Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

Did I mention my own name there? All I said was well-rounded coverage would ask for the input of others on the situation. Seems like a fair point.

Then again, that's just your opinion on the issue, and it's no more valid than mine or anyone else's.

 

Seriously? If someone says something on an issue, and others would have opposing viewpoints, or something that would be valuable to the story, you would just not bother to seek them out?

Do you write a lot of one-interview features and stories?

 

I wouldn't be opposed to it. Not the worst idea I've heard, actually. Maybe I will.

 

I've met him. He's a good guy. He'd probably appreciate the perspective.

 

So when being told you are going to get less information, you should:
a) not stand-up to say something so you can at least get some information
b) say something with the risk of not getting any information at all

That is, in essence, what journalists go through everyday. Making deals to get access.

Someone didn't like the deal offered and asked for something else. Then stood their ground when pressed.

It sucks you have to make deals. It really does and it really compromises your position in the future, at least dealing with that same entity, but at the same time, you have competition and they might be willing to deal and if you aren't, well then you get hammered by your bosses because another outlet had the scoop and you didn't.

From what I know of Knoxville and the people I know of who were in the room that night. It was a news director taking the stand. If it had been the TV sports director or a TV reporter on the beat, I don't think the reaction would have been the same, and I certainly don't think people would have noticed if it had been a print guy making the case.
But it was a "tv douchebag" who "doesn't know sports" and who "who doesn't know Kiffin" and "fucking TV people" who "all suck" because the "only real journalists are the ones working in print" and not the "pretty-haired douchebag TV fuckers."

That being said, I wasn't there and I don't know what I would have done if put in the same position.

 

Hondo's opinion is more valid than yours. Do they not feel the need to balance stories where you're from?

 

This is all you should have said.

 

"Pretty-haired douchebag TV fuckers."

Jay clearly hasn't watched the YouTube clip.

 

I have, dude needs some Rogaine or something.

Anyhoo, if Kiffin had said reporters were okay, but no cameras. No newspaper photogs, no TV cameras, no flip cams running. Would anyone here, assuming you are a print side reporter, been okay with that condition as well?

 

I can't claim to know how Tompkins went about writing his story. Would I have made some calls to get a different viewpoint? Yes, but wouldn't be afraid to write it up without a differing opinion either. You run with what you have sometimes and follow up on it.

 

Not initially. No one is going to say that's OK right off, but if a source - especially one who is the only one who can tell you what you want to know - won't budge, then you have to go another route. No situation is the same. What you don't want to do is blow the whole fucking deal based on some false premise of ethics or unfair competition.