Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
Why is that the case for the reporter or the editor? If that is what the coach said that is what the coach said.
I remember some years ago a coach once said that the "IHSA set us up to lose" or something to that fact and said this after a win in the playoffs. Then the coach accused the IHSA of taking officials of a certain race and suggesting that they were bias towards his team that one. And in the game, the coach's team missed like 7 or 8 FTs down the stretch and made a game close. The coach never mentioned that, but the reporter did. And the reporter gave a rather good description of the final minutes and included stats.
If a coach is going to say that, they need to be shown for their comments. Maybe more context should have been shown, but that is their job to state what is said on the record. And the article made it clear he was not just criticizing the officials, but the person that assigned them there. I think that is brilliant on many levels. The coach is the only one to blame in this case.
Peace
|
Reporters decide - on a regular basis - what to include and exclude from their articles. This reported did not need to include those comments in an article congratulating a different Coach on his 600th win. The reporter included those comments, imho, in order to create more "buzz" and get more people to read his article. By including those comments, the reporter put stuff out there about those refs and that assignor. That makes the reporter and his editors asshats too.