Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

PC, I didn't mean it literally when I said you have to agree. I meant in that second scenario I described where it's that or nothing I think it's in his interest to agree.

 

PC - I don't think, at least to my understanding, that was the case. Everyone was going to be allowed to be there throughout the entire news conference. The first part, however, would not be videotaped and that meant the print guys couldn't video it either.

It makes no sense at all to not agree to those terms because more access is NEVER a bad thing, even if it means the TV guys had to tell some of the story themselves and do so based on their reporting.

That is what print guys do every single day.

 

Better NFL coach: Jeff Fisher or Nick Saban?

 

Except it's not the same thing. A comment made off camera is damn near worthless on TV, because it carries absolutely no impact if it ends up as an anchor paraphrasing it. He's essentially insisting that the TV guys can't use any of the first part of the news conference, but the print guys can. If the opposite was true the print guys would be pissed, and rightfully so. It's a wholly different medium. What works in print does not work on TV.

If he's saying that the first part of the news conference is strictly on background, off the record and cannot be quoted -- and everyone agrees -- I don't have a problem with it. If the restriction is applied only to the TV guys, that's unacceptable.

 

Impression I got from this was that no video was to be shot at the beginning.
Was it not possible to run tape for audio and not video? Still keeps the letter of the word, yet allows audio -- something that the print guys were going to do with digital recorders anyway....

 

Technically possible? Yes, but I wouldn't agree to that. I'm in TV, not radio.

 

Well not to pick nits but Saban was actually 2-0 versus Fisher.......

Just sayin'

 

Goddamn statistics!!!

 

Part of your job as an anchor is to be able to tell a story.

If you can't use something like "Kiffin told us off the air that he would......" then I'm sorry, you are not really doing your job as a journalist.

I have never, ever, heard of a real journalist who would turn down MORE information because it is not delivered in the package that he or she thinks it should be delivered but I'm sorry, that is ridiculous.

Instead of getting an actual story, you got 30 seconds of a meaningless statement read and nothing else.

 

And again, you cannot tell that story effectively in TV without the soundbite. It simply does not work that way in a visual medium. He's not offering more information; he's demanding a restriction on one portion of the media, or saying he'll take his ball and go home. And I say, he can take his ball and go home. I will not agree to an editorial restriction from a university official.

 

Only in the eyes of the media, which no one cares about outside the business. He has no obligation to actually do a press conference or talk to the media, especially since he was no longer an employee of the university.