Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

zagoshe · Jan 16, 2010

PCLoadLetter said:

zagoshe said:

PCLoadLetter said:

slappy4428 said:

PCLoadLetter said:

slappy4428 said:

PCLoadLetter said:

slappy4428 said:

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....
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Well guess what, thanks to the moronic decision by the TV idiot -- he DID dictate what content everybody got and it was a helluva lot less than it could have been.

And this is reason No. 34547462 why television reporters are not journalists, they are talking heads with bad hairdos and ugly ties, but not real journalists.

No real journalist would "stand his ground" in order to make sure there was LESS information available. And the fact that you continue to slam your hand on the table and say "YOU CAN'T TELL A STORY WITHOUT VIDEO" is only proving my point - because real journalists do it all the time.

I've written very long and informative articles with very few quotes many times based on what I was told in the background and behind the scenes.

There is absolutely no justification - none - for fucking everybody of the opportunity to get MORE information, which is what we were in the business.

Oh wait, I forgot, you got to show Tennessee who is boss.

Well guess what -- Tennessee has 110 K in the stands every week, they need you a helluva lot less than you need them and so yes, sometimes, we have to play by their rules.

I mean, what are you going to do when the NCAA as well as other sports leagues start restricting how much time you can put comments from their head coach on your air? And that is coming -- are you going to put your head in the sand and say "wah, wah, if we can't have it like we want it, nobody gets it?"
Click to expand...

So, a real journalist does whatever he is told by the SID and never, ever sticks up for himself.

Duly noted.
Click to expand...

No, but a real journalist would never, ever push for LESS information, even to make some silly point.

Are you really trying to make the argument that "standing your ground" for some arbitrary and hollow (not too mention meaningless because our consumers are asking us for more info) is more important than getting more information?

Really - less information is better?

Let me carry this one step further ---

At some point Tiger Woods is going to want to speak publicly for the first time.

If his handlers said "the first 15 minutes of this, you can audio tape but not video tape" and then we will do some on camera time, or you get 30 seconds of a prepared statement -- you would choose the latter in order to prove a point?

That is asinine and again, I can't believe that any real journalist would make an argument that less information is better.

PCLoadLetter · Jan 16, 2010

zagoshe said:

PCLoadLetter said:

zagoshe said:

PCLoadLetter said:

slappy4428 said:

PCLoadLetter said:

slappy4428 said:

PCLoadLetter said:

slappy4428 said:

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....
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Well guess what, thanks to the moronic decision by the TV idiot -- he DID dictate what content everybody got and it was a helluva lot less than it could have been.

And this is reason No. 34547462 why television reporters are not journalists, they are talking heads with bad hairdos and ugly ties, but not real journalists.

No real journalist would "stand his ground" in order to make sure there was LESS information available. And the fact that you continue to slam your hand on the table and say "YOU CAN'T TELL A STORY WITHOUT VIDEO" is only proving my point - because real journalists do it all the time.

I've written very long and informative articles with very few quotes many times based on what I was told in the background and behind the scenes.

There is absolutely no justification - none - for fucking everybody of the opportunity to get MORE information, which is what we were in the business.

Oh wait, I forgot, you got to show Tennessee who is boss.

Well guess what -- Tennessee has 110 K in the stands every week, they need you a helluva lot less than you need them and so yes, sometimes, we have to play by their rules.

I mean, what are you going to do when the NCAA as well as other sports leagues start restricting how much time you can put comments from their head coach on your air? And that is coming -- are you going to put your head in the sand and say "wah, wah, if we can't have it like we want it, nobody gets it?"
Click to expand...

So, a real journalist does whatever he is told by the SID and never, ever sticks up for himself.

Duly noted.
Click to expand...

No, but a real journalist would never, ever push for LESS information, even to make some silly point.

Are you really trying to make the argument that "standing your ground" for some arbitrary and hollow (not too mention meaningless because our consumers are asking us for more info) is more important than getting more information?

Really - less information is better?

Let me carry this one step further ---

At some point Tiger Woods is going to want to speak publicly for the first time.

If his handlers said "the first 15 minutes of this, you can audio tape but not video tape" and then we will do some on camera time, or you get 30 seconds of a prepared statement -- you would choose the latter in order to prove a point?

That is asinine and again, I can't believe that any real journalist would make an argument that less information is better.
Click to expand...

The notion that putting editorial restrictions on one part of the media is somehow creating bonus information is utterly bizarre to me -- as is the notion that a "real" journalist does whatever the SID says because if you don't he may cut something short.

Stitch · Jan 16, 2010

Now you can see why sports is called the toy department, since some of these posts justify allowing SIDs to dictate access.

shockey · Jan 17, 2010

Stitch said:

Now you can see why sports is called the toy department, since some of these posts justify allowing SIDs to dictate access.
Click to expand...

bingo.

buckweaver · Jan 17, 2010

A Tennessee beat reporter wrote this, so I'm passing it along:

Here was the other intangible, and this is something only someone who has covered Kiffin for an extended period of time would understand.

Lane Kiffin is 100 percent different on camera than off camera. Most people are different on and off camera, but he's 100 percent different. He's actually pretty likable (to a certain extent) off camera. He's exceptional in 1-on-1s, and he's above average in small group sessions. It's hard to sit him down and talk to him for a while, because the antsy fucker never stops moving and working and moving and working. After a few minutes, though, he occasionally lets down his guard. The very best stuff I ever got from him — other than his intentional, look-at-me-I'm-funny sound bites — was toward the end of small group or 1-on-1 interviews. If we could have sat him down and let him get going, he might have gotten comfortable and started being honest. There's actually a small chance he would have let down his guard and took a few questions. That's how he works. The TV people, of course, wouldn't know a damn thing about that.

The daily print scribes from big papers — there really aren't that many of us who cover them every damn day, no matter what they're doing, even if it's a 30-minute walk through in 20 degree weather — tried to get him in a separate room after that ridiculousness, and we might have succeeded if we hadn't wasted 30 minutes (including eight hilarious minutes on YouTube) arguing over Kiffin's "ground rules" while he was leaning on a wall about 50 feet outside the door.

The TV producer, who probably hadn't shared a room with Kiffin except for a few times in 14 months, had no idea how much better stuff he probably would have gotten from Kiffin by letting Kiffin think he got his way and coaxing him into settling down and talking for a few minutes.

Alas, we'll never know, because he wanted to show his SPJ dick was bigger than everyone else's.

I love journalism, and the best journalism — real fucking journalism — rarely operates in black and white. When you get a feel for how people operate, you know how to get information from them.

During that whole debacle, I sat there furiously thinking, "You dumb motherfucker, just get him in the room, get him comfortable, and we'll tear him to shreds."
Click to expand...

BYH · Jan 17, 2010

That was really good, and really revealing. Thanks for posting it, Bucky.

Den1983 · Jan 17, 2010

buckweaver said:

A Tennessee beat reporter wrote this, so I'm passing it along:

Here was the other intangible, and this is something only someone who has covered Kiffin for an extended period of time would understand.

Lane Kiffin is 100 percent different on camera than off camera. Most people are different on and off camera, but he's 100 percent different. He's actually pretty likable (to a certain extent) off camera. He's exceptional in 1-on-1s, and he's above average in small group sessions. It's hard to sit him down and talk to him for a while, because the antsy fucker never stops moving and working and moving and working. After a few minutes, though, he occasionally lets down his guard. The very best stuff I ever got from him — other than his intentional, look-at-me-I'm-funny sound bites — was toward the end of small group or 1-on-1 interviews. If we could have sat him down and let him get going, he might have gotten comfortable and started being honest. There's actually a small chance he would have let down his guard and took a few questions. That's how he works. The TV people, of course, wouldn't know a damn thing about that.

The daily print scribes from big papers — there really aren't that many of us who cover them every damn day, no matter what they're doing, even if it's a 30-minute walk through in 20 degree weather — tried to get him in a separate room after that ridiculousness, and we might have succeeded if we hadn't wasted 30 minutes (including eight hilarious minutes on YouTube) arguing over Kiffin's "ground rules" while he was leaning on a wall about 50 feet outside the door.

The TV producer, who probably hadn't shared a room with Kiffin except for a few times in 14 months, had no idea how much better stuff he probably would have gotten from Kiffin by letting Kiffin think he got his way and coaxing him into settling down and talking for a few minutes.

Alas, we'll never know, because he wanted to show his SPJ dick was bigger than everyone else's.

I love journalism, and the best journalism — real fucking journalism — rarely operates in black and white. When you get a feel for how people operate, you know how to get information from them.

During that whole debacle, I sat there furiously thinking, "You dumb motherfucker, just get him in the room, get him comfortable, and we'll tear him to shreds."
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks a bunch. Says all we need to know. I believe at one point in the whole thing, I heard someone yell, "Just get him in the room", which is step one and completely on point.

Trouser_Buddah · Jan 17, 2010

Stitch said:

Now you can see why sports is called the toy department, since some of these posts justify allowing SIDs to dictate access.
Click to expand...

Am I wrong, or was the SID just relaying the rules that Kiffin had insisted on?

Moderator1 · Jan 17, 2010

buckweaver said:

A Tennessee beat reporter wrote this, so I'm passing it along:

Here was the other intangible, and this is something only someone who has covered Kiffin for an extended period of time would understand.

Lane Kiffin is 100 percent different on camera than off camera. Most people are different on and off camera, but he's 100 percent different. He's actually pretty likable (to a certain extent) off camera. He's exceptional in 1-on-1s, and he's above average in small group sessions. It's hard to sit him down and talk to him for a while, because the antsy fucker never stops moving and working and moving and working. After a few minutes, though, he occasionally lets down his guard. The very best stuff I ever got from him other than his intentional, look-at-me-I'm-funny sound bites was toward the end of small group or 1-on-1 interviews. If we could have sat him down and let him get going, he might have gotten comfortable and started being honest. There's actually a small chance he would have let down his guard and took a few questions. That's how he works. The TV people, of course, wouldn't know a damn thing about that.

The daily print scribes from big papers there really aren't that many of us who cover them every damn day, no matter what they're doing, even if it's a 30-minute walk through in 20 degree weather tried to get him in a separate room after that ridiculousness, and we might have succeeded if we hadn't wasted 30 minutes (including eight hilarious minutes on YouTube) arguing over Kiffin's "ground rules" while he was leaning on a wall about 50 feet outside the door.

The TV producer, who probably hadn't shared a room with Kiffin except for a few times in 14 months, had no idea how much better stuff he probably would have gotten from Kiffin by letting Kiffin think he got his way and coaxing him into settling down and talking for a few minutes.

Alas, we'll never know, because he wanted to show his SPJ dick was bigger than everyone else's.

I love journalism, and the best journalism real fucking journalism rarely operates in black and white. When you get a feel for how people operate, you know how to get information from them.

During that whole debacle, I sat there furiously thinking, "You dumb motherfucker, just get him in the room, get him comfortable, and we'll tear him to shreds."
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What reporter? Where? On a blog? Sure not in print?

Baron Scicluna · Jan 17, 2010

buckweaver said:

A Tennessee beat reporter wrote this, so I'm passing it along:

Here was the other intangible, and this is something only someone who has covered Kiffin for an extended period of time would understand.

Lane Kiffin is 100 percent different on camera than off camera. Most people are different on and off camera, but he's 100 percent different. He's actually pretty likable (to a certain extent) off camera. He's exceptional in 1-on-1s, and he's above average in small group sessions. It's hard to sit him down and talk to him for a while, because the antsy fucker never stops moving and working and moving and working. After a few minutes, though, he occasionally lets down his guard. The very best stuff I ever got from him other than his intentional, look-at-me-I'm-funny sound bites was toward the end of small group or 1-on-1 interviews. If we could have sat him down and let him get going, he might have gotten comfortable and started being honest. There's actually a small chance he would have let down his guard and took a few questions. That's how he works. The TV people, of course, wouldn't know a damn thing about that.

The daily print scribes from big papers there really aren't that many of us who cover them every damn day, no matter what they're doing, even if it's a 30-minute walk through in 20 degree weather tried to get him in a separate room after that ridiculousness, and we might have succeeded if we hadn't wasted 30 minutes (including eight hilarious minutes on YouTube) arguing over Kiffin's "ground rules" while he was leaning on a wall about 50 feet outside the door.

The TV producer, who probably hadn't shared a room with Kiffin except for a few times in 14 months, had no idea how much better stuff he probably would have gotten from Kiffin by letting Kiffin think he got his way and coaxing him into settling down and talking for a few minutes.

Alas, we'll never know, because he wanted to show his SPJ dick was bigger than everyone else's.

I love journalism, and the best journalism real fucking journalism rarely operates in black and white. When you get a feel for how people operate, you know how to get information from them.

During that whole debacle, I sat there furiously thinking, "You dumb motherfucker, just get him in the room, get him comfortable, and we'll tear him to shreds."
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But it wouldn't have done the TV guys any good, unless Kiffin suddenly changed his mind and allowed the cameras to roll.

The print guys would have shredded him, and the TV guys would have had nothing on tape.

JJHHI · Jan 17, 2010

JFC. So if it doesn't happen on camera, it doesn't happen, as far as the TV guys are concerned?

I'm done with this.

The Big Ragu · Jan 17, 2010

I wish I knew who wrote that. But obviously his or her amazing people skills were going to get Lane Kiffin to start babbling away. All they had to do was just get Kiffin in the room.

Rather than say nothing, and try to get out of there quickly to avoid the gathering mob, Kiffin would have kicked back, put his feet up and called the movers and told them to hold off for an hour. And once he let his guard down and started to shoot the shit and give one on ones, the real journalists in that room would have shined and gotten pearls from him.

But those damned TV people had to fuck it up. They don't get it, the way that person did.

Damned shame.

Log in or Sign up

Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

zagoshe Well-Known Member

PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

Stitch Active Member

shockey Active Member

buckweaver Active Member

BYH Active Member

Den1983 Active Member

Trouser_Buddah Active Member

Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

JJHHI Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

zagoshe Well-Known Member

PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

Stitch Active Member

shockey Active Member

buckweaver Active Member

BYH Active Member

Den1983 Active Member

Trouser_Buddah Active Member

Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

JJHHI Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches