'their version' was probably a poor choice of words. What I meant is reporters don't make the news they report the news. I don't know whether the reporters that originally broke the story said official or referee, but JVG let the referee interpretation persist as long as it suited his purposes. I am not trying to spin anything because I don't have an agenda. I am neither 'for' nor 'against' either side. I just know JVG stepped in something that smells pretty bad. I am a consevative by-the-way and I didn't vote for Clinton nor condone what he did in office.
Sometimes they make the news. Usually, they take facts and report them in ways that slant. Example: "Smith's credibility has increased to an impressive 40%" vs. "Smiths' credibiility still has not exceeeded 40%" slant.
krocket - your points are well taken. And to some degree you are right. My problem is that the press reported it and when some details were left vague, editorialists like Levensque jump on mean, bad Van Gundy for not clarifying them. JVG definitely was tricky. However, reporters should go into every story believing that they are being used for one purpose or another. Very often when people willingly talk to the press they are doing so to better their position. It is the job of journalists to sort out what the real facts are and present them objectively...Not report on something and complain later that someone duped them (unless that person was outright lying). If a person is sly, perhaps he can present a view vaguely enough so that they can't pin him down. Is that a bit tricky? Sure it is. But the press reps like Levesque should not complain after the fact if journalists made incorrect assumptions. It's a cat and mouse game. Sometimes reporters can get people to say more than they want. Sometimes they can't. The press plays these games too. As droxford pointed out, is they have facts they sometimes use to manipulate their audience. They don't lie. Maybe they use some bits and brush others other the table. Perhaps they report something in one light instead of another (droxford's example is perfect)... This is why it was somewhat disenchanting to work as a journalist... Editors also like to add "punch" to make articles more exciting, more readable. All in all, you're right in that JVG wasnt very forthcoming. And perhaps he will be judged harshly for that. But journalists should expect this and learn to ask the questions that offer no wiggle room. Not whine when they willingly marched to the beat of JVG's drum and only later found out they were out of step.
Guys: If your saying that 'yellow' journalism exists and reporter's misteps occur, you'll get no argument from me. I am certainly not pro journalism in this case, but if JVG hadn't opened his mouth we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? He is a big boy, should have known better, and will suffer whatever fate is thrown his way. He knowingly took a calculated risk and may have miscalulated. It is not in his hands anymore. It now rests in the hands of the referees. What they will do is anybody's guess at this point. I don't know now how much real power they have, but it's safe to say that their 'vengeance' could be substantial and undetectable, but will be very obvious. We'll see. BTW. If you didn't watch Mike & Mike the next morning, you should have. 'Greenie' wanted to lynch JVG that day. I don't know if it was the company spiel or his own opinion, but he was sizzling. Apparently the conspiracy theory touched a lot of sore spots.
Bad judgment on Van Gundy's part? Absolutely. However, I still have trouble understanding why what Van Gundy did was so bad that he deserves to be fired. There's got to be many people in the league who have said worse things for which firing was not brought up as a response.
