raised such a fuss were, indeed, "off-the-record." how do i know this? THEY DIDN'T WRITE IT!!!

a month later, radio brutus gets a hold of the tape, via jeff's stupidity. radio brutus goes all dick and airs the "off-the-record" clip. all hell breaks out.

boys and girls, those are the ONLY relevant facts. when jeff knew he was getting the herald job and when he told the palm beach post -- IRRELEVANT.

blondebomber and ethan -- please go to your rooms. talk about journos behaving badly. grow the eff up, both of you. PLEEEEEZE!

if my rundown of the facts as we know it is wrong, feel free to correct me. but i believe they're on the mark and pretty darn straight-forward.

 

SF, you're right, but you've only helped point out the ridiculous double standard that exists for some threads here. Not long ago, we literally had three threads a month dropping bombs on Jemele Hill. Really mean, bullshit, pointless stuff. MizzouGrad basically says "she's a shitty reporter and a shitty person." Now I don't know Jemele as well as you may know Darrlington. But I stuck up for her, and said something similar. Enough. Let's move on. I propose a moratorium on Jemele-bashing threads. Did those threads get locked up? Did Moddy come rushing in on his white horse? Nope. In fact, I was told by plenty of posters to fuck off, and who the hell was I to decide what threads should be allowed and what threads should not.

Personally, I would have much rather preferred that you try to steer the discussion back to the issue at hand, since there were clearly actually journalism issues worth discussing, and the discussion clearly was not over. In the absence of that, it would have be nice to see you wield the same influence you have apparently have with Moddy for Jemele that you did for Jeff.

And if Webby and Moddy want to give you moderator powers, that's fine too. If I had to pick a poster to do it, you'd be at the top of my list. But until that day, I'm a little uncomfortable with some posters being able to say, "This discussion should be closed" and the moderators saying "You betcha" without so much as even reading the thread.

I don't deny that Moddy should be much more willing to listen to your advice than that of say, RAMBO SHALL BE UNLEASHED, but it's a slippery slope to decide which "members" should get to lock threads and which members should not.

 

just pure brilliance. might as well repeat it.

but remember, jemele is not "one of our own."

 

You keep saying that, jason. Try not being so enigmatic.

 

amen.

 

Not that Moddy needs anyone to defend him, but to be fair, the man does have a life and job. It has to take a helluva lot of time to read all these threads.

It seems reasonable that he would rely on a respected member until he can get to it himself.

 

granted, 21. but shouldn't he read a thread before locking it up? it's like a coach being pissed at you for a story "someone told me about." please read it before you get pissed.

 

I'm just now hearing about this thread, so I'll apologize in advance if I say something that has been repeated ad nauseum.

I'm not bitching, but on boards like these you stick up for the people you like. I like Jeff. I'm going to stick up for him because I know what it feels like to make a mistake and have the whole industry killing you about it. That is the cost of your mistake, I suppose. But, as with me, these things tend to venture away from journalistic discussion and into personal attacks. That is wrong, in my opinion.

Now obviously, Mizzou and I had a "run-in" years ago and he doesn't like me. That's his right. There is no law that says he has to like me, or anyone else. And actually, I'd love for him to PM me because I'm curious as hell as to what the "run-in" was and what I did to make him despise me. Maybe I was just having a bad day, who knows.

EF said I should consider myself no better than others who don't post their names. I don't consider myself better. But in the last year or so, I've been in the press box too many times and seen certain people post here about who they can't stand...only to see them completely kiss their ass in the press box. The people I don't like, I stay away from. One thing I respect about Jason -- other than his immense writing talent -- is that he doesn't play that game. If he doesn't like something I wrote or did, he calls or e-mails and tells me personally. I don't have to hear about it through 20 other people.

Of course, we don't all have the luxury of knowing the people we speak about -- critically or not. But if we are to truly consider sports journalism a fraternity and go with the "one of our own" philosophy, then it can't always be about tearing people down. You know what Jeff needs to hear more than anything, right now? That he'll survive. He doesn't need to hear how stupid he is, how he single-handledly breached the single, most important ethic in journalism. He already knows he messed up.

I don't think many of you who are negative about certain people truly conceptualize how much what is said here filters out into our industry, and sometimes the damage it does. One day, when you're on the other end of one of these 10-page threads, you'll understand.

p.s. Moddy and I have had private discussions and he's told me about some of the things he's had to do. I appreciate the kindness he has shown.

 

i don't think he needs to read everything. he needs to accept what this place is. this place is unfair and trying to randomly make it fair is a losing proposition and creates obvious double-standards. people deemed "one of our own" will receive protection. people who don't meet that "standard" will get blasted on here.

let everyone get blasted or agree to spend your days reading every post and erasing all the dumbspit.

again, let the idiots be idiots. they're harmless in the grand scheme.

 

Honestly, I don't like seeing any thread locked, if there's a real debate happening...it just comes up again on another thread, usually uglier. When people have something to say, they almost always find a way to say it.

But sometimes, I can see why a Mod would take the 'better safe than sorry' approach.