mtgrizrule said:
It is natural for a coach to instinctively defend a player, just as Pflugrad did. I for one, to this day, feel Pflugrad was 100% correct in his defending Jordan Johnson. Being Engstrom did not like the defense being done publicly, he and O'day were both screwed. Then again, that is entirely another subject.
.... Personally, I have never considered AJ or Kyle as to having jumped the gun or crossing certain lines. In my opinion, both are honorable and respected journalists. I certainly am not going to use this forum or thread as a measure to believe otherwise.
Rather it be a coach, player, or media member, when I am given information, I do my best to determine if the person telling me wants it confidential, or to what extent I can drop hints, without mentioning names, or specifics. I do know of a few egrizzers who used to give EGRIZ good information here, but no longer do because of the idiots and yahoos who call them on the information. How dare the information be slightly off base! .
I've never seen inappropriate reporting from the sports desk at the Missoulian. However, that's separate from the claim that coaches share "dirt" or "very private" information about staff or players. For starters, there's no reason for it. None.
That being said, sports reporters are severely constrained by the reality of the fact that they need the source. So, there is an inherent bias. The players may be saying things about the state of affairs, but it you want that next interview with the coach, you're probably going to deep six any story lines that jeopardize your relationship with the coach. That's just a reality, it's not remarkable, and its entirely understandable. But, it's a structural filter imposed on the reporting process.
"Insiders" are generally more accurately informed, not because they talk to the coach, but precisely because they have sources that are NOT the coach. And there's nothing magical or mysterious about having those relationships; they are everyday relationships; your kid is friends with a running back who is over at the house a couple of times a week; your nephew is on the team this year; the son of someone you work with professionally is on the team and so you talk about him at coffee. An assistant coach may live next door or might have your wife giving his daughter piano lessons, so you talk to him while he's waiting and develop a friendship. The bartender is on the team and you shoot the breeze on a Sunday afternoon.
Those are "insiders" only in the sense that they are part of natural relationships in the community; they are not the "insiders" that want to be known as "insiders" and constantly seek out staff to feel important. There are different levels and kinds of information between the two.
You hear all sorts of things that don't make it into the "news," and some things that show up in the "news" quite a bit differently than team members or staff may be perceiving it. But, for the purposes of this conversation, there is a difference between "insiders" and as you suggest, people who want to be perceived as "insiders." Those are the ones all over the Boards. Dalton Daum was a good example of how a story got warped initially between people who genuinely have an idea what's going on and "wannabe insiders." So was Stitt's salary eruption. And woe to anyone who crosses the wannabes. And that's why knowledgeable posters walk away from egriz. It's just not worth the trolling. I talk to "players" in the varsity sports at UM all week long in various contexts, some school, some social. Maybe two or three conversations about the team will come out of casual remarks, "how's practice going?" Sometimes its just conversations at the kitchen table between the kids. But, out of that, I have a pretty good idea of player's viewpoints of the season and the staff. Except for the notion that the "kids want to play the game," I don't generally share any of those conversations here at all; although it was one reason I could know in advance why Daum quit, against the "egriz" meme that it "had nothing to do" with the football team. But jazuz, don't disagree with the trolls, or worse yet, don't embarrass their faux knowledge.
I don't think Pflu or O'Day got a fair shake from the media, but that was the result of the story being taken away from the sports desk. But it had to be. The downside of the ostensible effort to provide unbiased reporting was the resulting train wreck of overtly biased reporting; some of the worst I've ever seen outside of political rags. The story needed a reporter with good "insider" connections to get the real story and maybe do some good. That didn't happen. That journalistic train wreck continues to hurt the University of Montana to this day.
