Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by Rawpimple, Sep 12, 2013.
Meet TheState's new Gamecocks Reporter:
FREEDOM of the press?????
Fan interest would never let this happen. You would be cutting off too much of your audience by only giving them sunshine. Very big leap from what actually happened.
Not at all a big leap. First, that's basically *the* publication in Columbia. Second, he basically said a kid playing football meant he'd be slowed down in basketball. If that's so egregious a statement to make that you get banned from press events, not only is it not a "big leap," it's basically what happened.
They replaced him with a superfan.
Think about that.
The issue was that he wrote something, it was called untrue by somebody important to your business, and he didn't follow that up with a logical response. If you saw a logical response, please let me know what you saw...I saw none. It doesn't matter whether Spurrier's reaction was logical, his job was never in jeopardy.
I'm a homer, I love homer takes on FLORIDA, but I also love to read the view from the pessimistic side. Give me both takes and I'll pick and choose which parts of it I like. I think more fans dig the critical takes than the sunshine takes. I don't think it's possible to escape criticism when people are passionate about your product.
Again, this isn't really what happened. He was referred to as a "negative guy" and nothing specific was questioned, at least in that press conference.
It wasn't even a matter of fact, it was an opinion piece. Spurrier disliked the opinion.
I cannot fathom what this means.
Well let me draw a Florida analogy, then. Let's say someone wrote an opinion piece that posited Doug Johnson's time playing baseball negatively impacted his abilities at QB. Spurrier is incensed at this and has the person permanently removed from press events.
Does this seem - for lack of a better term - right?
Because that's basically what happened here.
Maybe the White House should start removing reporters who are "negative guys," too.
And shouldn't your criticism be directed to Morris' employer? Just as it would be Morris' job to criticize Spurrier, it would be Spurrier's job (if he wants it to be) to criticize journalists that he doesn't care for?
It is, actually. Both Spurrier and TheState.
I mean you noticed my criticism of their replacement hire, no?
I think you are taking sports too seriously if you are going to compare it to government. Government should be transparent; sports does not need to be.
Absolutely, and that happens all the time. Go to any press conference, it happens.
But effectively banning someone from being present? That's lame. And childish.
Sure, it doesn't have to be transparent. And then - as Morris mentioned - a PSU-type event happens and everyone wonders why it didn't get reported earlier.
The point was to draw attention to why it's bad for an institution to directly control the message. I'm sure you noticed that.
Did the author write something that was called untrue and he was unable to substantiate the claim? If the author didn't understand what was called untrue, did he take the matter up with Spurrier? Again, this isn't difficult to resolve, this is simple human relations type stuff here.
I'm still waiting to find out what was "untrue." All you've said so far are implications.
I don't have any problem with those allegations; my point is only that Morris shouldn't be confused about what he did to put himself in that position. He made his own bed, he felt like his actions were worth the potential consequences and went with it. Their fans, the state, and the school all seem to agree. But that doesn't mean that everything from here on out is going to be all fluff pieces.
All that matters is that Morris understands what was untrue and how he handled it from there (or if he didn't understand how he handled it from there).
What does this mean?
It's an opinion piece, what specific item was untrue in it?
This is Spurrier not liking the guy, period.