Oklahoma State coach Gundy blasts Oklahoman columnist

Ike, give it up. They're just gonna call you a fanboy.

 

OK, in Wednesday's edition I'll direct my columnist to write about how State U is the bestest ever, the only way it ever loses is because the cheatin' refs hate the team and how the fans of that school are smarter and better looking than State Tech's fans.

After all, readers want that sort of fanboy columnizing.

 

I frankly don't think these people read.
They sure as hell don't think.

 

Just because she was right, doesn't means she was right in the way she went about doing and getting the story. All the rumors and rumblings, the back stories on the sly and all the assumptions in the column made it a shitty one and a badly reported one.

 

This is where I disagree.

I think it was poorly written.

I think the reporting was fine -- because I bet you she wouldn't have gone with that column unless one of those sources were Gundy or his offensive coordinator or a captain on the team.

I think she used such flimsy wording to cover her source's ass. Which in my opinion, she had no obligation to -- source, I would hope, willingly talked to her on the record, even if it wasn't for attribution or only for background. But Carlson did, anyway.

And there's the dichotomy here: Carlson tip-toed around the writing to soften the edge of the column, which I don't think she needed to do from my perspective. It's like the pullout method ... well, you were having sex anyway, why not just finish up the job? And for whatever reason, she chose to soft-shoe around the nail in the coffin for some reason.

 

You need to go back and read the 42 pages if you think this argument is about how good her reporting was. Plenty of people have claimed to know she got the facts wrong.
I'm certain they were right, and I'd be willing to bet I know more about Carlson, Reid, Gundy, et. al., than anyone that has posted on this thread.
I never said the column was good. I have said I'd have done it differently. But can we please quit saying she didn't have her facts straight when she did?
Argue the merits of the column, not the facts.

 

Sorry, I need something stronger than a message board poster named "ADifferentOkie" saying so to make me feel confident she was right.

And I'll make my point again -- since we're all going around and around here -- that I don't care if she was right. It was still a bullshit column.

 

How about the PMs I've received from people who know their stuff saying that the column was spot-on? People whom I know from the board, people whom I trust.

No one, no one, has disputed one fact in the column. Not even Mike Gundy, and he was given multiple opportunities to do so by Jenni Carlson.

 

Umm, the kid's mom has disputed the lede to the column. And Carlson can't counter that because she wasn't there. But wait ... I forgot ... her source is Mike Gundy, so maybe she could just say, "Coach Gundy told me."

And again, for the 300th time, fine, the kid is a pussy. Doesn't mean we write about it ... especially when we're "tiling it up on the sly."

 

If you know for a fact why the biggest recruit in recent memory lost his job at a school you cover, and you don't report it, you aren't doing your job.

I am willing to consider arguments that Carlson could have approached the column a different way, or stayed away from the chicken anecdote. But if it's true that Bobby Reid lost his job because of his lack of intestinal fortitude ... that's fair game for a sports column.