Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

I watched the YouTube clip again and it seems to contradict Wes' argument that we got less info. Kiffin wasn't going to take questions, so all you would do is be a stenographer. Great story from that. I'm sure it serves the readers of the paper to transcribe a bull session.

 

Yes.

Let me put it another way: the only time anyone in TV shoots an interview without their face on camera is if there is a compelling reason to do so -- for example, the person is a whistle blower who believes he will be fired if identified, or a rape victim who doesn't want her face shown. It's not a decision taken lightly; I once pissed off a news director because I agreed to not show the face of a child murder suspect who was convinced he'd get shanked in jail if people saw his face.

Lane Kiffin obviously does not come close the that kind of situation. He does not want video of his exit interview presumably because he's afraid he will look like a douchebag nationally when the video gets out. That is not a reason for me to agree to an unreasonable -- and unprecedented -- restriction.

 

Of course I have talked to people off camera. This is a news conference, which is an entirely different situation.

And it's not an issue of the same access, because print doesn't need video. TV does.

 

What's that line in "All the President's Men?" Something about how TV ignored Watergate because there wasn't anything to videotape?

 

So Kiffin explaining the details about his decision-making process or anything else related to his leaving UT doesn't serve the readers? This isn't additional information? This is what Kiffin had apparently planned to talk about in the on-the-record, off camera portion of the press conference.

 

Then Eddie Munster should have left the room on principle.

 

So I'll ask the same question that hasn't been answered in another way.

If you have a source for a story, and he refuses to go on camera, you take nothing instead of getting the information for the story?

 

I'll answer your hypothetical if you'll answer mine.

If Tiger announces he's having a news conference at his home with no cameras, I'll be annoyed, I'll plead my case beforehand, but if they won't budge I'll go without the camera. At least I know the deal going in.

If Tiger Woods announces that he's holding a news conference, and once I'm there with my camera ready to roll and he sends a flunky out to tell me I can't actually shoot the news conference, I'm standing my ground.

To relate that to the Lane Kiffin newser, if those were the ground rules going in, I'd have someone inside taking notes and the camera outside the room, planted on his car or his house to make sure we had a crack at him.

Now, here's my question: if the ground rule was an editorial restriction on print, would people go along with it? Here's the hypothetical: you have to agree that there will be no direct quotes, and the story must run on page four or deeper in the sports section. (Yes, I know that's not precisely analogous to the Kiffin situation.) Would you refuse, and thereby get less information? After all, you run stories on page 4 every day, and you run stories without quotes every day. So, should you allow Kiffin to put that restriction on your content, so you'll have more information that you can paraphrase for your readers?

 

The part about where it runs is complete bullshit. The quotes part doesn't make sense. Why don't you come up with something that makes sense?

 

Sometimes, yes. Depends on the story.

Our station email is filled with variations on "this person is a crook, you need to report on what this person did to me, but don't use my name or face." Nope, not going to happen.

Again, it's a different medium. What works in print doesn't always work on TV.

 

And quit quoting mile-long posts, please.