Welcome to the Pac-10, Lane Kiffin

[PCLoadLetter]

Of course it is someone trying to take editorial control of the news when he says, "You can't record until I am ready to face the cameras with a scripted message."

"After the fact," is a nonsensical distinction. There was no "after the fact," because they didn't hand over control of their cameras to him in the first place.

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?

That's not what he was doing. He was placing restrictions for the sole purpose of affecting what they could do with the interview after they had it.

 

[RickStain]

That's not what he was doing. He was placing restrictions for the sole purpose of affecting what they could do with the interview after they had it.

That still makes no sense. This is cause-and-effect, flow-of-time, basic laws of the universe shirt here. Seriously.

He was denying the TV cameras the opportunity to get what they wanted. Of course he wasn't placing restrictions on what they could do after they had it, because he wasn't going to allow them to have it.

You: Can I have that sandwich?
Me: No.
You: Why are you telling me what I can do with my own sandwich?
Me: It's not your sandwich.
You: I can't believe you are placing restrictions on what I can do with my own sandwich!
Me: It isn't your sandwich.
You: It will be after you give it to me.
Me: I'm not going to give it to you.
You: Stop restricting what I can do with my own sandwich!

 

[The Big Ragu]

Of course it is someone trying to take editorial control of the news when he says, "You can't record until I am ready to face the cameras with a scripted message."

"After the fact," is a nonsensical distinction. There was no "after the fact," because they didn't hand over control of their cameras to him in the first place.

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?

They are two different things.

But your terminology is horrible. "Telling a reporter what information he can and can't have" makes it sound like the person is a sheep, not a reporter.

Regardless, this wasn't a source playing something close to the vest or not revealing something. They weren't hiding anything from the cameras. They asked them to voluntarily not record. There's a big difference between that and not revealing information because you don't want the reporter to have it.

In that regard, both of those things--agreeing to get a story approved before it runs or voluntarily restricting what you record based on the coach's demands--amount to voluntarily agreeing to demands that let the coach control what appears in print or on the news.

You are essentially agreeing to be his PR firm and giving up your independence.

 

[RickStain]

But your terminology is horrible. "Telling a reporter what information he can and can't have" makes it sound like the person is a sheep, not a reporter.

He has something you want. He doesn't have to give it to you. I'm not sure how else I could phrase it.

Regardless, this wasn't a source playing something close to the vest or not revealing something. They weren't hiding anything from the cameras. They asked them to voluntarily not record. There's a big difference between that and not revealing information because you don't want the reporter to have it.

In that regard, both of those things--agreeing to get a story approved before it runs or voluntarily restricting what you record based on the coach's demands--amount to voluntarily agreeing to demands that let the coach control what appears in print or on the news.

You are essentially agreeing to be his PR firm and giving up your independence.

Well, I disagree with the conclusion, but at least this is coherent and logical.