Uhhhhhhhh.
Should WHOTV 13 have aired the Ferentz video?
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
S
Scorpio79
Guest
It's not. It's only four pages. Y U no change your settings, busaderp??
Edit: I didn't see Hoffa's poast. He beat me to it.
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
lol.....
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
Though I do understand why coaches get tired of certain BS
That still pretty much sums it up - especially the IOWA media; not exactly new york or boston here.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
I can only imagine if I was under as much scrutiny as a college foozeball coach. There are literally thousands of opportunities in a 14 year period to blow up. Doesn't matter howich you are paid we are all human. Even me
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
Jebus...apparently Murph and Andy are still discussing the Kirk F-Bomb on their show today. Hasn't the subject been beaten to death already?
You think they want to spend all week talking Iowa-Michigan or ISU-Kansas?
I bet you'd rather listen to Hey Tana or whatever that goons name is.
Be honest Jon, is the reason you wouldn't have shared it because you would put yourself at risk of losing your closeness and ties to the program, and not wanting to upset King Hawkeye?
It amazes me how many people now believe that if the media actually goes and looks for more information on a story, they are "creating the news", instead of just towing the company line and believing whatever is thrown out to them. No wonder nobody takes journalists serious anymore, I am so glad I got out of that as my field of study early enough to get into a nice, respected industry like mortgage underwriting!
Most accurate post in the whole thread.
Thawki
Well-Known Member
I kind of disagree, Jon, with your last sentence above. I believe there are some that are completely wrong.
When you ask someone to logically explain the thought process behind this sort of thing you might get an answer similar to Tork. When this guy that evidently writes for the DI explains it from a reporter's perspective, then everyone on here seems to listen to him and agree.
But if someone explains why they think it is an unfair question (while staying away from the should the camera have been on or not line of thought) you will get an answer that basically is something like, "That guy that I like so much shouldn't have to put up with that gotcha question." I believe that type of answer (and there are other types of answers similar to this that aren't based in logic) is absolutely wrong.
By the way, just because someone has a bad answer or looks bad when they answer a question, that doesn't make it a gotcha question. What makes it a gotcha question many times is when someone is unprepared or too stupid to properly answer a question. Then their defense is that it was an unfair or gotcha question. Then all of their peeps parrot those same comments and they all attempt to blame the reporter for just asking a reasonable question.
There are absolutely, positively a LOT of people who come here and other places who have no idea what the media does or what they are supposed to do. You see it when you hear people wine about how a columnist that has a job to editorialize isn't doing his or her job when they don't give equal time to both sides of a story. That obviously isn't the job of a columnist, whereas it probably is the duty of the beat writer, or in the news department a writer who is writing a story.
I will tell you one thing, and that is that the media had better do its job on this story. Our university is acting like Penn State when they clam up on something like this. If they want people like me and my friends to send our children to their school, then they damn well better not re-hire people that appear to have had these sorts of problems when they were around the first time. I personally would not blame anyone for hiring this guy the first time if they had no way of knowing he had the issues he seems maybe to have had. But when you let a guy leave a job without firing him or properly tracking his inappropriate actions when he was here, then you let him get hired somewhere else or worse yet (if that is possible in this context) rehired at Iowa, then you have not done something that is not just your job but your moral obligation.
Think about this. If he is guilty of the things that are being said and they just let him go, they would have possibly let him go and he might go on to do the sorts of things Sandusky did and the administration at Iowa, by not doing their job properly, would have had a hand in enabling him. How does that sit with you?
The media doing their job keeps things like that from happening, whether you care to admit it or not. And I better get some good answers as to what went on here or I will be writing letters to the Sports Editor of the Register and to the Board of Regents and to President Mason. I might even attempt to make it to an event that Mason or Barta is at and ask them a question in public just to get under their skin and to get them to understand that if they don't want to be transparent then they are going to have to be uncomfortable doing it.
I said this when the Penn State story broke and I will say it now. Our school is only as good as the people that we hire to run it. At Penn State they hired some people that appear to have at bare minimum looked the other way and at the worst covered up for serial rapist and child abuser and allowed him to perpetrate his crimes for years.
We had all better hope that our school hired people that, for whatever reason, show better leadership and judgement. If they haven't or don't we may very well find ourselves feeling like a PSU fan in more ways than one.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Whether you thought it right, wrong or indifferent on it, one thing is certain; Iowa has just said that On the Side sessions are done. This is why.
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
What a cop out by the U.
I'm sorry but if I were a media member I'd throw some extra icey questions this week just to **** him off.
I'm sorry but if I were a media member I'd throw some extra icey questions this week just to **** him off.
What was the point of them anyway? It's not like the question were different from what KF got asked during his normal presser.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
Actual most of the more pointed questions were always asked in this spot, and away from TV cameras. That was my opinion...regardless of whether or not that is fact, it usually provided the best answers
tubahawk
Well-Known Member
Bad, bad move by the University for many reasons;
1. It gives an impression there is/was something to hide.
2. Though no fault of their own it punishes the fans by reducing their "access" to the program.
3. It makes KF look petty at best and like a cry baby at worse.
4. Less access means less media exposure. At some point that lack of exposure hurts in the form of fewer fans.
1. It gives an impression there is/was something to hide.
2. Though no fault of their own it punishes the fans by reducing their "access" to the program.
3. It makes KF look petty at best and like a cry baby at worse.
4. Less access means less media exposure. At some point that lack of exposure hurts in the form of fewer fans.
