1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TheSportsPredictor, Jan 12, 2010.

  1. JJHHI

    JJHHI Member

    Valiant effort, Mr. Sonner, but many have tried using this line of thinking before you, but to no avail.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2015
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Importance is a value judgment. I love reading.

    But I also consider the reality that Kiffin was trying to control the TV coverage--and not the print--because the TV coverage has much greater impact.
     
  3. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    PC...you're right about the "no cameras" thing being bullshit. But this is one of those times where you suck it up and get what you can get. You can't storm out with your fists in the air every time you don't get your way. Sometimes, you're better off not getting your way. As would have been the case here, apparently.

    Not everything is black and white. You really gotta learn that.
     
  4. jps

    jps Active Member

    and again, it might suck, but I find it crazy that you'd rather get next to nothing than be forced into running vo on b-roll, after or before letting the viewers know why you had to go with voice only. frankly, as a viewer I'd be more interested in the story, looking at what he was willing to say on vs. off the camera.
     
  5. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Bummer for the print guys. I think the other TV guys are nutless wonders if they went along with it.

    Kiffin's attempt to screw the TV guys ended up screwing everyone. Unfortunate, but I'll blame Kiffin on that one, not the TV guy.
     
  6. Magnum

    Magnum Member

    Um, whatever. He still decided what you got and he decided to give you even less. Congratulations.
     
  7. Magnum

    Magnum Member

    Oh wait. TV guy also gets a badge of courage for being so ethical about his "disadvantage."

    Forgot. Congratulations to Mr. Ethics.
     
  8. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Not arguing with that in the big picture. Clearly, you need to pick your battles.

    This is a battle I'm OK with fighting. I'm not allowing Lane Kiffin to tell me I can't show him speaking in a news conference. There are plenty of compromises people make on the job every day. That's not one I'm willing to make.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2015
  9. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    That's up to him, so fair enough. Whether I shoot it is not up to him.
     
  10. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    Not about ethics. It's about a TV station using a TV camera, something that's fairly important in a TV story.
     
  11. jps

    jps Active Member

    again - leave, then. don't screw everyone else in there out of what they were ok with getting.
     
  12. Trouser_Buddah

    Trouser_Buddah Active Member

    And this is the bottom line. You (PC) say you're not going to let him dictate the ground rules. Yet he did. And was going to from the beginning. At that point you have a choice.

    And this guy chose less information. Not just for himself, but for everyone.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page