|
|
By Jordan Martin
SouthernPigskin Columnist
SouthernPigskin Columnist Jordan Martin talks about sports journalism in the modern age. Follow us on Twitter at Twitter.com/SouthernPigskin. Become a fan of us on Facebook at the SouthernPigskin.com Facebook Page
The information age has been good to us. Gone are the days where you're unable to contact someone if you leave your home. Newspapers and magazines are outdated almost as quickly as they're printed, and the internet and television afford us news and updates almost as instantly as they reach someone's ear. However, it has come with a price.
The information we get today is so fast, and is in such demand to be fast, that most individuals don't take the time to research and investigate fully before reporting. As a result, the viewer/reader accepts the loss of thorough investigation for quick news, and generally this doesn't spark any questioning or suspicion. With that being said, and referring more specifically to the college football world, one of the premier sources for information is ESPN. There are various sites and publications on the internet, including ESPN's own site, along with Scout.com, Rivals.com and others that hold the same kind of responsibility to be primary sources. I have noticed a trend recently with all of the aforementioned that when breaking a story or reporting on a lead, the material and reports tend to be very vague with little to substantiate it or beyond a reasonable doubt confirm the legitimacy of it.
That is lazy journalism, ladies and gentleman. Taking a source with an established name or even minor affiliation and printing or stating their cases as news is, in fact, not news. It is rumor mongering. Breaking a story only to wait until more develop is a good way to tantalize and captivate an audience, but it doesn't deliver when it comes to affirmation of fact. The responsibility of the audience is to openly question what they see and are being told at all times. Even if the wrong questions are being asked, it will provoke someone else to think, and ask their own questions. It becomes a ripple effect that leaves the media backtracking for answers they don't have at their disposal. Again, that requires the pressure of inquisition.
I have a few, albeit major examples that have occurred over the past few months which have prompted me to write this article, and will illustrate the points I am trying to make.
My suspicions all began with the Mark Mangino fiasco. Now let's get one thing very clear. I am not here to redeem or clear this man's name. It's been noted since Mangino became Kansas' head coach in 2002, that he was verbally abusive, and perhaps even physically. There's a video floating around on the internet that shows Mangino abrasively reprimanding one of his players with a profanity laden tirade. So I'm well aware that much is likely. However, and regardless whether it is right or wrong, that is no different than I've seen coaches around the country swear, yell and at times smack a player on the helmet or pads in the heat of the moment to get his point across fully.
There's no excuse for being hurtful or being completely ignorant. There is a difference. For instance, former Kansas receiver Raymond Brown was quoted as being told by Mangino "If you don't shut up, I'm going to send you back to St. Louis so you can get shot with your homies." That is inexcusable. Incidents like that usually are not isolated, but the extremes to which they are cast is quite another case. Because of the severe nature of that incident, any incident prior or following, was regarded in the same fashion. When Mangino would punish or single out a player thereafter, he had the university and the media breathing down his neck. When the story has spin on it and when you use adjectives like "torturous" or "exotic" when describing any of his acts of discipline and combine that with a handful of extreme examples, of course he'll be villainized. Yes, he is guilty of doing it to himself and he should have been punished for the times when he did cross the line. I cannot, however, believe that he was purely wrong and bad 100% of the time as he was made to be following his resignation.
When the media got hold of the story, particularly ESPN, every ex-player that had an ax to grind came out of the woodwork and told the story the way they were "inspired" to. Only one set of questions were asked to one set of people. "Just how bad is Mangino?" "What did he do to YOU personally to make you feel this way?" In the interest of keeping the blindfold on lady justice and the scales from being tipped, would it not have been fair to ask an equal amount of questions to the same amount of people in his defense? Perhaps defense isn't even the proper term, how about an impartial witness to clarify the situation or to discuss the full spectrum of the man's methods?
I can't emphasize this enough, I don't think Mangino was in the right, but I'm ashamed that the media was not fair in their investigation and delivery. Some of these stories could have been exaggerated through the magic of paraphrase and tonality of one's recollection. Do I know that these stories weren't all true down to the core? No. But I do know no one asked that question, at the very least, it wasn't brought to the same light as the negative questions being asked, and that's what bothers me.
Here's the kicker. Certainly the university was aware of these actions before, but as long as they were winning, they had a rug they could sweep that dirt under. A 12-1 record and a BCS victory over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl at the conclusion of the 2007 season was proof of that, and it even gave Mangino a hefty raise and contract extension through 2012. Well, an 8-5 record in 2008 and a 5-7 record this past season showed a steady decline on what the university expected to be better returns on their investment. Still the man had three years left on a high gravity contract where they would have to pay him an exorbitant amount of money on his buyout. But wait! What's this? There seems to be controversy surrounding the coach...he's berating and "abusing" his players! Jackpot!
Of course that's not how it went down, and the university doesn't need a black eye like that for itself or its football program. However, it was part of the process. If it wasn't that same information that was brought to light following the initial report would have met deaf ears and blind eyes in 2007. What I'm saying is, the university officials openly facilitated and allowed the media to essentially bury this man's reputation for the general public and it allowed them to easily dispose of him, with an ultimatum, "resign or be fired." Now Mangino did receive a settlement of $3 million dollars, which is worth more than what he would have had to do in court, and neither party wanted that. However, it's certainly less than his buyout would have been had it not been for these events.
So now there is a rubric set. Don't believe me? Well, look at the succession of Jim Leavitt and Mike Leach's respective terminations. Do those situations not mirror what I've stated above? Both coaches elevated their schools to a high level of success and received gaudy bonuses because of that, but when they didn't meet the perceived expectations written as the numbers on their checks, they were gone. It was no secret Mike Leach and Texas Tech athletic director Gerald Myers had a strained relationship. In Leavitt's case, the team has held high expectations and has even been ranked as high as #2 in the nation, before falling short and never winning the Big East title, year in and year out.
The details for these individuals were even more general and vague than they were in Mangino's case. It seemed like no one was on the same page when it came down to exactly what happened to Adam James, and once again ex-players stepped forward to talk about how they were berated and belittled, etc. etc. In the case of Jim Leavitt, almost 3 weeks after the incident, news broke that Leavitt struck player Joel Miller on the sideline twice and grabbed him by the throat. Now again, I'm not defending Leavitt, but I've heard cases from witnesses where he slapped him, punched him, grabbed his throat, didn't grab his throat, or didn't even strike him as severely as some accounts detailed, at all. The story dropped, and resurfaced once more following the firing of Mike Leach, where Jim Leavitt, himself, was fired. Both men were fired before the completion of a thorough investigation. They are both taking their respective schools to court over the matter.
The question is, "Why after 13 years with USF and after 10 years with Texas Tech is this coming to fruition now?" You generally find these incidents are not isolated. If they happen once, they've probably happened before. In which case, as I've stated, they've been guarded or protected, or the severity of the issue was nothing of true consequence.
Could all of these men have spun their accounts to counter what was being said about them? I'm certain of it. Most of that derived from being taken by surprise and reacting as such. Maybe these men had an ego that they believed granted them immunity. Moreover, it's clear they were guilty of something, but what it was they were guilty of, exactly and precisely, was never clearly defined.
At the end of the day, my grievance is not that these coaches were fired, but the mishandling of information which led to their firing (or resignation in Mangino's case). Because Leach and Mangino had very large contracts and the team was not performing to par with those contracts, and because Leavitt could not get the Bulls "over the hump" these men were on a hot seat, but they couldn't be fired with buyouts like that simply based on a few losses. These universities in these trying economic times could not afford to do that. By turning the other cheek, allowing the media to make their mint on controversial stories, they could step in as heroic enforcers, thereby eliminating their dilemma without emptying their pockets.
All I have to say at the end of this is YOU, the fan, the viewer, the reader, have the ability to take this information as it is and as you want it to be. You also have the ability to think for yourself. No matter the circumstance or situation, always keep your mind open and consider all of the possible questions and search for those answers. Even in my own article, there may be some opinions I've shared you don't agree with, and that's fine. I welcome that. I don't take it upon myself to educate or sway anyone, but I do want to get people thinking and talking. With that being said, keep your eyes, ears, mouth and mind open.
.....
Share your thoughts on the SouthernPigskin.com Message Boards or email Jordan Martin at
Stories written by SouthernPigskin.com columnists are done independently. Views do not always coincide with those of the remainder of the staff or the ownership of SouthernPigskin.com.
|
Comments
Really good article. I’ve been thinking and saying the same thing. So much bullcrap anymore you can’t tell what’s rumor or facts. Then when you add all the copy cats trying to fill space.
Make Yourself Heard
|
|
