Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

I don't mean to offend anyone. I have my opinion, and others can have theirs. And my opinion is that some peoples' comments on here make me wonder what they actually cover in this business.

Call me a sheep, and tell me I'm not standing up for media rights and access, and I'm going to come on here and tell you that you're wrong.

You know what we could have done with all those minutes close to deadline we spent arguing over a presser's "ground rules?" We could have been reporting something else. There were mini-riots in the street. There were players on campus so angry they were crying. There were countless things to do that would have been infinitely better uses of time. That's my point.

I said, "Get him in the room." I kept saying, "Get him in the room." Either we could have convinced him to open up and take questions, or we'd watch him leave the room in disgust with plenty of time to go get something else.

But no, let's sit here at 10 p.m. and argue over the ethics of a press conference. Cause, you know, that's our best use of time in this situation. That's exactly what our readers and viewers and listeners want.

 

Wes: Thanks for coming, and thanks for your insider's perspective.

But please, can the "What do you people cover?" line. It sounds petty, and it detracts from your otherwise strong arguments.

 

On an anonymous message board, there's really no need to trumpet what we do or have done. I'm sure someone with a name like "Magnum!!!!" is the sports editor at the NY f#$%ing Times, but that doesn't mean your takes on this thread are any more worthwhile.

 

I explained that in the post above.

I'm not being petty. I'm saying what I think. I'm no better (or worse) than anyone on here because of my job.

My opinion is one that can't comprehend why someone would take the stance that producer took. I told him that. It's fine. We're all adults. He's a man, and he had the courage to speak his mind in a room full of angry people who wanted to move on and meet their deadlines. I respect that. But I think he was completely wrong, and completely wasting our time, and I said that.

You can take it however you want to take it, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended. But when you cover a place that tries to restrict your access all the time, you learn to pick your battles.

 

I'm not trumpeting shit - where have I done that? - except to point out that it's clear from you're posts that you're more at home writing a thesis than acting as though you've been in this situation before. You're the one acting like you have some experience at this sort of thing.

 

If Kiffin walks out to talk to a scrum and you are a TV reporter with a camera set up, as long as he is ON THE RECORD, why on earth would you voluntarily keep your camera off?
[/quote]

Because that's the only condition shithead would talk. Why do you not get that?

 

Again with the on/off the record... All of it, in both the Kiffin and my imagined scenario, would have been on the record. The Woods scenario was floated in response to the TV guy's insistence, along with some others here, that anything not on camera was essentially useless.

So if Woods offers to go in explicit detail off camera, on the record, while offering you a much more benign on-camera statement, do you tell him to hit the road?

 

Wes,

Honest question here. If Kiffin was standing 50 feet away just outside the room, what would have happened if you had gotten up and walked to where he was and started talking to him?

There is some great discussion here and I can truly see both sides of it.

 

Did any Tennessee papers or stations send anyone west to cover Kiffin's USC presser? It would be a lot harder for him to blow off folks in that setting,

 

Ooh, you wanna compare resumes! OK then . . . .

My 18 years at the Hungry Horse Gazette covering prep wrestling and gymnastics would stand against anyone! I even beat the larger Hungry Horse Times-Tribune-Telephone-Register on numerous occasions! Mostly on recruiting stuff, but still . . . and I have the regional awards to prove it!

 

Hey Wes,

Been in the business 20 years. Covered Oregon football under Rick Brooks, Oregon State under Dave Kragthorpe and Jerry Pettibone, Arizona State under Bruce Snyder. Vast majority of my time is now in news, where I've covered a Governor's impeachment, a few serial killer trials, the federal indictment of a local sheriff, been in the middle of riots, teargassed by a cop, etc. Hope some of that meets your standard.

So, I'm not entirely out of my depth in discussing the exit newser of a football coach.

Never in that 20 years have I ever agreed to this kind of restriction. I'm not about to start now.

Kiffin may not have been under any obligation to talk. That doesn't mean the TV people have to accept rules that are outrageous.

To suggest that it's lazy not to agree to an editorial restriction on my news gathering ability is quite simply wrong. It's not about some SPJ seminar. It's about doing a good job. Everyone keeps making the same suggestion about how the TV crew could cover it, and I keep responding the same way: that is not an acceptable way to cover a news conference. What works for print coverage does not work for TV coverage. You can fight that all you want, but it's the truth.

I honestly don't care if you chose to stand up for media rights in this situation or not. But to be furious that someone did is, in my view, simply wrong.

Since I'm the only TV person who's been in on this... Elliotte? Lugs? Would you shut off a camera in a news conference because Lane Kiffin said to?