Nashville media: sickening

As a sidenote, I'm somewhat surprised none of the national folks managed to flesh this out. The Nashville media got lucky in that they were the first to break it.

 

If you are allowed into practice, then you abide by the rules. Essentially what happens is off the record. If they agree to that, then they can't report it.

Once the writers went along with practice, they had to abide by the rules. They had a chance to say no, and didn't.

I think they should have blown the story wide open and made that clear at the time and risked being cut out. At least, the reporters should have went ot the editor and asked what to do.

This is ridiculous by Fisher. I would have never agreed to not reporting what I saw, under ANY circumstances.

The reporters should have made that clear from the very beginning. Fisher isn't in charge of the media.

 

That is incorrect. Off the record means you can't report it. It can't be any more clear. That is not for attribution. Different agreement.

I never take off the record information from a primary source unless I need it for background or confirmation. It is bad habit. The lowest I will go is non-attribution. What use is the info if it is off the record? You might as well be left in the dark.

 

Re the line: Opened 9. Only went to 10 on Saturday, with the announcement. If there
WAS an "inside", it wasn't reflected in the broad market.

 

This is one of those situations, like in my college debate classes back in the day, I could argue both sides on with equal passion and aplomb.

Where I sit, minutes away from our big-time beat here at the Podunk Press-Gazette-Register-Times, we have "ground rules" spelled out for us when we cover practices. We then have two choices: 1. Abide by the rules, and attempt (successfully) to cover the beat. 2. Not abide by the rules, getting shut out of practice and having our readers go elsewhere to find out the "news" we can get at practice.

Do I like either instance? Of course not. But choice No. 1 is a helluva lot better than choice No. 2, as the latter gets us on the dark end of a lot of stuff. I trend toward the long view on stuff like this, and I would wager the professional journalists covering the Titans beat figured "there will be bigger stories, and while this Vince Young thing is big, Jeff Fisher maybe getting canned at the end of the season is bigger -- and if I break their rules now, the organization will remember."

And where WAS Mort with all of this? Still stinging from the Leinart debacle ... er ... change of heart?

rb

 

Can't say that I agree with totally with the above, but I can't agree that Young starting was the biggest story of the year at Tennesee. They drafted the guy, who cares when they annouce that he's going to play. Competitive advantage? If Mike Zimmer doesn't prepare his defense for the possibility that Young will play, then Mike shouldn't be a professional defensive coordinator...and he obviously is one of the best, if not the best, in the business. So???

The only people that really care, were those that placed a bet on Tuesday of last week.

 

Paul Kaharsky, one of the Tennessean's Titans' beat writers is a first-class jackass. Not for this, just for living. I'd say more, but no need to get Moddy and Idaho all worked up.

Monday, Oct. 2: Why Young's start was kept secret
By PAUL KUHARSKY
Staff Writer
There seems to be some confusion about how last week unfolded in terms of the news that Vince Young was going to start, so here’s an explanation from a reporter’s vantage point.
It was clear on Wednesday that Young would be the starter. Coach Jeff Fisher reminded the media that implicit in practices open to the reporters is an agreement that news impacting competitive advantage is not revealed before the game.
So if Pacman Jones is playing offense or Drew Bennett is throwing a pass off a double reverse, for example, we can see how the play develops over the week and then use that context only after such a thing is unveiled in a game.
The same sort of thing happens in other cities where practices are open. Coach Mike Shanahan’s done it in Denver with a change on his offensive line, for example.
Does it create awkward, uncomfortable situations?
Certainly it does when it’s a story the size of Vince Young getting his first start.
But it’s ridiculous to suggest that we should have taken some sort of stand and broken a trust that’s existed, for some of us, since 1996.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that Fisher has any control over us.
If he did, do you think we have a front-page story last week on firecoachfisher.com? Or a story off the Dallas game asking Bud Adams if there is a chance he will pull the plug on Fisher before the season is over?
If Young broke his leg last week in practice and we couldn’t detail how because we’d surrendered our access to practice, how angry would the people who rely on us for Titans news have been?
Jevon Kearse, I guarantee you, was more inclined to be open with me in the locker room because he had seen me huddled in a pouring rain watching him practice.
The Young story was bound to come out between Wednesday, when it became widely known in a small circle that would begin to grow, and Sunday, when the starting offense was introduced.
And it did come out Saturday evening, in The Tennessean and several other places.
We weren’t covering up Watergate here. We were working on ways to get the story out without screwing up a working relationship for an entire city’s media.
And if you paid close attention, you might have noticed you didn’t see Kerry Collins quoted or talked about in our paper last week and there was a good deal about Young even without the revelation he was taking over.
Open practices are rare in the NFL, and I think Tennessean readers are better served from our seeing them regularly then they would be if we were shutout.
Don’t think we didn’t debate that among ourselves all week.
And don’t think the starting quarterback for an 0-3 team is a tell-at-any-cost story on the level of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
All that said, it’s silly for Fisher to think he gained anything.
If the Cowboys can crush the Titans 45-14 without knowing the starting quarterback, how much worse could it have been if they’d known on Wednesday it would be Young?

 

I'm torn.

I do believe there has to be some give and take when working a beat. It's not always ideal, but as the great philosopher Kenny Rogers reminds us, "You've got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them." There simply are times you have to bite your lip, er, cap your pen because it's advantageous down the line.

Still, Young getting first team work and being named a starter is a pretty big deal. Any first round pick getting first-team work is important, but infinitely more so because he is a quarterback. That's THE position in the NFL, so I would have probably reported it.

Course, it's much easier making the decision anonymously on a message board, almost a week after the real beat guys were in this position.

All this chest-puffing, finger-pointing, j-school idealism reeks of people who have no real world experience.I realize that's not the case with everybody, but that's just how it appears from here.

 

Gee, you could do it like everybody else that deals with closed practices.

That's bush league.
Buy an umbrella.
And if it takes standing in the rain to get players to open up to you, something's wrong on your end.

 

I appreciate the explanation, but the Kearse thing is, I think, wishful thinking in most cases. Most pro athletes probably don't give a shit. They probably think you're stupid for standing in the rain for the amount of money they make while taking a dump.

 

It's an easy decision for the Tennesseean because there is no competition. If it was still a two-paper market, I wonder if the story would have played out the same way.