Kentucky fans upset with Jerry Tipton

[armageddon]

Fans... ::)

However, I do agree on one point.

The paper should post the audio of the interviews.

We post audio/video links of everything these days.

And we would demand full disclosure from others, particularly public figures, in similar situations.

Post the audio and let the masses make up their minds.

Would you want your paper releasing uncut your phone interviews with sources? When you spoke to them, do you think sources will cooperate in the future if they think every word they utter will go online?

What if you were off the record part of the time? Do you put that on the web, too? And if you lop that off, what's the point of posting it in the first place?

I'd release the tapes. I'd post them myself if needed. If part of the conversations were off the record, as sometimes they are: I'd run a note to explain it and then blank out the off-the-record portions.

That's as fair as you can be to all parties.

If one of my sources doesn't have a problem being quoted in the paper but does have a problem hearing his/her voice on audio, I'd be surprised.

My broad point is that newspapers are all about shining a spotlight on others to set the record straight. But we are much less aggressive with our own.

It smacks of hypocrisy and readers know it.

 

[Ace]

Fans... ::)

However, I do agree on one point.

The paper should post the audio of the interviews.

We post audio/video links of everything these days.

And we would demand full disclosure from others, particularly public figures, in similar situations.

Post the audio and let the masses make up their minds.

Would you want your paper releasing uncut your phone interviews with sources? When you spoke to them, do you think sources will cooperate in the future if they think every word they utter will go online?

What if you were off the record part of the time? Do you put that on the web, too? And if you lop that off, what's the point of posting it in the first place?

I'd release the tapes. I'd post them myself if needed. If part of the conversations were off the record, as sometimes they are: I'd run a note to explain it and then blank out the off-the-record portions.

That's as fair as you can be to all parties.

If one of my sources doesn't have a problem being quoted in the paper but does have a problem hearing his/her voice on audio, I'd be surprised.

My broad point is that newspapers are all about shining a spotlight on others to set the record straight. But we are much less aggressive with our own.

It smacks of hypocrisy and readers know it.

I disagree and what does it prove? It would be extremely simple to delete any controversial line of questioning.

You have a relationship with these people and posting private interviews in full online would seem to violate that.

 

[ECrawford]

There's no need to publish the tapes.

Bottom line: A reporter can ask a recruit's parents anything he damn well wants to ask. Readers don't determine the questions we ask interview subjects. Not even the subjects should get to do that. No paper should be apologizing for the questions it asks. I've posted entire audio interviews before, mainly when I thought I couldn't get enough quotes into print. But you can't put a harness on reporters out trying to gather news by making the very tones of their questions subject to public approval.

I think the Herald-Leader went as far as it needed to go.

I believe it was the C-J's Brett Dawson who, at UK coach Billy Gillispie's introductory press conference, asked the coach and university president questions about Gillispie's two arrests on suspicion of DUI. He got scathing email for weeks after that.

Some of the bloggers who are criticizing Tipton are official representatives of UK's athletic interests, and it is they, not Tipton, who have perfected the art of asking leading questions to recruits.

This whole thing is simply proof that a segment of this fan base gets more of a charge about feeling "wronged" than anything else. It's laughable. All these people claiming they'll never read Tipton again are hilarious. They can't stop. They thrive on any perceived slight they can find.

 

[imjustagirl]

Holy Crap! Tipton shaved his mustache!!!!

 

[KYSportsWriter]

****ing UK fans.

They're all upset over two 15-year-old "recruits" who recently "committed" to the school.

Holy cow.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Worst thing about UK: Big Blue Nation.

 

[JayFarrar]

Worst thing about UK: Big Blue Nation.

Worst thing about UK: Big Blue Nation.

Incorrect.
Worst thing about UK is that they are inthe state of Kentucky...

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Worst thing about UK: Big Blue Nation.

Worst thing about UK: Big Blue Nation.

Incorrect.
Worst thing about UK is that they are inthe state of Kentucky...

Nothing wrong with Kentucky (except, well, the mountains).

UK fans are a bunch of spoiled brats who figure they have a God-given right to an NCAA title every three years, even though Rupp himself couldn't bring that off.

 

[LarryDavid]

I worked at a weekly in Kentucky a few years back. Am still looking to meet the first rationale UK fan ...

 

[BillyT]

Fans... ::)

However, I do agree on one point.

The paper should post the audio of the interviews.

We post audio/video links of everything these days.

And we would demand full disclosure from others, particularly public figures, in similar situations.

Post the audio and let the masses make up their minds.

I think you would need permission from the parents, because they would not have assumed the audio would be used.

 

[spinning27]

There's no need to publish the tapes.

Bottom line: A reporter can ask a recruit's parents anything he damn well wants to ask. Readers don't determine the questions we ask interview subjects. Not even the subjects should get to do that. No paper should be apologizing for the questions it asks. I've posted entire audio interviews before, mainly when I thought I couldn't get enough quotes into print. But you can't put a harness on reporters out trying to gather news by making the very tones of their questions subject to public approval.

I think the Herald-Leader went as far as it needed to go.

I believe it was the C-J's Brett Dawson who, at UK coach Billy Gillispie's introductory press conference, asked the coach and university president questions about Gillispie's two arrests on suspicion of DUI. He got scathing email for weeks after that.

Some of the bloggers who are criticizing Tipton are official representatives of UK's athletic interests, and it is they, not Tipton, who have perfected the art of asking leading questions to recruits.

This whole thing is simply proof that a segment of this fan base gets more of a charge about feeling "wronged" than anything else. It's laughable. All these people claiming they'll never read Tipton again are hilarious. They can't stop. They thrive on any perceived slight they can find.

Eric,

Just speaking in hypotheticals here, but with all due respect, what would really be the point of asking a recruit's parents whether Gillispie's DUIs factored into their decision to attend Kentucky?

 

[ECrawford]

Hypothetically, there wouldn't be much point, and those aren't questions I'd ask.

Returning to the actual world -- Tipton, by everyone's account, did not ask those questions. Parents of the recruits denied on the air -- despite being led in the other direction by a booster-host -- that Tipton had asked about any Gillispie rumors. The Herald-Leader, in its review of the interviews, found no discussions of those rumors.

Tipton's stories included nothing of those issues.

However, if the context of the conversation brought the subject into play, there'd be a point in pursuing it, just to see what was said.

That, by all accounts, didn't happen in this case, and there was no need for it to happen. I understand that this booster-host may have intimated or outright alleged otherwise, based on "off the record" or "pre-air" conversations. Whatever.

The interviews may have included touchy questions, but most good interviews do.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Which channel in Lexington used a UK booster as a host for that show?

I'm guessing WKYT, and if it was them why in the blue hell wouldn't they have Rob do the segment?

 

[imjustagirl]

Which channel in Lexington used a UK booster as a host for that show?

I'm guessing WKYT, and if it was them why in the blue hell wouldn't they have Rob do the segment?

Did he say TV and I missed it?

And no one has bigger boosters on their roster than WLEX. No one.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Which channel in Lexington used a UK booster as a host for that show?

I'm guessing WKYT, and if it was them why in the blue hell wouldn't they have Rob do the segment?

Did he say TV and I missed it?

And no one has bigger boosters on their roster than WLEX. No one.

Parents of the recruits denied on the air

Maybe it was on the radio. I don't know.

And if WLEX would get rid of a certain someone, they'd be just fine in my eyes.

 

[imjustagirl]

Yeah, I assumed it was a call-in radio show.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Yeah, I assumed it was a call-in radio show.

The more I read that comment the more I'm thinking it was.

But still ... why would anyone let a UK booster run the show on TV or over the radio?

 

[imjustagirl]

I'm assuming it was just a radio host who is very pro-Kentucky. I don't think "booster-host" was meant literally.

Jesus.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

I'm assuming it was just a radio host who is very pro-Kentucky. I don't think "booster-host" was meant literally.

Jesus.

OK. Now I get it.

Forgive me ... it's been a long damn day.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Which channel in Lexington used a UK booster as a host for that show?

I'm guessing WKYT, and if it was them why in the blue hell wouldn't they have Rob do the segment?

Did he say TV and I missed it?

And no one has bigger boosters on their roster than WLEX. No one.

TRUE BLUE COVERAGE!!!!

When their reporters wear UK stuff to games, just unfreakin' believable.