Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

There's at least 10 other people in the room. You can call and quote one of them to present where the other side is coming from. Then again, it's a column and Al obviously wanted to make a point, as misguided as it was.

 

In an oldie, but a goodie, SportsJournalists.com Kabuki Theater presents

The reporter and his desk

Me: My story on the Kiffin presser is in
Slot: Fantastic, we are running it as the 1A centerpiece
Me: Awesome
Slot: We need some art, who shot it for us?
Me: Umm, Kiffin said as a condition, no cameras could be in the room.
Slot: What the fuck?!?!? Why didn't you call someone?
Me: Well a TV guy complained, said he needed video but Bud told him that he was in their building and it was their rules.
Slot: Holy shit, I need to call someone and they're going to be pissed.
Me: Why? We have plenty of file art...
Slot: Wait, did Bud really say it was their building, their rules?
Me: Yeah, why?
Slot: You idiot. It is a public building and state employees, they have no right to set the rules for a press conference at state-owned facility.
Me: Well, I didn't want to get my credntials yanked.
Slot: Dude, you'll be lucky to have a job when this is over.
Me: What?!?!?
Slot: No public employee tells the press what to do, ever, at a public press event. They invited us there and we don't agree to their terms.
Me: Really. I thought that getting some information was better than getting no information.
Slot: That's a decision made by people above your paygrade. Don't turn off your cell, we'll have questions.
*click*

Le Fin

 

There is a fundamental difference between being told what to do with information after you've acquired it and being told what information you can acquire.

You keep trying to conflate the two, and it's wrong every time.

 

Kiffin's demand was that TV couldn't show his face. That's an attempt at editorial control that continues after the information is acquired.

 

So they had video of his face?

 

No, because they didn't cave to his attempt at editorial control.

 

If this logic made the remotest bit of sense, and it doesn't, then every source who ever refused to give you any scrap of information for any reason would be "attempting editorial control after the fact," whether you already had the information or not. Which is clearly absurd.

Whether or not it was right to refuse the demands, it clearly was not a case of editorial control after the fact. This should be indisputable.

 

And it's not, but I'm not getting into this again.

 

Way to violate my free speech after the fact by denying me the chance to reply to what you would have said.

 

So your position is that there is no difference between telling a reporter what information he can and can't have, and telling him what he can do with information after he has it?