Oklahoma State coach Gundy blasts Oklahoman columnist

unless you're Tiger Woods.

 

I guess there's at least one other technique for writing the greater truth if you can't get everything you need firsthand -- the barely-fiction column. Whitlock surely remembers the piece Robin Miller of the Indianapolis Star wrote about what a mama's boy Jeff George was. As I recall, the piece ran not long after George's mom jumped onto the injury cart with him at Purdue, and after George announced after his freshman year he would transfer. Except that Miller referred to the player as "Freddy Phenom," a "fictional" tale about a quarterback much like Jeff George who was a mama's boy much like Jeff George who had a buttinsky family much like Jeff George.

Boy, if Mike Gundy thought Jenni Carlson was mean, he would have had a heart attack reading Miller's piece. Of course, Miller was well aware that most people in Indianapolis hated George, even while he was in high school.

Not saying I RECOMMEND anyone use this technique, however.

 

Like disgruntled consumers do more often at online review sites, readers with a beef about something in a critical story are more likely to log on and voice their displeasure with the reporter than the readers who might agree with Carlson and feel they have no reason to jump online and defend her.

 

Here's what you're missing about that.

The only people you're counting here are the people who care enough to sit all day on chat boards or write replies to columns. To use a term which I know might be a bit strong but conveys the feeling -- the "lunatic" fringe.

You're discounting the silent majority. And I believe a great deal of that silent majority is more understanding of this, can see both sides of a story.

(Or, exactly like IGQ said above me. )

 

Feel that way if you like ... he's right.

 

What does a head in the sand have to do with what I just posted? Am I missing the point of your pic?

Shotglass expanded perfectly on what I said.

And an anecdote to the silent majority comment:

Four of my friends, none of whom are in journalism in any way, shape or form, all posted clips and joked at our fantasy football message board about what what a moron the coach appeared to be in his tirade, while also seeing holes in Carlson's story and still coming to the common conclusion that there had to be truths to Carlson's column/opinion, even if she used shady journalism to make her point, and that both of them fucked up to some degree (they all agree Gundy fucked up worse).

 

Ira, if you feel like we're disconnected from the fanboy looooosers who sit on their couch in their boxers eating Cheetos, picking their belly button lint and burping in their 16-year-old girlfriend's face, causing her mullet to shrivel up in fear, then I'm glad there's a disconnect.

Too many apologists on this thread for Gundy's behavior. "But he must be right, the fanboy looooosers agree with him!"

Cowboycane, btw, thanks for the perspective.

 

I work on a fairly large college beat, and many of the most ardent fans are convinced that most newspaper beat reporters...

a) hate Ol' State U.
b) are secretly working to advance the interests of Rival State U, and
c) deserve comeuppance such as the kind that was delivered by Gundy.

According to Ira, this is a sign of "disconnect" that I must be horribly upset over, or else I have my head in the sand.

FWIW, most of those same fans LOVE the Scout.com "reporters." Maybe we should emulate them. :

 

I got questions,
My point was that if you look at percentages like 80-20 in favor of Gundy, and then automatically assume that those 80 percent are all freaks on the lunatic fringe, I would suggest that you're being a little close-minded.

That is one of the problems in our industry as a whole. When the public rejects something we do, our attitude is, "They don't know what's good for 'em."

And then we wonder why our circulation continues to plummet like Rex Grossman's completion percentage.

At some point, we need to be reflective and ask ourselves if we've lost our way in some regards.

 

Our circulation is not plummeting because of some silly column by Jenni Carlson. Our circulation is plummeting because of the Internet. We're more read than ever, between Web hits and the print product. But go ahead, keep your head in the sand.