UKy basketball "locks out" student paper

[MonsterLobster]

No, it's not ridiculous to cite the First Amendment because Kentucky's SID is clearly trying control and squash a member of the media.

oh, ok, so anytime an SID or PR guy doesn't make a player or coach available for an interview, it's a First Amendment violation?

thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Hondo Esq.

No, most of the time it's just being a paranoid control-freak asshole. And are we getting to the point where a college program goes batshirt because a reporter asks two walk-ons to confirm in they're on the team? It's not like the reporter asked them for their playbooks or anything.

As annoying as that may be, UK can do what it wants to control access to the athletes. However, that does not translate to censorship.

It could get to the point where school s say, either players are off-limits or you can talk to them in a very limited time with us watching the interview and telling them to anwer or not answer a question. That would not surprise me at all.

I agree, the student reporters did not technically do much wrong, but they did violate a rule in regards to access, which the school makes the rules for a resson. And you can make the argument whether it's for good or bad.

I can see bad reporters calling athletes all the time and bothering them, which ends up making life rough for the rest of us. If I was a parent of an athlete, I wouldn't want 24-7 access to my kid.

And the reporters can still talk to the players, just not at this invitation-only event. Did UK handle this poorly, yeah. Did the students deserve to get shutout, no, but then UK makes the rules in this case. But no way would Peevey do this to one of the big national publications, those are the ones Cal sucks up to anyway.

And UK football is jut as bad, don't make it just a UK basketball issue. Just the way they work. I'm sure most schools are the same.

And Mizzou, I think what the student reporter did was great.

But this is not censorship.

Just to be clear in case you weren't just agreeing with me, I was also saying that what is happening is not censorship. Re-reading my post, it almost sounds like I was saying UK's policy was overstepping its bounds and becoming censorship.

 

[Bob Slydell]

No, it's not ridiculous to cite the First Amendment because Kentucky's SID is clearly trying control and squash a member of the media.

oh, ok, so anytime an SID or PR guy doesn't make a player or coach available for an interview, it's a First Amendment violation?

thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Hondo Esq.

No, most of the time it's just being a paranoid control-freak asshole. And are we getting to the point where a college program goes batshirt because a reporter asks two walk-ons to confirm in they're on the team? It's not like the reporter asked them for their playbooks or anything.

As annoying as that may be, UK can do what it wants to control access to the athletes. However, that does not translate to censorship.

It could get to the point where school s say, either players are off-limits or you can talk to them in a very limited time with us watching the interview and telling them to anwer or not answer a question. That would not surprise me at all.

I agree, the student reporters did not technically do much wrong, but they did violate a rule in regards to access, which the school makes the rules for a resson. And you can make the argument whether it's for good or bad.

I can see bad reporters calling athletes all the time and bothering them, which ends up making life rough for the rest of us. If I was a parent of an athlete, I wouldn't want 24-7 access to my kid.

And the reporters can still talk to the players, just not at this invitation-only event. Did UK handle this poorly, yeah. Did the students deserve to get shutout, no, but then UK makes the rules in this case. But no way would Peevey do this to one of the big national publications, those are the ones Cal sucks up to anyway.

And UK football is jut as bad, don't make it just a UK basketball issue. Just the way they work. I'm sure most schools are the same.

And Mizzou, I think what the student reporter did was great.

But this is not censorship.

Just to be clear in case you weren't just agreeing with me, I was also saying that what is happening is not censorship. Re-reading my post, it almost sounds like I was saying UK's policy was overstepping its bounds and becoming censorship.

No, I was agreeing with you. I don't believe it's censorship. Bad PR maybe, bitter and petty yes, but not censorship.

 

[imjustagirl]

fork UK and fork their PR department and fork all the little hoops they make you jump through and fork the petty, personal ways they do things. Peevy or Stricklin or whoever came before him gets a bug up his ass, and suddenly a guy who Cal has been thick as thieves with can be out on the step.

fork 'em all.

I miss Brooks Downing.

 

[Ace]

fork UK and fork their PR department and fork all the little hoops they make you jump through and fork the petty, personal ways they do things. Peevy or Stricklin or whoever came before him gets a bug up his ass, and suddenly a guy who Cal has been thick as thieves with can be out on the step.

fork 'em all.

I miss Brooks Downing.

Ha! I was waiting for that rant.

 

[imjustagirl]

*bows*

I wanted to say more, but I couldn't type well from all the angry shaking.

 

[wicked]

I can't believe there are people on a board for journalists who say limiting access to a public figure is a good thing.

If the reporters bug the kids too much? Don't answer the damn phone. That's what caller ID is for.

When schools put students' phone numbers and email addresses online, the horse is far out of the barn on the access thing.

 

[Matt Stephens]

One of the many reasons I hate PR.

Good for the Kernel using its resources other outlets don't (or may not) have to get a story. Just a shame UK reacted the way it did.

I had SID threaten me with stripping credentials after telling the department I called a starting QBs cell phone so he'd confirm with me he plans to transfer. SID denied it when I asked, so I found my own means of getting the answer. Didn't see the problem.

 

[Bob Slydell]

*bows*

I wanted to say more, but I couldn't type well from all the angry shaking.

Unfortunately, you have to jump through their hoops. It's frustrating I know. But readers, what readers there are left, just want the story, and they are not going to side with you when you don't have it. But your point is well taken.

Just wondering, is any school easy to deal with? Aside from really small college who just don't care?

 

[Bob Cook]

heck, the Kernel was locked out for a day? I was at the Indiana Daily Student in the middle of Bob Knight locking us out of practice and one-on-ones for 18 years! (We did get game credentials and were at post-game press conferences and locker room access, assuming Knight didn't send everyone home before the locker room opened, assuming he opened it at all.)

Being locked out does have its advantages. People will talk to you knowing you're not a stooge for the program. For example, that got me a long, fruitful interview with Jay Edwards' mom right after Knight pulled Edwards' scholarship on the Friday evening of Fourth of July weekend.

However, let me say Knight was a deck then, and the Kentucky people are being dicks now. What deck-ish college SIDs and athletic departments count on is that their media stooges (and by extension, the stooges' audiences) will enforce the rules for them.

 

[SellOut]

Speaks to bigger issue at UK and other big-time institutions: bias. UK _ and Cal in particular _ has no problem granting certain folks who "play ball" with special access and those that don't are limited or not included at all (Jerry Tipton being chief among them). They have an "us" vs. "them" attitude and will grant access according to how favorable they consider your coverage.
UK is hardly the only school in the country with this kind of attitude, and with the rise of social media I wouldn't be surprised if Cal simply jettisons the entire SID department and controls flow of information thru his FB, Twitter and Lexy accounts and his Web site.
Of course, even when you play ball, you only get access when it's to their advantage. When the crap hits the fan, you'll get nothing just like everybody else.

 

[Shaggy]

UK wouldn't confirm whether these guys were on the team or not. So reporters have to assume they're not yet, which makes them fair game to be called by the student newspaper.

You can't pretend they're not on the team yet, but still punish reporters for calling them. That's talking out both sides of your mouth.

Anyway, kudos to the UK kids. I hope they learned a great lesson here--that they don't have to follow the rules of an overbearing athletic department if it benefits them not to. In this case, they lose an opportunity to do interviews but got a scoop out of it. I think they came out OK.

Media is getting squeezed out little by little by these control freaks. Pick your battles wisely, but don't just lay back and take it.

 

[Shaggy]

A lot of times when these college athletes are smothered the way most of them are now, you can really use that to your advantage when calling them on your own.

I would always call them up to try and confirm something, then at the end of any conversation (if I'm not going to quote them) I would say "OK, let's keep this between us. I don't want you to get in trouble for talking to me."

That puts the fear on them and makes them believe you are looking out for them. They probably won't tattle on you because they don't want to get in trouble for talking to you.

But heck, if they do? fork it.