Bobby Hauck was a class act with student reporters

[BadlandsGrizFan]

All good, except for the part about Montana being Div. 2.

Ya I quit reading after that because obviously this journalist doesnt know dick.

 

[astutegriz]

I'm willing to concede Hauck had a much better relationship with the UNLV media and that makes me hopeful. But let's also be real here: This column is a fan column, not a piece of journalism. Now, you guys want and fan column and that's ok. I get it. You're fans. I'm a Griz fan too! But if a reporter turned this in to me, no matter what coach it was about, I'd ask for a little more objectivity here. This is a reporter gushing over a coach. Respect is what you want, not fawning. The same standard that you'd cover any public official. If a student reporter wrote this about a coach we didn't like, it would be torn to shreds as being naive.

Whatever your feelings about Gwen are, I'll put the UM j-school's rep up against any it's size. I hear they produced a halfway decent national magazine writer who covers football and golf for ESPN. Can't spell, but has done ok. Lot of alums working at prominent media orgs. Lot if men and women doing great work and telling the j-school well that you should be proud of.

So, you mention it needs a little more objectivity. Would you agree the Missoulian article needed more objectivity?

 

[Silvertip]

Division II ?...or is it 1-AA ?...or maybe Football Championship whatchacallit ?...hell, the Vegas scribes still don't know yet where Hauck came from :!: I think The Rodney Dangerfield crowd about covers it...

 

[Yossarian3345]

I'm willing to concede Hauck had a much better relationship with the UNLV media and that makes me hopeful. But let's also be real here: This column is a fan column, not a piece of journalism. Now, you guys want and fan column and that's ok. I get it. You're fans. I'm a Griz fan too! But if a reporter turned this in to me, no matter what coach it was about, I'd ask for a little more objectivity here. This is a reporter gushing over a coach. Respect is what you want, not fawning. The same standard that you'd cover any public official. If a student reporter wrote this about a coach we didn't like, it would be torn to shreds as being naive.

Whatever your feelings about Gwen are, I'll put the UM j-school's rep up against any it's size. I hear they produced a halfway decent national magazine writer who covers football and golf for ESPN. Can't spell, but has done ok. Lot of alums working at prominent media orgs. Lot if men and women doing great work and telling the j-school well that you should be proud of.

So, you mention it needs a little more objectivity. Would you agree the Missoulian article needed more objectivity?

The one that Kato wrote? I wouldn't have taken anything out, but I certainly would have requested (as an editor) some things be added. Context. What happened with each charge. Tried to get some comment from some of the people involved. All those things happened. No one can dispute that. But they could have, and perhaps should have, been a part of a larger story discussing Hauck's entire tenure, the high and stumbles, how the community reacted, people supporting him and people expressing conflicted feelings, a summary of what Hauck's reaction was at the time (and as someone who went back and read the story of the armed robbery, I can tell you Hauck was quoted strongly condemning what happened, so that should have been included). My main feeling was that story probably needed more time and effort, considering how volatile it was bound to be. Some people here don't want ANY discussion of what happened back then. That's silly. If I'm a parent in Ennis or Helena or Choteau and I'm thinking of sending my 17-year-old daughter to Missoula for college, spending $70,000 over the next four years, I certainly want to know how the university is going to handle athletes who break the law and treat their fellow students. That's important stuff to discuss, but yes, Hauck absolutely deserves fairness, and I think that's more than a summary of things that happened even if they're all factual. That's why you should support good journalism! If you don't like the Missoulian, support it elsewhere. I think the Missoulian is doing is best with the financial constraints Lee Enterprises puts it under. (Spoiler: I'm not a fan of Lee, nor do I understand how any journalist could be.) I think we all wish there were more media companies within the state committed to journalism. It's essential.

P.S. The Billings Gazette story where Colt Anderson said nice things about Hauck actually IS part of the Missoulian's coverage. It's not some conspiracy to only have out-of-town reporters do nice Hauck stories. That's how Lee works; they pool their resources and share their content. I'm sure the Missoulian knew that piece was scheduled to run IN THEIR PAPER the following day because the sports editors of both papers had most likely discussed that they would both run it, and were both happy to have it be part of their coverage.

Sometimes in the media business, I think our biggest problem is we don't explain ourselves better.

 

[mondayamqb]

Y3345. Appreciate your well constructed posts. First to get my attention was when, it appears, you believe Griz football grew and benefited from the growth period of the institution. Academic folk argue that. Others believe enrollment follows football success. Now. During the time of Hauck's Kiamin debacle the J school brought in a guest lecturer whose claim to fame was baiting NFL coaches at press conferences, leading to is availability that semester.....because he couldn't get a job. The Kiamin wanna-bes surprised Hauck using his style and Hauck reacted poorly to it. I'm happy to hear both are currently doing well. Long term, I believe it is better to have a mutually respectful relationship with the folks you're covering. Hauck has learned. I hope your buddies do.

 

[GrizLA]

Look, all due respect to UNLV, and I'm not dismissing this reporters experience, but UNLV doesn't have a particularly renown journalism school. Nor do they have any track record of producing great journalists. Did they have to ask him any difficult questions? Was this one reporter's account representative of his entire interaction with the media? Is this reporter still in journalism? These are all fair questions to ask. Repeatedly using this one student column as a rebuttal to every Hauck media interaction isn't quite the silver bullet it's believed to be. It's a good case that should be factored in! It's also just one column.

You guys who are pushing so hard for Hauck's return should maybe also be pushing Hauck to handle these situations better, since real journalist are going to have to cover the program as journalists, not homers.

All of that can be true at the same time it can also be true that with no student athlete legal issues, or student media problems at UNLV, maybe Hauck isn’t the same guy he used to be.

While Yossarian isn't necessarily acting as a journalist here, he seems to just have his view, which I think is incomplete and biased, and he's sticking to it. Not willing to look at later data. Not willing to have an open mind. Just wants to downplay or attack the later evidence and its sources (just like some do on egriz). But egrizzers tend to be advocates. We don't have to be balanced. Too many journalists have moved in that biased/opinion direction, and a lot of people don't like or appreciate that. Thus, there's been a continuing decline in respect for journalists in general.

Only to those whose "facts" differ from yours. The son stop attacks on one of the most vital elements of our democracy is largely responsible for the growing divisions in this country. There are, indeed, strongly opinionated reporters, but most, in my own experience, report facts and separate them from opinion.

 

[Yossarian3345]

Y3345. Appreciate your well constructed posts. First to get my attention was when, it appears, you believe Griz football grew and benefited from the growth period of the institution. Academic folk argue that. Others believe enrollment follows football success. Now. During the time of Hauck's Kiamin debacle the J school brought in a guest lecturer whose claim to fame was baiting NFL coaches at press conferences, leading to is availability that semester.....because he couldn't get a job. The Kiamin wanna-bes surprised Hauck using his style and Hauck reacted poorly to it. I'm happy to hear both are currently doing well. Long term, I believe it is better to have a mutually respectful relationship with the folks you're covering. Hauck has learned. I hope your buddies do.

So ... none of this is remotely accurate. Literally none of it. No idea where it came from, but it seems some Griz fans have developed their own legend that is based in literally zero facts while at the same time insisting on "accuracy!" from the media.

The Pollner guest lecturer that year was Chris Jones, who was a staff writer for Esquire and ESPN The Magazine. When the Kaimin asked Hauck several times why the players were out of the lineup after that fight, and Hauck reacted the way he did — "you're done for the day and you'll be done for the year if you keep asking me about the same thing i've answered four f---ing times" -- Chris waited until the press conference was over and asked to speak privately with Hauck, saying hey, he was with ESPN, can we discuss this? These are students here. Hauck obliged, surprised someone from ESPN was there. They disagreed on how the question was handled, Hauck continued to be mad, and so Chris told the Kaimin they should do what journalists go, return to every press conference and continue asking questions. Hauck refused to answer them, even ones about football. These things happen in regular team/media interactions, but they don't drag on for months until the university president intervenes and says "enough."

Chris has never baited an NFL coach into a confrontation, and I'm not certain he's ever even been in an NFL post-game press conference. Chris won two national magazine awards (the equivalent of a Pulitzer for magazines) for Esquire stories that weren't even about sports. He now writes for Wired and The New York Times Magazine. He's one of the most widely-respected longform writers in the business.

It's like some of you think Skip Bayless was advising the Kaimin that year, instead of a magazine writer who at first tried to defuse the situation, and when Hauck got angry the students didn't bend the knee, Chris simply told them to keep doing their jobs and continue covering the football team. It was a good professional lesson, I'd say.

 

[SoldierGriz]

I could give a shit about anything written above ^^^ except:

"some Griz fans have developed their own legend that is based in literally zero facts while at the same time insisting on "accuracy!" from the media."

Ummmm.....I think it's reasonable to expect accuracy from the media. Fans are fanatical and by definition not sane most of the time. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Fahque]

Look, all due respect to UNLV, and I'm not dismissing this reporters experience, but UNLV doesn't have a particularly renown journalism school. Nor do they have any track record of producing great journalists. Did they have to ask him any difficult questions? Was this one reporter's account representative of his entire interaction with the media? Is this reporter still in journalism? These are all fair questions to ask. Repeatedly using this one student column as a rebuttal to every Hauck media interaction isn't quite the silver bullet it's believed to be. It's a good case that should be factored in! It's also just one column.

You guys who are pushing so hard for Hauck's return should maybe also be pushing Hauck to handle these situations better, since real journalist are going to have to cover the program as journalists, not homers.

Or were UM’s journalists just pushy spoiled brats?

 

[Yossarian3345]

Um nope.

 

[Yossarian3345]

I could give a shit about anything written above ^^^ except:

"some Griz fans have developed their own legend that is based in literally zero facts while at the same time insisting on "accuracy!" from the media."

Ummmm.....I think it's reasonable to expect accuracy from the media. Fans are fanatical and by definition not sane most of the time. Apples and Oranges.

Agree that it's absolutely essentially for the media to get the facts right.

That still doesn't mean fans should spread total fabrications to try and shape the opinions of other fans. Now that I've cleared up what was really true of UM's guest lecturer that year, you guys can weigh the actual facts and share them as you see fit.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

.... That still doesn't mean fans should spread total fabrications to try and shape the opinions of other fans. Now that I've cleared up what was really true of UM's guest lecturer that year, you guys can weigh the actual facts and share them as you see fit.

Why not? Apparently newspapers *cough*missoulian*cough* can (and DO). It should go both ways as well - see the "petition" that was started by a local concerned citizen about the dangers of hiring Hauck. Shouldn't that person be held accountable and not allowed to "shape the opinions of other fans" with the use of very flimsy "facts?" :?: :idea:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

"you're done for the day and you'll be done for the year if you keep asking me about the same thing i've answered four f---ing times".

IDK, I kinda think this is an appropriate response if it had already been asked and answered four times. I don't know this specific situation, but I really like it when a coach or athlete bodybags a reporter who is acting like a douche. The TJ Simers Jim Mora interactions were great, and I think factored into Simers getting canned by the Times, but not sure.

I don't know the first thing about journalism, but I always assumed sports reporters were there to ask questions to get info for a story. If a coach doesn't want to answer the question, you have two options: (1) say that he declined to comment; or (2) say that he declined to comment, even though you thought your question was super duper fair, and the coach is a jerkstore, and used a potty word, and you can't believe he wouldn't want to kow tow to you even after you asked him four times, and he's just a meanie who doesn't appreciate you, and therefore hates all media, and threaten to tell mom.

Not sure which one sells more . . .

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

Look, all due respect to UNLV, and I'm not dismissing this reporters experience, but UNLV doesn't have a particularly renown journalism school. Nor do they have any track record of producing great journalists. Did they have to ask him any difficult questions? Was this one reporter's account representative of his entire interaction with the media? Is this reporter still in journalism? These are all fair questions to ask. Repeatedly using this one student column as a rebuttal to every Hauck media interaction isn't quite the silver bullet it's believed to be. It's a good case that should be factored in! It's also just one column.

You guys who are pushing so hard for Hauck's return should maybe also be pushing Hauck to handle these situations better, since real journalist are going to have to cover the program as journalists, not homers.

And you would classify Mr. Kato's article yesterday (which the Missoularag chose to put on the front page) as "great journalism"? If so, you should go back to your cubicle at the newspaper.... It was about as one-sided as it could be, with virtually no attempt to seek out the other side of the story. To their credit, they did pick up Greg Rachac's story (a Lee writer out of Billings), that did express other views. Why didn't the Missoulian choose to put that on the front page, 1A?

Amie Just is doing a great job for the Missoulian. For the most part, the sports reporters over the years have been good. However, there have been others at the paper who are perfect for the National Enquirer. The Missoulian is about as far as they can get from an unbiased source of information. They print their version of events. They refuse to print letters to the editor that take them to task for incorrect reporting. It is far from "great journalism".

Bobby wasn't great with media relations. However, perhaps he learned from his prior experience. Didn't seem to be too many problems that way in Las Vegas, where he faced far more criticism than in Missoula. There is also an article about that, but Mr. Kato obviously didn't bother to research that.

We get it. You don't like Bobby. You have that right. The Missoulian has the right not to cover the Griz. Maybe they should exercise that right. It would eliminate the only reason to read it anymore, and save us the 2 minutes it takes to scan for anything of interest.

You know, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean its not "good." It brought up a fair point. And in that case, it wasn't reporting, it was an opinion piece. And yes, that opinion does run counter the narrative on here.

I know it hurts to see UM talked about in such a way, but there times where it happens for a reason.

We like to say that there's two sides to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a side is fully in the wrong, and someone has to point that out.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Look, all due respect to UNLV, and I'm not dismissing this reporters experience, but UNLV doesn't have a particularly renown journalism school. Nor do they have any track record of producing great journalists. Did they have to ask him any difficult questions? Was this one reporter's account representative of his entire interaction with the media? Is this reporter still in journalism? These are all fair questions to ask. Repeatedly using this one student column as a rebuttal to every Hauck media interaction isn't quite the silver bullet it's believed to be. It's a good case that should be factored in! It's also just one column.

You guys who are pushing so hard for Hauck's return should maybe also be pushing Hauck to handle these situations better, since real journalist are going to have to cover the program as journalists, not homers.

And you would classify Mr. Kato's article yesterday (which the Missoularag chose to put on the front page) as "great journalism"? If so, you should go back to your cubicle at the newspaper.... It was about as one-sided as it could be, with virtually no attempt to seek out the other side of the story. To their credit, they did pick up Greg Rachac's story (a Lee writer out of Billings), that did express other views. Why didn't the Missoulian choose to put that on the front page, 1A?

Amie Just is doing a great job for the Missoulian. For the most part, the sports reporters over the years have been good. However, there have been others at the paper who are perfect for the National Enquirer. The Missoulian is about as far as they can get from an unbiased source of information. They print their version of events. They refuse to print letters to the editor that take them to task for incorrect reporting. It is far from "great journalism".

Bobby wasn't great with media relations. However, perhaps he learned from his prior experience. Didn't seem to be too many problems that way in Las Vegas, where he faced far more criticism than in Missoula. There is also an article about that, but Mr. Kato obviously didn't bother to research that.

We get it. You don't like Bobby. You have that right. The Missoulian has the right not to cover the Griz. Maybe they should exercise that right. It would eliminate the only reason to read it anymore, and save us the 2 minutes it takes to scan for anything of interest.

You know, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean its not "good." It brought up a fair point. And in that case, it wasn't reporting, it was an opinion piece. And yes, that opinion does run counter the narrative on here.

I think that's right. The Missoulian should have never run it as actual news. It was an opinion piece.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... You know, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean its not "good." It brought up a fair point. And in that case, it wasn't reporting, it was an opinion piece. And yes, that opinion does run counter the narrative on here.
...

I did not read the item ... but second-hand descriptions of it (on both sides) seem to confirm your description of it as an "opinion piece." If so ... two points:

(1) What was it doing on the front page? Used to be, "responsible journalism" put such material on the Editorial Page or in a section dedicated to op-ed pieces. I know, I'm being old fashioned ... the "new journalism" seems to be mostly about the "feelings" and opinions of the narrator (I scorn the term "reporter" in such cases). For my research, I've read newspapers going all the way back to before the American Revolution. Some of it could be far more inflammatory than anything we would tolerate today. But, except in the most egregious cases, you knew when the paper was pushing an agenda versus when it was simply reporting events.

So that brings us to (2). Was it labeled as an "opinion piece"? Or was it presented as a factual report. I'm guessing the latter

Trust me, I've had over a million words published myself, so I know how easy it is to slant a piece of writing to fit an agenda. In a grant proposal, known obstacles are "challenges" that my team has the skills to overcome. In the final report, failures could have been fixed if we had more money, more time and better equipment.

 

[jtgriz2]

Look, all due respect to UNLV, and I'm not dismissing this reporters experience, but UNLV doesn't have a particularly renown journalism school. Nor do they have any track record of producing great journalists. Did they have to ask him any difficult questions? Was this one reporter's account representative of his entire interaction with the media? Is this reporter still in journalism? These are all fair questions to ask. Repeatedly using this one student column as a rebuttal to every Hauck media interaction isn't quite the silver bullet it's believed to be. It's a good case that should be factored in! It's also just one column.

You guys who are pushing so hard for Hauck's return should maybe also be pushing Hauck to handle these situations better, since real journalist are going to have to cover the program as journalists, not homers.

And you would classify Mr. Kato's article yesterday (which the Missoularag chose to put on the front page) as "great journalism"? If so, you should go back to your cubicle at the newspaper.... It was about as one-sided as it could be, with virtually no attempt to seek out the other side of the story. To their credit, they did pick up Greg Rachac's story (a Lee writer out of Billings), that did express other views. Why didn't the Missoulian choose to put that on the front page, 1A?

Amie Just is doing a great job for the Missoulian. For the most part, the sports reporters over the years have been good. However, there have been others at the paper who are perfect for the National Enquirer. The Missoulian is about as far as they can get from an unbiased source of information. They print their version of events. They refuse to print letters to the editor that take them to task for incorrect reporting. It is far from "great journalism".

Bobby wasn't great with media relations. However, perhaps he learned from his prior experience. Didn't seem to be too many problems that way in Las Vegas, where he faced far more criticism than in Missoula. There is also an article about that, but Mr. Kato obviously didn't bother to research that.

We get it. You don't like Bobby. You have that right. The Missoulian has the right not to cover the Griz. Maybe they should exercise that right. It would eliminate the only reason to read it anymore, and save us the 2 minutes it takes to scan for anything of interest.

You know, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean its not "good." It brought up a fair point. And in that case, it wasn't reporting, it was an opinion piece. And yes, that opinion does run counter the narrative on here.

I think that's right. The Missoulian should have never run it as actual news. It was an opinion piece.

And would have been fine in the opinion section along with peoples views on bike lanes :roll:

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

... You know, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean its not "good." It brought up a fair point. And in that case, it wasn't reporting, it was an opinion piece. And yes, that opinion does run counter the narrative on here.
...

I did not read the item ... but second-hand descriptions of it (on both sides) seem to confirm your description of it as an "opinion piece." If so ... two points:

(1) What was it doing on the front page? Used to be, "responsible journalism" put such material on the Editorial Page or in a section dedicated to op-ed pieces. I know, I'm being old fashioned ... the "new journalism" seems to be mostly about the "feelings" and opinions of the narrator (I scorn the term "reporter" in such cases). For my research, I've read newspapers going all the way back to before the American Revolution. Some of it could be far more inflammatory than anything we would tolerate today. But, except in the most egregious cases, you knew when the paper was pushing an agenda versus when it was simply reporting events.

So that brings us to (2). Was it labeled as an "opinion piece"? Or was it presented as a factual report. I'm guessing the latter

Trust me, I've had over a million words published myself, so I know how easy it is to slant a piece of writing to fit an agenda. In a grant proposal, known obstacles are "challenges" that my team has the skills to overcome. In the final report, failures could have been fixed if we had more money, more time and better equipment.

Oh, I completely understand how easy it is to slant a piece of writing. This might sound strange to some, but I do have some experience in the reporting business, and not for the school newspaper.

Anyways, I believe this is the piece. It's not that long.
http://406mtsports.com/college/big-...cle_b4e946dd-acfa-5ad7-8aec-8d78bad96319.html

Oddly enough, one of the biggest complaints about the article was that it wasn't well researched. But most of the article is just accounts from public records. There's very little in the way of conjecture that I see. The only way I could see anyone saying that it was poorly researched is if they had been witness to every event themselves.

Honestly, going through it, I think the biggest issue most people have with it is that it shows there was a downside to Hauck.

 

[jtgriz2]

"you're done for the day and you'll be done for the year if you keep asking me about the same thing i've answered four f---ing times".

IDK, I kinda think this is an appropriate response if it had already been asked and answered four times. I don't know this specific situation, but I really like it when a coach or athlete bodybags a reporter who is acting like a douche. The TJ Simers Jim Mora interactions were great, and I think factored into Simers getting canned by the Times, but not sure.

I don't know the first thing about journalism, but I always assumed sports reporters were there to ask questions to get info for a story. If a coach doesn't want to answer the question, you have two options: (1) say that he declined to comment; or (2) say that he declined to comment, even though you thought your question was super duper fair, and the coach is a jerkstore, and used a potty word, and you can't believe he wouldn't want to kow tow to you even after you asked him four times, and he's just a meanie who doesn't appreciate you, and therefore hates all media, and threaten to tell mom.

Not sure which one sells more . . .

Well said in a true CDA spin

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Look, all due respect to UNLV, and I'm not dismissing this reporters experience, but UNLV doesn't have a particularly renown journalism school. Nor do they have any track record of producing great journalists. Did they have to ask him any difficult questions? Was this one reporter's account representative of his entire interaction with the media? Is this reporter still in journalism? These are all fair questions to ask. Repeatedly using this one student column as a rebuttal to every Hauck media interaction isn't quite the silver bullet it's believed to be. It's a good case that should be factored in! It's also just one column.

You guys who are pushing so hard for Hauck's return should maybe also be pushing Hauck to handle these situations better, since real journalist are going to have to cover the program as journalists, not homers.

Amen. :clap:

(And I support his return IF he understands his responsibilities to the University as a whole. 2017 is a different era than 2003-2009.)

Let's put aside professional righteousness and pride in your j-school alma mater for a moment.

I wasn't happy about how Hauck dealt with the Kaimin when it all went down, mostly because he was an employee of UM and it's an educational institution. So he should have recognized everyone's role better, bit his tongue, and engaged in more diplomatic parrying with the Kaimin reporter if he did not want to answer questions.

But I think there is more to it and, in part, it's because 2017 is a different time for all of us (including Hauck). As I repeatedly tell young professionals who work for me, you learn the most from failure and learn very little from success. Hauck was riding high about ten years ago and success can breed arrogance; he has since experienced failure (including the interaction with the Kaimin reporter). Hopefully, failure helped him learn.

That's what I read into the UNLV reporter's comments. Hauck learned. That's also what I hope to see if he's hired at UM again because it hasn't been all wine and roses for Hauck or UM since he left in 2009.