Lute Olson's Leave of Absence

ESPN didn't dedicate a seven-hour SportsCenter to Magic's retirement announcement, which IIRC was made when it was made because someone was about to go public with it. Sports-talk radio still was in its infancy; did LA even have an all-sports station then?

 

Sure. We did have ESPN and CNN and indoor plumbing. And almost all of it was legit. Today it's scattered so much and it is a lot easier to dismiss 90 percent of it as bullshit.

 

But back then you did not have the 24 hours news cycle, the desire to create content for it, and intense competition you have now. In sports back then, the closest thing you had was the short lived Mizlou Sports News Network. Now everybody wants to be first or have the "best" depth of coverage on a story.

But back to the fundamental question: just because you can do something does it mean you should? If a court has help that a TV Journalist is not a public figure (see Deseret News story from 2005), why should journalists apply a different test to a basketball coach and a private matter? That seems like wanting to have it both ways.

An analysis of a 1974 Supreme Court case (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.) defined as public figure as follows:


"In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court established the definition of a public figure.The case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. provided a useful characterization that could be applied by other courts deciding libel cases.

The Court allowed that while a person could become a "public figure" without specific action on his or her own, this happened rarely. Rather, they found it more likely that individuals had " . . . assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society." For example, anyone running for political office becomes more vulnerable to public scrutiny and media attention. Other well known individuals like entertainers, writers, athletes, and other celebrities are considered public figures too.

In some instances, persons become viewed as public figures because of involvement in a controversial public issue. The general recognition accorded them as a result of the controversy may subsequently allow the person to influencethe outcome of the issue. This may be referred to as the "public controversy"test.

Finally, the Court asserted that in many cases people are considered public figures because of the enormous power and influence they wield in general."

I see it as kind of a gray area to say whether or not Olson is a public figure. I argue he is publicly known, but not a public figure as defined here just because he is a basketball coach. The caveat is when dealing with personal, private matters. If has to do with his coaching or something else related to his job, then he would be.

Ask yourselves, how would you like the media and your colleagues to treat you if you were in a similar situation as Olson?

 

If you don't believe Olson is a public figure, I don't know what to say.

 

I am saying it has context. For personal, private matters that have nothing to do with his job and nobody has the right or business to know (except to be a salacious voyeur), he should not be considered a public figure. Bill Clinton getting some from Lewinsky in the Oval Office while soldiers and sailors are dying, THAT is a public figure story.

 

BUT CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!

 

And apparently, many people died because of it

 

Olson is the highest paid employee at one of the two largest taxpayer funded public universities in the state. You bet your sweet ass he is a compelling public figure.

 

I think this is an interesting debate, particularly given the new media age. Blogs, comments to blogs etc. have been enough in the past to get a sensitive topic "out there" where the traditional media feel okay about reporting on the rumors. Making the speculation the story, rather than the story itself.

 

I have to chuckle reading this just after reading the Washington Post ombudsman commentary on the Obama's not a Muslim story.

Same thing.

 

BLOGS!

that is the dumbest fucking thing i've ever heard in my life. if you're collecting a seven-figure paycheck off the back of state taxpayers, you're a public figure. end of fucking list.

 

This is a new low for Andy Katz. Even for him:

"Multiple sources have confirmed that Olson's "personal issues" are deeply private family matters."