On twitter they are patting themselves on the back, I guess since they took so much heat about lying.
S/L writers gloating about how they got it right.
- Thread starter ruready4somefootball
- Start date
For the most part, they did get it right. And what Flood did was close to a fireable offense (I think he should have been fired). What we've been saying on this board for a month now, complete with all the pledges to no longer read a newspaper that dares to disclose wrongdoing by our football coach that undermines the academic integrity of the school, looks dunder-headed right now, to the extent it didn't before.
This is what a newspaper should be doing. We don't want to be an SEC fan base. At least I don't. And I believe that there's a strong contingent of RU fans who do not either. And, so, if this is happening with one of our coaches, I want to hear about it, and I want the press to tell me about it. Rather than harping on whether it was done perfectly and instituting silly boycotts because we don't want the football team's win-loss record hurt, we should recognize that in the end the SL got it right.
This is what a newspaper should be doing. We don't want to be an SEC fan base. At least I don't. And I believe that there's a strong contingent of RU fans who do not either. And, so, if this is happening with one of our coaches, I want to hear about it, and I want the press to tell me about it. Rather than harping on whether it was done perfectly and instituting silly boycotts because we don't want the football team's win-loss record hurt, we should recognize that in the end the SL got it right.
..
Good point...and what many are saying (like you), is that Flood should have been fired.
A broken clock is right twice a day...and since the reporters went out on a limb with his story (against a firestorm of hate by many RU fans), they do have a right to boast about their work.
Their reporting of 'facts' (10 days - 2 weeks ago) coming form 'unnamed sources' in some instances turned out to be uncomfortably close to some of the sections of the report that was issued yesterday. It was as though certain sections of the findings were being provided - in advance of the completion of the report. Who knows what this means ... it could be that the investigators were providing frequent incremental updates and that there were numerous ways that the info could have been 'shared' - but it does seem to be a bit fishy.
Help me out here. What were they right about?
You cannot be right when you say "____ should be fired." That is an opinion. And it is still wrong, Flood shouldn't be fired for what he did, he should be suspended.
You cannot be right when you say "____ should be fired." That is an opinion. And it is still wrong, Flood shouldn't be fired for what he did, he should be suspended.
Fishy? It's called a leak, or someone talking off the record. It happens with every -- every -- big organization that is under scrutiny. Is this whole notion really a mystery to you? There have been famous movies about reporters and sources. They're in many, many articles that you've read. You see it all the time. It's not some mysterious, never before seen process that requires us to call what the SL did fishy. And it's even more so given that they got it right. That shows that it worked, not as you suggest that their good work reveals an unspecified master conspiracy. Or are you now suggesting that this "fishiness" all indicates that there's a conspiracy involving the press, and certain people at RU, and the law firm that investigated, and ultimately the board of governors and president to create untrue facts that support this publicly released report about coach flood? It sounds silly just as I type it.
It's not fishy. We've all seen this before, we've seen journalism like this. This time it was good.
It's not fishy. We've all seen this before, we've seen journalism like this. This time it was good.
I don't think they got heat for lying. They got heat for sensationalistic reporting. And they also got heat for poor reporting.
As it turns out, they only got part right. Flood was under investigation for contacting a professor via email from his private email account, was advised not to contact the professor, and the offense was potentially serious. They missed that Flood contacted the professor multiple times and met with the professor. They also missed the timing of this whole thing. Everyone was under the impression that this was in regards to a summer class.
As it turns out, they only got part right. Flood was under investigation for contacting a professor via email from his private email account, was advised not to contact the professor, and the offense was potentially serious. They missed that Flood contacted the professor multiple times and met with the professor. They also missed the timing of this whole thing. Everyone was under the impression that this was in regards to a summer class.
The only thing that should make people uncomfortable is the fact that people in Julie's organization are freely disclosing allegedly confidential information to the press and nobody seems inclined to do anything about it.
It's possible if not likely that they were given that information on deep background.
THe rumor is the leak was from a disgruntled Rutgers employee, not from JH's staff, who was pissed that they didn't get a job they applied for in the Athletic dept. Again, this is not confirmed, just a rumor.
The original story from NJ.com referenced "university officials" as being those with knowledge of the investigation. Why do you believe those people are within the AD and not part of the multiple departments elsewhere in the school that would be involved in the story?
They have to know who it is, since pretty much half the board does, and even more since Kristian outed the person.
I'm curious why nothing has been done about it.
And that is a big part of the problem with the SL; they are more interested in clicks than providing information. They got some information right and they missed a lot of information. But they wrote a dozen stories each day, without providing additional information or providing more in-depth analysis.
Their problem isn't a really right vs wrong (although they manage to screw up basic facts in a lot of their articles). Their problem is complete vs incomplete and informative vs not informative.
This is the type of criticism I'm talking about. You're saying that they should have learned more? That you're criticizing them for not digging deeper and finding out that Flood was contacting the professor multiple times and the semester.
This kind of nit-picking is the type of thing that reveals more about your opinions before the report came out and much less about the Ledger. So is complaining about the Ledger at all after a report comes out saying that the head coach did what he did. The Ledger did good here. This is the type of journalism you want. If an RU head coach is doing this, I want the press all over it. All over it.
You missed my point. If they didn't have more information, then they didn't need to publish a dozen articles per day. The criticism isn't that their information was wrong; the criticism is they sensationalized the information to generate clicks.
I get that their business model is a clickbait model. Why publish one complete story when you can publish 12 incomplete stories and generate 12 times the clicks. But for me, that makes their site a whole less informative than it could be; it means I need to expend 12 times the effort to get the information that could be contained in a single article. I am not boycotting the SL. I just don't read them, because I don't find them very informative.
This is incorrect information. They didn't publish twelve articles a day. I will now spend days criticizing this incorrect information.
My point is that this type of nit-picking reveals more about you. I don't know whether the Ledger talked about it too much. I don't really care. You should wonder why you care. Were you hoping with less coverage the effect on the football team would be lessened? Why are you worried about - and focusing almost entirely on -- that when a report just came out saying the coach did what he did. And why are you nit-picking about the ledger not having learned every single fact.
This was a bad thing. The Ledger reported it first. Got it right. It was a bad thing. It's great that the school investigated it. It's great that RU punished the coach -- maybe should have been more severe. And it's right that alums should be ashamed of it. I hope it means that no RU coach ever again tries this BS. Nice job investigating it by the school, and Kudos to the Ledger for being all over it.
The SL sensationalized the story. Perhaps the email scandal was a dramatically big issue to you and you are happy it was blown up in terms of reporting by the SL. To me (and I suspect others) it was not such a big issue. It was a violation of RU Guidelines which apparently are more rigid than most Universities. It was an act of desperation and stupidity by the coach who is being paid sh!t compared to his peers and being bashed daily by RU Fans for almost everything he does or does not do. It was discovered, investigated and handled appropriately "in-house".....not because of some deep undercover investigative reporting by the SL. Barring some miracle, the coach will likely be dismissed (either now or later) as a net result of this issue. Many will eventually get their wish regarding the severity of this punishment based in the negative effects this punishment will have on the Coach/Program and the sensationalized local media frenzy. As I said in another thread - this is really about Winning for many fans. If RU was coming off a BIG Championship - fans would be up in arms over his 3 Game suspension. Since he has not brought spectacular results for the team.....fans are quite OK with the punishment.
So enjoy all that crappy journalism at the SL. I was once a daily reader of the paper - but it has gone significantly down hill over the years in many areas. I've preferred other sources for at least the past several years.
Yeah, I embellished. But I'm not a news reporter (although I used to work as a fact checker for the Baltimore Sun as an undergrad). It was closer to about 5 articles per day. Rutgers retained the law firm on Aug 13 to investigate the email. The Star Ledger first reported it on Aug 25. In the seven days starting Aug 25, Google shows 34 articles on the investigation published on NJ.com.
As a Rutgers fan, I wanted to know what was going on. But 34 articles that provided no new information did not help me know what was going on. It was basically just clickbait. Kudo's to the SL for breaking the story. But Ryan Dunleavy at Gannett actually did a much better job in providing additional information (including referencing the actual policy that Flood violated) and keeping me informed
We boycotted that POS website because they sensationalized the story. Had they just reported the facts, no one would had any issues with it.
^^^^ This. No one is saying they were completely wrong, but by making such a huge deal out of it and calling for Flood to be fired (Before any details were released - so they got somewhat lucky that it ended up being so bad) is the reason. They're like ESPN. The report the "news" with an attitude/edge towards their personal feelings. It's not what you say, but how you say it.
So that's the spin, the new attack. When a media outlet gets it right about something that we all (or most) agree was improper behavior, they're still horrible because they sensationalized it.
And so when that horrible behavior is finally punished, the next step is to turn on that media outlet and scream at them for sensationalizing. Good stuff. None of you sound like the very stereotype of football dunderheads that those who oppose big time athletics will point to.
Damn you Ledger. You got it right. And you said that right thing way too many times. Stop it. Damn you.
And so when that horrible behavior is finally punished, the next step is to turn on that media outlet and scream at them for sensationalizing. Good stuff. None of you sound like the very stereotype of football dunderheads that those who oppose big time athletics will point to.
Damn you Ledger. You got it right. And you said that right thing way too many times. Stop it. Damn you.
How about when they get it wrong? Have they not gotten it wrong many times in the past, like that boy in the storybook who cried "wolf"?
Reporting it was the right thing to do. That is news and what journalists do. Where the "holier than thou" attitude needs to stop is weaving things into a series of stories without full facts and layering an opinion on actions to take and what how it reflects on university BEFORE full facts come out is where it gets sleazy. NJ.com seems to want to be the Fox News of newspapers. "Tell me sir, when exactly did you stop beating your horse."
That's not what I'm saying at all...you couldn't be more wrong, Mayor Wrongo of Wrongsville. I'm merely pointing out that the Star Ledger has gotten it wrong in the past, and as such, deserves to have any of their sensational reports viewed initially with a healthy dose of scrutiny. "Let the investigation play out" and then take action.
Actually, wasnt the leaker outted as someone outside of the department who the AD turned down? The rest of the process (the investigation, the BoG meeting on Friday, etc) other than Julie's reaction would be outside of the domain of the AD as well.
How would you score the "Schiano secret deals" that they previously reported themselves, and then buried? Sacrifice fly?
Yea pretty good if this was baseball. But it's not their dealing with people's life's. Think just from a moral standpoint you should try to reach 100%. But think that's to much for this crew so yea they probably think that's good.
The Ledger has reporters and a columnist -- Politi -- who gives opinions. That's been going on for decades too, in sports, politics and everything under the sun. It's not mixing things up. It's more of the same type of reporting and journalism we've all seen our whole lives without blinking an eye. Until it's the Ledger, the Damn Ledger, and our college football team.
Well, "initially" is over. The investigation has played out. They got it right. And you're still complaining. Damn Ledger! You got it right this time! But you had no right to get it right! You should have shut up and then gotten it right later! Because that matters!
Last edited:
This is another one of the spin things. The Ledger shouldn't have reported these complaints and investigations? Shhh! It might hurt the program. That's not the media's job. Only report these things later, and only then if they turn out to be right.
It's really absurd that people think this. This is what media does, and what it should do. They have a .1000 batting average if they report, and a .0000 batting average if they don't. Damn Ledger sports department! Reporting on sports related allegations! Stop it! Damn you Ledger!
Last edited:
Politi and Duggan should do a story about how much of a mushmouth Keith Sargeant is when he's not behind a computer. Good god that guy was awful on WFAN when they interviewed him! I was cringing in my car listening to it. I'm pretty sure the entire tri-state area thinks the Star Liar is run by 7 year olds who can't speak in to a telephone to answer some questions because they are scared out of their minds! I'm pretty sure he lost all credibilty because of it. Rumbing, bumbling, stumbling!
Of course it does. Leaks happen EVERYWHERE. And leaks are why something is "known" as a fact before the investigation is complete.
And if the motive for leaking is a disgruntled employee, perhaps he or she should be relieved of his/her duties and end his/her disgruntlement.
