Oklahoma State coach Gundy blasts Oklahoman columnist

And of course, one of the hypocrisies in this is that college coaches won't hesitate to challenge their players to prove their "manhood", to show that they are men. Yet now Gundy is talking about his QB as a "kid", a "child". Which one is it?

I'm not surprised at the fan reactions, though I don't necessarily agree with the outrage about how it's crossing the line to question a player's toughness. Heck, that happens all the time. The first column wasn't well written, but the point it was trying to make gets overshadowed by its feeble attempt to link the chicken incident (weird as it may be) to his spotty play by classifying both as symptoms of the same illness. The connection between the two feels forced at best, and the column would've been much better off without it and would've still made its point perfectly well: that this guy most likely lost his job b/c coaches thought he wasn't tough enough.

 

Yeah, I'd like to see that too.

Hundreds of newspapers across the nation report on the misdemeanor arrest of the State U quarterback when they don't report on Joe Mechanic's misdemeanor arrest. If there's case law showing college athletes aren't public figures, why aren't newspaper attorneys shutting down that reportage? Why aren't hundreds of lawsuits filed by the athletes?

 

After 24 pages, the following is a list of inaccurate comments found in the first column, including those pointed out by Gundy in the follow-up press conference:





















































And I love the chicken-fed-by-momma observation. It describes in 10 words or less what she is trying to get across: that he's a soft momma's boy.

 

If you truly think Gundy could win a lawsuit against Carlson, you know nothing...

 

Here's the issue: The rest of the world (people who aren't sportswriters) don't give a rat's ass if the facts are correct. They believe it was a bunch of cheap shots disguised as a column. They don't think we should be questioning the manhood of college athletes. Whether the info was legit or not, they don't believe that it had any business being printed in a newspaper.

The fact that so many of us don't get that simply illustrates the disconnect between us and our readers, and will simply be one more nail in our coffin.

Good day.

 

Then find a way to write them as fact, or go start DeadSpinOK.com

There was a way Carlson could have strung all her "observations" and "rumblings" together into a professional, readable, sensible column.

The problem is, the only thing concrete piece of information she offered was that the player's mom was feeding him chicken. Everything else is "rumors and rumblings."

If you have sources telling you Reid attempted to transfer, and you trust them, then fucking write "Two years ago, Reid tried to transfer when faced with competition."

If you have sources telling you that the coaching staff was not happy with Reid's ability to play through pain, then write "Some of Reid's more mundane injuries have frustrated the coaching staff and led to speculation that he can't play through pain."

Otherwise, don't write them. Come on, people. We're supposed to be journalists. Believe me, my job would be a lot easier if I could just throw shit in the paper based on "rumors and rumblings."

And even if everything she wrote was portrayed at fact, it's still a shitty column because of its lack of organization and focus. I'm guessing she was attempting to explain why the Oklahoma State coaching staff benched Reid. Instead, it reads as if she is ripping the kid for no apparent reason.

 

I'll also throw this out there. . .

I'm guessing the Oklahoman has a policy against using unidentified sources, and Carlson was attempting to find some way to get the info in the paper that her sources were telling her without writing "Sources said. . ."

It's frustrating. But if you can't write it as fact, and you can't attribute it, then you have to find a more artful and subtle way of weaving it into your copy than "rumors and rumblings."

 

I"m a reader and I'd side with Carlson over Gundy in a fucking heartbeat.

I'm assuming Carlson has been around a while and has a certain reputation amongst her peers.

That said,there's absolutely no reason for her to make stuff like this up. Her phrasing "Word is...." may have been bad but it's no different than reporters who cite, "sources close to Joe Schmoe...."

And doofus Gundy, as Poin says, still hasn't come up with any inaccuracies in her column.

His saying "It isn't true" doesn't make it so.

To paraphrase an old joke:

Why did God invent football coaches?

To make politicians look good.

 

Once again, Whitlock writes what I'm thinking (just like the old days, eh Jas? LOL).

I found it refreshing that a coach would take a member of the media to task. Hey, she had her public opinion ... and now Gundy has had his.

touche

 

In fairness,
When I know I'm right, I can be a pretty arrogant S.O.B!

 

The Oklahoman does not have a policy against unnamed sources.
I think she was essentially using unnamed sources, but she didn't use the typical phrases.

 

What people are saying at this point JR is not that there were inaccuracies (that was Monday's argument, which ended up holding no water). Its that a columnist shouldn't be writing that the momma's boy qb is getting his chicken hand-fed to him while he talks on a cell phone.