hot topic
I'm sure by now many of you have been paying attention to the situation involving a rant by Oklahoma St. coach Mike Gundy regarding the column written by The Oklahoman's Jenni Carlson.
For those unaware, you can read Carlson's column here.
http://newsok.com/article/3131543
Gundy's reaction can be seen at espn.com among other places.
I support Gundy standing up for his players, as the article in question was a column criticizing the makeup of his quarterback. However, I disagree with Gundy's stance that Bobby Reid is a child, and therefore should not be criticized. I also take with a grain of salt anybody who says that college athletes should not be criticized because they are amateurs. The fact is Division I athletes usually receive a full scholarship to school, the approximate value of which is often above $100,000 over four years. It may not be a large "salary" but the fact is these players are paid, to an extent. Besides, they know what they are getting into when they accept that scholarship from a major program such as OSU. There is a lot of scrutiny.
With that said, Carlson's column, while an opinion piece, came off as stupid and a cheap attack. Her central point, insinuating that Reid's allowing his mother to feed him chicken outside the team bus after last week's loss represents some sort of character deficiency, is childish and lacks substance. I can't blame Gundy for getting upset that she would make such a statement.
Reading the article, it appears that Carlson decided she was going to rip Reid, and give her opinion that he does not have the right attitude to be a quarterback. She then needed an angle to take in the article, and jumped when she saw him being fed by his mother. But how she felt that connection was logical, relevant or appropriate I cannot understand.
It is too bad. Most of Carlson's article is acceptable, even if it is based largely on heresay and rumor. She never says that she is basing things on comments made on the record. She makes an opinion clear and should have allowed readers to decide whether or not they agree with her. It may not be a great argument on her part without specific examples to back her up, but other than the chicken comments, it should not have been an offensive one.
But she was too zealous in her approach, and now many readers reacting to it are categorizing the media in general based on her work.
One responder to the Oklahoman actually made it a political issue, by calling Carlson something to the extent of "another liberal reporter". I can't see how chicken eating has a side of the aisle, or for that matter criticizing a quarterback. If anything, Carlson's real-men-don't-get-fed-by-their-mommy's approach could be classified as somewhat conservative. But I think that's a stretch too.
In either case, I am disappointed that Carlson's unprofessional decision will make other sports reporters look bad, and I give Gundy credit for standing up to it the way he did, though I think his premise is a little off as well.
I'm curious what you think. Please comment, or e-mail. I really would love to start a dialogue here.
For those unaware, you can read Carlson's column here.
http://newsok.com/article/3131543
Gundy's reaction can be seen at espn.com among other places.
I support Gundy standing up for his players, as the article in question was a column criticizing the makeup of his quarterback. However, I disagree with Gundy's stance that Bobby Reid is a child, and therefore should not be criticized. I also take with a grain of salt anybody who says that college athletes should not be criticized because they are amateurs. The fact is Division I athletes usually receive a full scholarship to school, the approximate value of which is often above $100,000 over four years. It may not be a large "salary" but the fact is these players are paid, to an extent. Besides, they know what they are getting into when they accept that scholarship from a major program such as OSU. There is a lot of scrutiny.
With that said, Carlson's column, while an opinion piece, came off as stupid and a cheap attack. Her central point, insinuating that Reid's allowing his mother to feed him chicken outside the team bus after last week's loss represents some sort of character deficiency, is childish and lacks substance. I can't blame Gundy for getting upset that she would make such a statement.
Reading the article, it appears that Carlson decided she was going to rip Reid, and give her opinion that he does not have the right attitude to be a quarterback. She then needed an angle to take in the article, and jumped when she saw him being fed by his mother. But how she felt that connection was logical, relevant or appropriate I cannot understand.
It is too bad. Most of Carlson's article is acceptable, even if it is based largely on heresay and rumor. She never says that she is basing things on comments made on the record. She makes an opinion clear and should have allowed readers to decide whether or not they agree with her. It may not be a great argument on her part without specific examples to back her up, but other than the chicken comments, it should not have been an offensive one.
But she was too zealous in her approach, and now many readers reacting to it are categorizing the media in general based on her work.
One responder to the Oklahoman actually made it a political issue, by calling Carlson something to the extent of "another liberal reporter". I can't see how chicken eating has a side of the aisle, or for that matter criticizing a quarterback. If anything, Carlson's real-men-don't-get-fed-by-their-mommy's approach could be classified as somewhat conservative. But I think that's a stretch too.
In either case, I am disappointed that Carlson's unprofessional decision will make other sports reporters look bad, and I give Gundy credit for standing up to it the way he did, though I think his premise is a little off as well.
I'm curious what you think. Please comment, or e-mail. I really would love to start a dialogue here.
posted by Ryan Pipke at
8:32 PM
1 Comments:
About that column...I read the whole thing and found it lacking of anything worthwhile to print. Since when is getting fed chicken a statement of your character as a football player? Look at the Chunky soup commercials, all those players are being fed by their moms, are they not fit to play?
It's too bad because I'm hoping it won't mar women who are already in sports reporting who don't feel the need to comment on such idiotic things. The coach should not have flied off the handle the way he did, but the column should never have been printed in the first place. It didn't have any journalistic integrity whatsoever. I was embarrassed for her that she stood behind that. It's one thing to call out a player, but at least have sources to back it up, i.e. Tomase in Boston with his Manny story or Stearns i.e. Schill/Martinez feud. Sure, those guys took heat (Schill won't talk to Stearns anymore), but wouldn't you know? They turned out to be right. Manny did play those games, and it's obvious Pedro and Schill didn't get along, because Pedro left for more money despite being handed a fourth year by the Sox.
BTW: My mom still makes me dinner and (gasp) makes me lunch too. I guess I'm less of a woman and will go cry in the corner now according to this columnist.
That was a great blog you had, BTW.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home