Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

So ... you'd be OK with him saying nothing and to win war of the turf? This is why print guys HATE TV people.

Thinking back, you could record him with what he said, the audio, and just run the mug shot, AND then get the necessary background info from what he said prior and provide context. You still get more information. You didn't necessarily need the sight of him standing up for a minute.

 

If this is why print guys hate TV guys, the print guys need to grow a set of balls and not roll over just because some guy in a suit tells them to.

And for the record, most of the print guys I've known would think that the university guy could shove it right up his ass.

It's not winning a war of turf. He is trying to unreasonably restrict the way TV people can do their jobs. He is trying to control their editorial content in a way he is not restricting anyone else.

I'm not running a mug shot with audio if he's speaking and I'm standing there with a camera. That's moronic. I don't beg for scraps from some university jackass.

 

True, but it doesn't mean you cant run it under B roll or still..
You're getting him on the record, just not video. TV does that all the time.
It's not prefect; it is better than the alternative.

 

TV only does that when someone is only available by phone and there is literally no other option. It sucks, but it's better than nothing. That's not the case here.

I would never, ever agree to do that in a news conference setting just because some yahoo has arbitrarily decided I should do that. He doesn't get to decide that for me.

Serious question: if he tells you the story you write can only be four inches long and it has to go in the business section and not sports, and it has to be on an inside page, do you go along with it?

 

That video makes me want to hurt people. But using it as a bash on TV wonks is way off base.

Enjoyed the dude on the right in backwards Tennessee cap.

 

Am I completely off-base here, or is the only stipulation that nothing be broadcast live?

Because that's all he seems to be saying, you can tape, but you can't go with a live feed.

 

That was how I took it, too. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

No. There was a part where they couldn't have the cameras on and at no time could they go live.

 

So it was two-parted. They could get audio, but no video?

 

No, because it's out of his building and his control.
If he said no cell phone use or no laptops up during the meeting, yes you;d have to respect that if you wanted the quotes

 

Looking at it, there were two parts. One at the beginning where the SID clearly said they couldn't have the cameras on (but not thinking said nothing about audio), then a second part they could film where he was going to give a statement and refuse questions.

 

Well, I would argue, it's not his building and it's not his control.

So, he gets to totally dictate the content you can use and the way you do your job as long as you are in his (ahem, taxpayer-funded) facility?