"Please respect our privacy"

Like many public figures, Lute Olson requested that the media "respect his family's privacy."

When somebody includes that in a statement, does it change the way you approach things?

If it's a dumb question, forgive me. But so many people like Olson publicly request privacy from the media. Does anyone actually ever listen?

Should they?

 

The Arizona Daily Star's story says: "Olson's public relations firm released a statement ..." WTF? The university's SID doesn't handle this, the coach has a PR firm?

I wouldn't wish bad personal things for him or his family, but Lute has been an anus for many years. He certainly has been condesceding toward the press.

I guess I would want to find out what it is and then decide whether I want to respect his privacy.

 

I agree. Tough call.

But if what Frank mentions is true -- Lute being a jerk toward the media -- then the media isn't going to let this go.

 

Good question.

I've always translated that as, "We're not talking to the media, please don't bother calling us."

If you can find something out anyway without getting it from the family, use it.

 

The coach I cover has his own PR guy for matters outside of the school.

That being said, if it's something important, I avoid both guys. I've dealt with coach's PR guy on several occasions. He still doesn't know my name.

 

It's designed to make the media look bad when they don't honor the request for privacy.

Some of these coaches are multi-million dollar industries unto themselves, much too big to trust university PR to represet their interests on non-routine matters. In fairness, it can also keep an SID from being part of a sticky battle between the coach and the administration.

 

I have less of an issue with the "privacy" request when it's an illness -- the individual or family.

In this case, a well-known public figure, perhaps the highest-paid public figure in the state, I don't buy it as much.

 

Lute is paid 1-point-something MILLION dollars, much of it taxpayers' dollars.

He has chosen a high-profile, well-paying profession. He is a public figure, just like the mayor or the governor.

Sorry, Lute. Your choice, my job. Deal with it.

 

To me, "respect the family's privacy" from someone with media savvy is just code for saying we ain't talking.

And people saying they aren't talking is just another day at the office. You get around it if you can or if you need to.

 

I laugh at "respect my privacy" from public figures who otherwise crave any attention they get.
You can't have it both ways.
The worst example was when a longtime Los Angeles news anchor died and his station reported that his family requested its privacy.
The same station has no problem sticking a mike in the face of a young mother who just lost her husband and kids in a fire, but for its multimillion dollar anchor, we're supposed to respect their privacy?

 

His family issues -- such as his wife dying, or whatever this may be -- have nothing to do with his job, which is the only reason the media is interested in him. We wouldn't cover his wife or his personal life, otherwise. Why now?

 

I agree with your overall point, but this part isn't true. Athletic departments the size of Arizona's are self-sustaining -- that is, the salaries they pay their coaches come from the revenue their programs generate. Taxpayers aren't footing the bill. Readers make this mistake all the time.

But yes, the Arizona beat writers have a right and a duty to look into why he's not coaching.