Is Doyel dissing Reilly here?

Two small people. As for which is smaller, I'm not sure.

Reilly's done this before (Sammy Sosa, anyone?). As for Doyel, I don't remember his being this antagonistic in Charlotte. Who knows if CBS is putting him up to this.

 

We need more of that making it to the public.

 

I wonder why writers want to do this. The worst hack on the planet knows all the cuss words, and so do the readers, so he isn't exactly wowing anyone with his vocabulary. I see something like this and I think, the writer thinks he's a big shot because he can write "piss." Big fucking deal. Now I've seen The New Yorker use "fuck," in quoted material, and I really don't have a problem with that at all. But the writer using it, it's like, "Look at me! I can say piss! And my editors won't change it!"

On your larger question, I guess I'd have more of a problem if he was writing it about some guy from a small paper, but Reilly is a big boy and his question sucked.

 

Agreed. But it almost goes without saying that because he's - well - Rick Reilly that he feels he's somehow more licensed to bait someone than a cub reporter.

And Doyel's acting like he has onions big enough to need a dumptruck is pissing a lot of people off. Aren't I daring in my usage of the word? :

 

Not being facetious, but as much as I hate 'pissed,' I really hate 'sucked.' Fine for message boards...not fine for professionals writing for publication. Anyone can say 'pissed' and 'sucked.' We should do better.

 

I agree. It sucks when we don't.

 

I wouldn't call another writer out like that, but I wouldn't care if anyone called me out for something I did, so long as it's the complete truth.

 

What about Doyle quoting the two players who have come off the podium and on their way to their breakout interview? Especially with Douglas-Roberts specifically talking to Dorsey (and, at one point, swearing). I understand the conversation takes place in the media area as they're walking, but are their comments fair game to start extracting quotes when it's not in a formal interview session? A slippery slope, indeed, especially with younger athletes who suddenly may realize that anything they say within earshot of reporters can--and in this case, will--be reported.

I've dealt with this issue a lot on different levels.

 

yeah, great question -- I would say in this instance, if the players knew Doyle was within earshot and knew he was media, I'm OK with it. otherwise, I'm not

 

If you're in the "interview room," anything and everything you say is fair game.

If the schools can't assign handlers to keep the players' mouths shut, it ain't our job to do it for them.

 

Anything a public figure says in your presence is on the record unless they say it isn't. Period. If a guy is quick enough to realize they want to take it back and asks right then, I'm inclined to oblige him unless, of course, it's real news (Coach sucks) and not just atmosphere as it is in Doyel's piece.