The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.
But more than her firing, I was upset at the fact they suggested it was because she was not being an Arkansas homer as opposed to the generic fact she had on any hat.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Beyond that, there are absolutely differences in the goals of the news coverage between independent news sources, like a daily newspaper, and a news source that chooses to function as an adjunct to the program it's covering. To pull one example out of the many at hand, in the late 1980s, the Lexington Herald-Leader broke the stories about UK rules violations. Cats' Pause wouldn't have done it in a million years. They wouldn't have had a subscriber left, if the publishers were left alive to care. Those kinds of sites and publications cover the team, but the perspective is that of being on the team's side. They don't claim to be unbiased, their readers don't want them to be unbiased, and the school doesn't want them to be unbiased.
"Biased yet professional" may be an oxymoron, but people have been doing business on those terms for decades and it's not going away.
Not all who wander are lost
Trust me when I say that I know the territory sites like Cats' Pause operate under. I know that setup intimately well, and as I said to Boston, I don't deny that the fanbase is perfectly happy being spoonfed biased reporting. But customers shouldn't set the standards for ethical business. Heck, one of the UK sites also got busted for recruiting violations and to be perfectly honest, many UK fans were OK with that because it showed the site was 'loyal' to the university.
What we're discussing is two different philsophies: what happens versus what should happen. What you're saying is true from a practical standpoint that there is often a different standard applied to expectations for a team/fan site and how it operates. But I'm saying the rules should still apply equally to these sites and I see no justification for them operating beyond those boundaries.
Yeah, I think we just fundamentally disagree.
Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13
University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
Cincinnati Bengals - None
Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98
Anyway, "the minute we started" is pretty much the beginning of human history. The notion of reporting events without having a dog in the fight is way younger than the printing press, and even after it became the de facto standard for daily newspapers, glasses-tinted and advocate publications never went away. Even within respected journalism, there's room for opinion in the form of columns and editorials. The key is that it's properly labeled as such. That's why the in-betweens, as I've referred to them, don't generally bother me -- for the most part, they're properly labeled. We know what we're getting and we're free to consume it or not.
So, no, professionalism is not solely a matter of being unbiased. If School Z Illustrated guys follow the proper rules of engagement and honestly represent themselves and their publication, no one at School Z will have a problem with them. Of course, the difference between School Z Illustrated and Hometown Z Daily may become clear enough when they want to interview someone at University X.
Not all who wander are lost
There is a stigma to these sites, and quite frankly, it upsets me for the good people that do things ethically and work hard, just to have other School Z Illustrated sites ruin it for them. However, I also can't blame the schools--the ones that are reluctant to credential these sites--for being concerned. Frankly, some of these sites have no business being credentialed if they're not going to operate as a professional, unbiased organization.
Unfortunately, as you are alluding to, there's no magical bureau or oversight system in place to hold these people to a higher standard. But if they lost their credentials until they started behaving properly, I think you'd see a much better change in their practices.
Now, as far as this:
"Even within respected journalism, there's room for opinion in the form of columns and editorials. The key is that it's properly labeled as such. That's why the in-betweens, as I've referred to them, don't generally bother me -- for the most part, they're properly labeled. We know what we're getting and we're free to consume it or not."
I think this used to be the case, but in today's watered down mix of blogs, social media, websites and crossover sites/magazines/newspapers, the days of clearly labeling an editorial versus a report has gone away. Even in AP stories these day, it's quite often you'll see a few throwaway lines of commentary in a news report. Some reporters will report on an event and include their own opinions within the same report. It didn't used to be that way (and that's not even approaching blogs). It used to be, as you said, a clear and separate commentary was published in an opinion section which was clearly labeled. Oh sure, the newspapers still have an editorial section, but a ton of lazy "journalists" are throwing opinions into factual reports. It's sloppy.
I could see firing her if she was wearing a 'Bama hat, but not Florida.
I'm thinking there's more to this story.
People aren't so careless (taking a Gator hat to a press conference) or so short-sighted (firing someone competent over wearing said hat), even in Arkansas.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
For various reasons, none of them involving me being important in any way, I have a little experience in the area. I used to be an employee of Hometown Z Daily, and I got to know guys at School Z Illustrated, a publication that's been around since the 1970s. Some of my friends have worked at both HZD and SZI over the years. And I have an awareness of how certain people at School Z view the various blogs and websites covering the team. I get what you mean with respect to, just because they're waving our colors doesn't mean we're going to let them hang around.
Nonetheless, even though HZD and SZI ultimately serve different constituencies and have different ultimate objectives in covering the team, there is no difference -- getting back to the original context of the discussion -- in the expectations of School Z with respect to the professional conduct of those given access to the team, be it press conferences or post-game locker-room interviews or hanging out at practice. Meeting those standards doesn't require SZI to be unbiased, but it does require their reporters to know how to comport themselves.
Not all who wander are lost
article with video
There may be a little more to the story. She may have made a couple of statements on Facebook and/or Twitter that her employers objected to. But still,
1. Petrino should never have never made a comment like that, except maybe in jest.
2. The school should have never asked her to skip Monday's practice, for a cooling off period.
3. The radio station should not have fired her. Why didn't they talk to her, warn her if necessary?
A lot of people "behaved badly" here.