Fireable offense for Rick Reilly?

[NDJournalist]

It turns out he may have misquoted HIS FATHER-IN-LAW in a column he wrote defending the Redskins name.

http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It turns out he may have manufactured some quotes in a column he wrote defending the Redskins name.

http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

That's not what the article says. It says he misquoted him and left several key points out.

I think people are probably impressed that someone quoted in one of Reilly's stories actually exists.

 

[NDJournalist]

It turns out he may have manufactured some quotes in a column he wrote defending the Redskins name.

http://deadspin.com/rick-reillys-american-indian-father-in-law-says-reilly-1443599450?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

That's not what the article says. It says he misquoted him and left several key points out.

I think people are probably impressed that someone quoted in one of Reilly's stories actually exists.

My bad. Edited the original post to reflect as such.

 

[Double J]

It's a fireable offence for plebes like us. But it's Rick Reilly, so nothing will happen.

 

[Boom_70]

 

[Gator]

Why am I to all of a sudden believe the father-in-law, especially when Reilly knew this piece would get good play, considering it's a hot-button issue? My gut feeling is the father-in-law got some **** over it and changed his tune. I know he's not loved here, but Reilly is too good and too seasoned to pull this kind of crap.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I would be very surprised if anyone can point to an example of a writer being fired for misquoting someone.

 

[SnarkShark]

Why am I to all of a sudden believe the father-in-law, especially when Reilly knew this piece would get good play, considering it's a hot-button issue? My gut feeling is the father-in-law got some **** over it and changed his tune. I know he's not loved here, but Reilly is too good and too seasoned to pull this kind of crap.

This was my first thought as well. Reilly's column was published almost a full month ago. A bit fishy that he took so long to set the record straight.

 

[Small Town Guy]

Reilly just put on Twitter:

While I stand by the reporting in my Sept. 18 column about the Washington Redskins nickname controversy, and felt I accurately quoted my father-in-law in the piece, clearly he feels differently. This is an incredibly sensitive issue, and Bob felt he had more to say on the subject after that column was posted on ESPN.com. We've spoken and cleared this up. I admire Bob and respect his opinions, and he's welcome to express them. Bob and I are good and I'm looking forward to my next steak with him.

 

[BTExpress]

Reilly's column was published almost a full month ago. A bit fishy that he took so long to set the record straight.

I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.

To be fair, if the above is true, than a month or so is not all that fishy. Somebody calls his attention to the article . . . he asks Reilly to correct it . . . decides enough time has passed that his request has been ignored . . . and tells his side of the story.

 

[SnarkShark]

Reilly just put on Twitter:

While I stand by the reporting in my Sept. 18 column about the Washington Redskins nickname controversy, and felt I accurately quoted my father-in-law in the piece, clearly he feels differently. This is an incredibly sensitive issue, and Bob felt he had more to say on the subject after that column was posted on ESPN.com. We've spoken and cleared this up. I admire Bob and respect his opinions, and he's welcome to express them. Bob and I are good and I'm looking forward to my next steak with him.

If he "clearly feels differently" how could Reilly pass on the exact opposite of his sentiment in that column?

 

[Alma]

Reilly just put on Twitter:

While I stand by the reporting in my Sept. 18 column about the Washington Redskins nickname controversy, and felt I accurately quoted my father-in-law in the piece, clearly he feels differently. This is an incredibly sensitive issue, and Bob felt he had more to say on the subject after that column was posted on ESPN.com. We've spoken and cleared this up. I admire Bob and respect his opinions, and he's welcome to express them. Bob and I are good and I'm looking forward to my next steak with him.

If he "clearly feels differently" how could Reilly pass on the exact opposite of his sentiment in that column?

What's more disturbing is that Deadspin and The Big Lead, without getting Reilly's side, used some form of the word "fire" in their posts. I mean, ****. Can't ESPN decide who it does and doesn't fire? Does Deadspin and The Big Lead like it when media outlets call for their employees to be fired?

 

[SnarkShark]

It's pretty clear that Deadspin doesn't give a **** about that kind of stuff at all.

 

[Small Town Guy]

It's worded awkwardly but I don't think Reilly is saying he knows the father-in law clearly feels differently than Reilly said. He's saying he clearly disagrees with idea Reilly portrayed him accurately. Which does make sense.

 

[Alma]

It's pretty clear that Deadspin doesn't give a **** about that kind of stuff at all.

Well, OK. I can still write it. Deadspin has smart people, and maybe they could pull back on the throttle a little. I don't think the future of the site really hinges on the rage quotient of its media criticism. Then again, I get the sense they're almost irrationally angry at how the media business generally works.

 

[DrewJo]

Yo dawgs, I know you like linking to Deadspin, but why not link to the original source?
I'm sure they'd appreciate the clicks, since they're the ones who broke this story: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696

 

[gravehunter]

It's a fireable offence for plebes like us. But it's Rick Reilly, so nothing will happen.

It's Rick Reilly and ESPN, so nothing will happen. Even if this turns out to be true.

 

[JRoyal]

Why am I to all of a sudden believe the father-in-law, especially when Reilly knew this piece would get good play, considering it's a hot-button issue? My gut feeling is the father-in-law got some **** over it and changed his tune. I know he's not loved here, but Reilly is too good and too seasoned to pull this kind of crap.

Yeah. It'd be kinda like someone who had been around forever and won tons of major awards from his peers and writing best sellers all of a sudden making up a scene about two guys being at the Final Four when he wrote his column before the Final Four so there's no way he could've seen them there and the two guys didn't even show up so even if he had been there he wouldn't have seen them. No one that good and seasoned would ever do something stupid like that.

 

[Riptide]

Burns closes by saying, "Let me be clear: The racial slur 'redskins' is not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist. In the memory of our Blackfeet relatives, it’s time to change the name."

So, Redskins bad. Bad!

And Blackfeet ... Good?

Should the Redskins change their name to Blackfeet?

That wouldn't offend anyone, would it? Holy ****, I haz a confuse ...

 

[Steak Snabler]

I'm guessing the difference is that Blackfeet is a name they chose themselves.

And it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It's because they painted their moccasins black.