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!

Lane Kiffin Pre-Press Conference Drama

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Ric Flair guy, Jan 16, 2010.

  1. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    You have to weigh how big of a story it is and what the consequences will be.

    In this case, they were Kiffin's conditions, not the SID's. Everybody in the state of Tennessee hates Kiffin. Is the SID really going to be that pissed, or will he get over it? Keep in mind - I have been involved (tangentially at least) in many a dustup with major college SIDs - and it has always blown over.

    It's particularly apt to blow over if there isn't a big spectacle like there was in this case. Sometimes in the field, you just have to pretend you didn't hear something an SID or PR hack said. Otherwise, you'd never get anything.

    Considering the Kiffin factor, I think this was a major story and worth the risk.
     

  2. How 'bout ethics?
    Seriously,
    If I was asked to not record something and I did it, could I be trusted as a journalist after that?
    Save me the spiel of being a journalist in obtaining the story .. there are certain lines we don't cross .. like lying to obtain an interview or gain information.
    As a print journo, would it be unethical for radio or tv to agree and keep rolling anyway?
    To me that crosses the line between journos and paparazzi.
     
  3. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Plus, if I come in from news and do that, the sports guys can always go to the SID later and insist that they are shocked -- SHOCKED -- that I would do such a thing.
     
  4. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    Me. As I said, if he does that he incurs the risk of retribution himself. If he sits there and argues for 30 minutes till Kiffin walks out, he's impacting everyones coverage.

    As for the analogy in the other post about what if he'd excluded a group entirely, that is entirely different. Apples and oranges. You are still getting the news, which is what's supposed matter. You just aren't getting it the way you want. Too bad. I've done a lot of inteviews in less than optimal conditions. You deal with it.
     
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Evil,

    Here's the thing. Is the SID a source for you? Is he feeding you inside information to keep you ahead of the papers and TV reporters in the area?

    If not, then why always play ball? You're not burning a source, you're doing your damn job to the best of your ability.

    Hell, half of this job is getting around the roadblocks and stone walls to get more than what's generously meted out on press releases and teleconferences.

    You ever hear of someone being lauded for being a great reporter because they always toed the line?

    No one here is saying they would outright lie, but you also don't have to agree. Just do your job.
     
  6. I agree with you on the job aspect - getting around roadblocks. But I think you also have to be judicious in how you do it.
    To me, credibitilty is one of the biggest credentials in a journo's bag ...
    I'm not talking about toeing the line, or even simply reporting the company line... but I think there are other ways - certainly more respectable ways - to obtain your goal without dishonesty.


    Maybe some of the discussion isn't an outright lie, but its pretty damn dishonest.
    And I'm not really sure an exit intervierw with a one-year football coach is worth it.

    I like to think we are better than that. Cause, if not, I'm shucking the fucking the ethics and going for the money.

    BTW: I'm not talking about what actually happened, i'm referring to the discussion of agreeing not to tape and then attempting to do so anyway.
     
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I think everyone here said that they would not say "I agree not to tape."

    They would say something nebulous like, "I heard you" or "I understand the rules" or simply say nothing at all.

    You aren't lying. You simply aren't following rules.

    Then if you tape and you decide it's worth airing, you do it. If it's not, you don't.

    I'd rather have the tape in my back pocket than the hope of goodwill from an SID.

    In my opinion, the schools put too many rules in place and expect us to follow them.
     
  8. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Exactly correct.
     
  9. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    That's intentionally deceptive.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Not only intentionally deceptive, but unrealistic. Watch that video. You were agreeing or you weren't. There was no finessing it. Try going back to that SID after you tape anyhow and explaining that you didn't go back on your word. You'll be doing it without a credential and no help from him when you need something else someday.
     
  11. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Correct.
     
  12. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    As I have said, I wouldn't do it if the SID was helpful. And by helpful I don't mean nice to work with and runs a tight press conference.

    But I really don't much like following rules, to be quite honest.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page