Rumor Mill

Joshbrown

Well-Known Member
I say good if they saw it, took offense, and wanted it taken down. At least that means our voices are being heard and making people uncomfortable. That is about as good as a group of deranged fans can ask for.

When things are going well attendance tends to be high and message boards tend to be positive. Iowa is operating below its potential so you get what you currently have.
 

cockyhawkfan

Well-Known Member
Yawn - I was hoping for a rumor about someone on the basketball team, sleeping with a teammates girlfriend. Or how the transfer of Christian Williams has caused a division between the staff and the players, which is why we suck so bad this year. I want some real juicy juice. We need TMZ to start covering Iowa basketball. Now THAT would be entertaining! :)
 

revkev73

Well-Known Member
What a cataclysmic tragedy to get kicked out of press conferences put on by Kirk and Fran...all that insight, unconscious free flow of thoughts, openness, accountability, a plan for change...designed to inform all of Hawkeyedom...and one can't hear it anymore...or ask marshmallow questions... What a great loss...
 

Joshbrown

Well-Known Member
If I valued your opinion, I would be bothered by your statement. I don't, so I'm not.

You think I'm attacking you? Iowans tend to be more compliant than other fan bases. Maybe they've always been super-forgiving. I'd have to research it. HN is reasonable
 

RobHowe

Administrator
You think I'm attacking you? Iowans tend to be more compliant than other fan bases. Maybe they've always been super-forgiving. I'd have to research it. HN is reasonable

No. Not attacking me. It was critical of the local Iowa sports media of which I've been a part for over 20 years. Compliant is not a compliment in this case. It's another way to suggest the media is in step with the U. Some have claimed it's because the media fears losing access. It's just not the case.
 

homes

Well-Known Member
I'm saying the sweeping narrative that if you write something negative you're going to be in trouble with UI and face action against you, specifically losing your credentials and access to the coaches and players is BS.
That the Iowa press has been soft on criticism of Iowa sports has been a narrative that has been around forever. Iowa is never going to be NY, or Chicago or LA when it comes to that. However, there are differences between being a) compliant, b) being critical and c) being an a**hole. C is no better than A in my opinion. My guess is there are columns written that never make it to publication, but are cathartic just to write them down. There are also differences between being a reporter and being an opinion writer, although you might not believe that when reading the news these days. Media staffs in Iowa probably don't have the budget to employ both as it relates just to sports, so you have to find the sweet spot. I'm sure it's not as easy as it seems as we type under pseudonyms.
 

Joshbrown

Well-Known Member
No. Not attacking me. It was critical of the local Iowa sports media of which I've been a part for over 20 years. Compliant is not a compliment in this case. It's another way to suggest the media is in step with the U. Some have claimed it's because the media fears losing access. It's just not the case.

Okay fine. I'm wrong. People view things differently. Some reporter did recently point out a former player who questioned the defense. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems in major markets the media is brutal on local amateur and professional sports. Emphasis on professional. So my time living in major markets has altered my perspective.
 

mopkins

King Kong
You know as well as everyone else that the media is compliant. Been that way for a long time. Started not too long after Lute split the scene imo.

Maybe compliant is a stronger word than I'd use, but I do think a lot of the media is hesitant to ask tough questions...whether its fear of retribution or not I'm not sure. I guess if it was fear then maybe that would count as compliant.
 

RobHowe

Administrator
Tough questions are asked. Maybe not with as much fire and brimstone as some folks would like, but they are asked in what I would describe as a professional manner. They usually aren't answered.

I think it's fair to say the media in Iowa is different than it is in Chicago, NY, LA, etc. I do think covering college athletes is different than pro athletes, which is a big part of it.

I also don't believe this is unique to Iowa. When things are less than optimal, the media becomes part of the grieving process.

I know I won't convince people of it, although I'll probably continue trying, but the media, in general, is not afraid of UI.
 

SheagleHawk

Well-Known Member
Maybe compliant is a stronger word than I'd use, but I do think a lot of the media is hesitant to ask tough questions...whether its fear of retribution or not I'm not sure. I guess if it was fear then maybe that would count as compliant.

How else would you explain the never-ending softballs KF and staff get, even in crap years? No doubt it's true. Either that or local media is awful at sports journalism.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that Fry got asked some tough questions and he'd respond in his way that could make the question look stupid. Olson seemed to handle things with grace, but if I remember right, he didn't leave without a few parting shots. Not nasty, but made a point.

Media has changed period. With the change from newsprint, advertisers are more sensitive about public opinion. The older generations (older boomers and older) still read print news and there isn't a lot of profit to lose so they are more sensitive. Online is a different egg, but still have to go face to face.

Investigative journalism isn't really done much anymore.
 

Hawk5656

Well-Known Member
Tough questions are asked. Maybe not with as much fire and brimstone as some folks would like, but they are asked in what I would describe as a professional manner. They usually aren't answered.

I think it's fair to say the media in Iowa is different than it is in Chicago, NY, LA, etc. I do think covering college athletes is different than pro athletes, which is a big part of it.

I also don't believe this is unique to Iowa. When things are less than optimal, the media becomes part of the grieving process.

I know I won't convince people of it, although I'll probably continue trying, but the media, in general, is not afraid of UI.

I don't necessarily agree with that but I don't think it's that uncommon for a Midwestern college. I understand your point but also understand why others think the media is scared of the university. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle in my opinion.
 

Joshbrown

Well-Known Member
Tough questions are asked. Maybe not with as much fire and brimstone as some folks would like, but they are asked in what I would describe as a professional manner. They usually aren't answered.

I think it's fair to say the media in Iowa is different than it is in Chicago, NY, LA, etc. I do think covering college athletes is different than pro athletes, which is a big part of it.

I also don't believe this is unique to Iowa. When things are less than optimal, the media becomes part of the grieving process.

I know I won't convince people of it, although I'll probably continue trying, but the media, in general, is not afraid of UI.

Would like to ask you a question that bifurcates the media.
You have traditional brick and mortar media. Been around for centuries.
You also have the new paradigm with upstart internet.

If I'm a newspaper I listen to and occasionally print fan opinions.
But if I'm a website with message boards, things are more raw. Now a pay-portion of the website affects my business model. I need to keep these folks happy. I also would like lots of traffic for advertising revenue. So a wild west approach isn't all bad.
How does HN (or any other site you've been a part of) balance it's business model? Does Kakert ever feel pressure from Yahoo sports (owned by Verizon) regarding the editorial content on his website? Did Foxsports/CBS intervene on scout?
Genuinely curious.
 

tksirius

HN's Love Doctor
But that was the accusation that started this thread and fed the tired narrative of the media being controlled by the U.

Tom is a friend and I trust he's telling the truth. How he runs his board is his business. And it's not an easy exercise.
I don't want to get into an argument about it, but I visited his board during the Eno situation and Blair and Tom were not only being less than honest about it, they were defaming a 17 year old kid's character without merit.
 

RobHowe

Administrator
I think the trouble is when we talk in generalities or use stereotypes. Tough questions are asked in a professional manner. I don't see anything wrong with that but the consumer does like in-your-face sports "media" in the form of the talking head shows on the sports networks. I don't get why people watch those shows, but they do. And then there's sports talk radio guys. Most of these people never set foot in press conferences.

And there is good investigative journalism out there. The Indy Star and Detroit News would be two recent examples of strong investigative sports journalism in the Nassar case. There aren't as many investigative journalists because the business is continually losing jobs. That should worry people but it doesn't. Too many people are concerned with discrediting news agencies by simply yelling "Fake News" if they don't like it.

*steps off soapbox.
 

Joshbrown

Well-Known Member
I think the trouble is when we talk in generalities or use stereotypes. Tough questions are asked in a professional manner. I don't see anything wrong with that but the consumer does like in-your-face sports "media" in the form of the talking head shows on the sports networks. I don't get why people watch those shows, but they do. And then there's sports talk radio guys. Most of these people never set foot in press conferences.

And there is good investigative journalism out there. The Indy Star and Detroit News would be two recent examples of strong investigative sports journalism in the Nassar case. There aren't as many investigative journalists because the business is continually losing jobs. That should worry people but it doesn't. Too many people are concerned with discrediting news agencies by simply yelling "Fake News" if they don't like it.

*steps off soapbox.

Nothing wrong with a take from a personal perspective. But as a professional, with what you've witnessed first-hand, is it fair to say that the msm has morphed into "tabloidization" in a way that is not healthy? Maybe a consequence that began with the 24/7 news cycle that became reality in the 1980s?
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
You know as well as everyone else that the media is compliant. Been that way for a long time. Started not too long after Lute split the scene imo.

You say the media started being compliant after Lute left? Can you give me some examples of how they were defiant while he was here? My guess is you have no idea when or if the media ever became more compliant. You just chose that particular time in history because it helps paint a picture that the media becoming compliant is the reason for the downfall of Iowa basketball. If we were on the football board, I'm sure you would have said the media became compliant shortly after Fry left.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I don't want to get into an argument about it, but I visited his board during the Eno situation and Blair and Tom were not only being less than honest about it, they were defaming a 17 year old kid's character without merit.

As opposed to defaming a kid over a tweet like you do?
 

Latest posts

Top