Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

Bingo.

 

And the "no camera" edict at a news conference is bullshit that doesn't make sense.

 

This is where you refer to your previous post.

 

I can quote it if you like...

 

In the Tiger situation, you say you'll stand your ground. Does that mean you walk out and refuse to participate?

As far as your hypothetical, I don't think paraphrasing as opposed to using direct quotes is giving readers less information. Like some people say, I can write it better than he can say it.

And I'm not refusing to be a dick, but I just don't think the page 4 analogy is comparable.

 

I think we're losing sight of the real argument by makiing it sound as though there was some ethical dilemma here. The TV guy's argument was he was being put at a disadvantage, which is false because he is getting the same access as everyone else. His only concern was that he was not getting the advantage of having it on video. He pouted until everyone got shit. That's why he is a douchebag. I shoot video for my newspaper's website all of the time. The information is more important, tv could have easily found a way to relay the information.

 

He was going to give a longer statement with more info without cameras. It would have been more information. BS or not, it would have been more words and more explanation from his mouth.

And is no one listening to me when I tell them how Kiffin gets when he's comfortable? The man hears himself speak, gets excited and keeps going. It's who he is. It's what he does. Get. Him. In. The. Room. And get him comfortable.

I really can't debate this much more. I've said what I can say. I stand by all my points.

 

Sure, but in no way is video more important than the information. TV seems to relay info from my stories just fine without video.

 

Again, I'm not saying it's exactly comparable.

I'm saying telling a TV station "no video" is completely unreasonable at a news conference.

I think saying "no quotes" and attempting to dictate how you run the story is completely unreasonable to a newspaper. So, do you agree to that restriction that you likely find unreasonable in order to get "more information", which may or may not be of value?

And as for Tiger: yeah, they can call it off or they can kick me out, and I'll run video of them kicking out all of the news crews.

 

And I'm not letting Lane Kiffin decide that. Simple enough.

 

if you want to refuse to follow the rules -- rules print guys and other tv folks, it seemed -- were willing to go along with, fine. good for you. pack up and go home. but how is it ok that every other journalist in that room was screwed by tv guy's pity party?