Team Paranoia strikes again

I guess i'm not sure what's right to do in this case...looking through the blinds is OK?

How about pressing your ear up against the door during an important meeting between GM and coach?

 

To me, this is making everyone involved look bad. For the reporter, was it really worth it putting himself in a bad situation with the team for something as simple as a pre-draft workout? And for the Blazers, why do these draft workouts need to be so secretive?

 

On a normal team, probably not. But from what has been written about the antagonistic nature of the relationship between the Blazers and the Oregonian, sounds like this is the type of stuff you get as a result.

From the reporter's perspective, why not look through the blinds? Not like your relationship is going to be strained even more than it already is.

Is it ethical?

 

I'm not so sure it is ethical. But I think the only reason I don't think it's ethical is because it was so simple for the reporter to find out information that the team wanted to keep hidden.

 

In fact, it DID strain the relationship more than it already was. And got the workouts closed.

I don't know, this isn't as cut and dried as "the team's paranoid," as I thought in my knee-jerk reaction.

The media have access to one room; the reporter looked through "blinds" that were there for a reason, obviously, and then basically gloated about it in the blog.

Sorry, I don't hold the reporter blameless, and the whole methodology, with how the information was obtained to how it was reported, seems kind of childish to me.

 

The Blazers are going to make a dramatic break with their previous policy: They're going to try drafting players without serious drug habits or lengthy lists of felony arrests.

As with any radical change of a successful formula, they're understandably nervous how it will be perceived by the public. I mean, they've won almost 40% of their games, made the playoffs once or twice in the last decade, and attracted over 10,000 fans a game (in a 20,000-seat arena) with their tried-and-true methods. :

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. On my beat, football practices are closed for part of the season. But, without much effort, you can go to a certain area of the athletic complex near the media room and "spy" on the practices. Yes, you'd have to be rather desperate and bored to do that. I think writing an article based on the observations you obtained by "spying" would be unprofessional at best, and unethical at worst. And in any case, why would you want to provoke an already paranoid organization just to get a few lines on your blog entry? Just my $0.02.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sports Illustrated do a thing on blog-erriffic reporting, with a feature on Quick's blog? If I recall, Quick's blog was popular because he posted all sorts of gossip and the Blazers got after him for it. Then he asked his editor not to stop blogging, but he wasn't allowed? Seems odd.

Also, he must not have thought he was being unethical. Otherwise, why would he start his blog by "unveiling" his actions. I mean, he said he was looking through the blinds. The whole thing, I don't get.

Flaming_Homer is right (wow, that hurts to say.) Spying is weak. Why tweak the organization like this?
One more thing: Are other beat writers allowed to say, "I think," even on a blog? I'm not. Opinion is for columnists, right?

 

I didn't read the blog.
But if he admitted he was peeking through the blinds, that was his biggest mistake. Whatta dope.
If he includes the information he gleaned without saying how he got it, that is the greatest revenge.
The team will think there's a "mole"; they'll be all over their organization trying to plug the leak. And everyone will think this guy has great sources. He'll rule.

Dumbass. ;D

 

Look, the workouts were closed. No reporters were allowed to view the events that Qucik reported on his blog. If I'm a Blazers fan (other than being in therapy) I think I'd like to know that Gay appeared to abuse Morrison.
So now they're "closing workouts to the media.'' What's the difference. They had closed workouts to the media _ which in this case is total BS, because it's not like there is any super-secret strategy going on.
You keep the reporters "in the dark" in the interview room then expect them to toss softballs like, "So, Adam, how do you think it went?"
Whoever runs the Blazers' media stuff should have been named as the Bush spokesman instead of Tony Snow.

 

Quick could sneeze, and the Trailblazers would issue a press release claiming that he was trying to give their players a cold. He's in their heads, and they're a crazy, poorly-run, horseshit organization. Fuck 'em. I'm glad he looked through the blinds.

 

So I'm reading this release by the Blazers, and it said:

"The Trail Blazers accept responsibility for not ensuring that the reporter would attempt to peer through closed blinds and is taking immediate steps to rectify the situation."

Don't they mean "not expecting" instead? It reads as if they hoped it would happen. Then there's is/are.
Must be a fun team to cover.