Dude blew up for no reason. Its the MEDIA people. Its not like she made up a bunch of lies..... Gundy needs to hit a bong, take some xanax, something....
I'm on the fence on that. I think theoretically it could reveal something about his character, but it's impossible to say for sure. If I were the writer, I wouldn't have included that since so much of that specific example is speculation. Which, considering it's a column, is her right to do... but I agree, I do think that's a stretch. That said, that specific example wasn't close to the meat or heart of the piece.
are you kidding, its what her whole premise is based on, because you know what else is wrong, she doesn't know bobby reid.
It's funny that the only people I've heard criticizing this are in the media. And, correct me if I'm wrong, he didn't read the article until someone pointed it out to him. I'm seriously doubting that he'd be that enraged over something he didn't even read.
To me, her entire premise is based on sources who revealed to her a continued pattern of behavior (not one example) from Reid indicating a lack of toughness, both emotonally and physically. She chose the chicken part for her lead because it was the most vivid detail and easiest way to "hook" readers, but that, at least to me, wasn't the general point I got from the column.
What he is lacking on the field. There is no reason to defame his character in a newspaper. There is plenty of stuff you can complain about... making fun of his character is over the line. And comparing posts on a message board to a newspaper is laughable. I don't get paid to write about the status of a football team. Nor do I spend my time b****ing about players personal lives online. That's the problem. If you want to talk about a player, talk about what he does on the court/field, not what he does off of it. I don't think you understand the real problem is the way that the media has to "find" a story when in reality they should just report what's there, not listen to rumors and innuendos to fill out a story. No this column didn't report any answers. If she wanted to know why Reid was replaced, she should have asked the right questions of the right people instead of using a report of one instance and one quote to base an entire supposition on. Maybe I am wrong, the problem isn't the media. It's people who think that this is the right way to present an argument of what is going on with the team. Curiosity is one thing, facts are one thing, this is not either of those things. It's as bad as saying that everything in the National Enquirer is responsible journalism. It's the media's responsibility to report accuracy and facts, not supposition. The fact that its written in a supposedly reputable newspaper should tick you off, merely because there are no facts in it... simply guesswork. The part that really kills me is her statement that she "sticks by the facts" in her article. Name two facts in the whole darn thing. When I read a paper I want to see truth. If I wanted fiction I'd go rent The Replacements.
Where are the statistics in most "source-based" stories? Are you asking for the elimination of anonymous sources altogether? Last night, for example, two anonymous sources reported to ESPN that Deuce McAllister tore his ACL. Should ESPN have not reported that as news when they did, because they didn't have anyone on the record? It's not supposition. It's information from informed sources. I've done this before. You'd be stunned the level of sources that most even elementary newspaper reporters have. If they feel they have enough sources that a piece of information is true, I want them to write about it. And what is he lacking on the field? Toughness, both emotionally and physically. Leadership. Most (not all) of her examples illustrate those points.
Why not? She could just as easily go and make up a bunch of lies...we don't know. But just by reading the article...you can tell right away that there is in fact very little substance behind it. Here are her reasons behind the article... 1. His mom was feeding him chicken. 2. Word was that Reid considered transfering (Gundy denies this) so this could false info. She also uses the word "apparently" which basically says she doesn't know if it is true. 3. Issues about game-day nerves. This is crap, I would be that 90% of athletes still get nervous before games. Hell...VY told reporters lastnight that he was extremely nervous before MNF, so I guess he has issues? I saw a high school QB for South Lake Carroll throw up while walking up to the line of scrimmage and then throw the game winning TD pass. 4. Injuries. "Football is a sport where everyone plays hurt." Oh ya...I'm sure Jenna Carlson knows all about this. One of Reid's injuries "appeared minor" but was enough to push the coaches over the edge. How the hell does she know if the injury was minor or not? I watch Donovan McNabb scramble out of bounds and tear his ACL w/o getting touched. Unless she knows exactly what was wrong with him, you cannot assume how severe an injury was just because it "appeared to be minor." 5. Laughing with an assistant coach on the sidelines. I understand this argument but I would personally be more pissed at a coach laughing it up during an embarrassing loss. Apparently Carlson is notorious for putting out crap articles. Even people from OU agrees that she is terrible.
Even Gundy admits that college football players aren't off limits. He said if you're going to go after one of his players with a crap article like that, at least go after someone who's not respectful and doesn't go to class.
If this was some other newspaper in another state, I might take think differently, but, having lived in oklahoma for a good portion of my life, I know what kind of POS articles that paper publishes on a regular basis. I also know that if somebody had come out and said that stuff about an OU player in that paper, the writer would probably be burned at the stake. Its a huuuuge double standard, so I dont blame gundy for getting pissed.
I don't see the relevance. Fans wanted to know why the program turned on a guy that was the face and cornerstone of the building project for the past three years. He went from starting QB with all the talent in the world on a potential Big 12 contending team to benched for a mediocre backup, in less than a month. What happened? It has nothing to do with an agenda and nothing to do with trying to find a player to "go after." It has everything to do with answering a question that fans want to know, which this case involved Reid. It's not like the writer drew his name out of a hat.
It's going after him because the article is filled with nothing but rumors and hearsay. Unless the author is an idiot with no standards of journalism, the only reason you'd publish a story that bad is because you decided you needed to have something on Bobby Reid. Hence going after him for the sake of going after him. It's bad because it slanders a guy who did nothing wrong outside of playing poorly. It was full of utter garbage and used a god damn story about chicken as the centerpiece of a story as to why Bobby Reid isn't tough or mentally strong. Anyone with a lick of knowledge on journalism would throw that **** in the trash. That honestly is the type of due diligence you expect from a high school newspaper.
I'd ask for clarification, but if she says her sources are legit (which she did in her explanation today), I don't have problems with most of the story.
The article sucked and it's a dick move to call someone out about their mommy regardless of anyone's age since it makes it personal but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be given the reaction of the coach. Also, the dude is 21, not 12. I hate when people act like 21 is still a part of puberty. Just saying the word puberty reminds me of one of those Motivational Buck posters I made. One of my favorites:
