Reese Phillips Mint Interview

[bgbigdog]

So you start out by asking Reece if the firing of Stitt was a “good decision or a great decision?” Really... Really? What kind of question is that of a tremendous kid who was nothing but loyal to a coach who took a chance on him?

Exceptional journalism on your part. & you’re the supposed Griz guy. I didn’t bother with any of the rest of it.

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

So now that he’s not a Griz player, it’s ok to ambush this kid right out of the gate with a bullshit question like that? WTF is the matter with you?

I’ve avoided it until now, but this proves that there’s no reason not to put your sorry ass on ignore.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

So you start out by asking Reece if the firing of Stitt was a “good decision or a great decision?” Really... Really? What kind of question is that of a tremendous kid who was nothing but loyal to a coach who took a chance on him?

Exceptional journalism on your part. & you’re the supposed Griz guy. I didn’t bother with any of the rest of it.

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

So now that he’s not a Griz player, it’s ok to ambush this kid right out of the gate with a bullshit question like that? WTF is the matter with you?

I’ve avoided it until now, but this proves that there’s no reason not to put your sorry ass on ignore.

Don’t blame PR because he’s addicted to arguing, no matter how right or wrong he is. It’s a disease and he needs our support in times like these. Don’t worry PR, I get it and I’m here for you. My dad can take you to some AA meetings (Arguer’s Anonymous) and there’s plenty of help there, but you gotta want it. They won’t do it for you.

 

[MrG]

Yes. It was a bad opening question. In hindsight I agree it was a dick move. BUT it only bothered me for a second. I rolled on with the interview and forgot about the opening.

My gosh! What a bunch of hypersensitive .......... rotesst: rotesst: rotesst: rotesst:

 

[grizcountry420]

So you start out by asking Reece if the firing of Stitt was a “good decision or a great decision?” Really... Really? What kind of question is that of a tremendous kid who was nothing but loyal to a coach who took a chance on him?

Exceptional journalism on your part. & you’re the supposed Griz guy. I didn’t bother with any of the rest of it.

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

So now that he’s not a Griz player, it’s ok to ambush this kid right out of the gate with a bullshit question like that? WTF is the matter with you?

I’ve avoided it until now, but this proves that there’s no reason not to put your sorry ass on ignore.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

So you start out by asking Reece if the firing of Stitt was a “good decision or a great decision?” Really... Really? What kind of question is that of a tremendous kid who was nothing but loyal to a coach who took a chance on him?

Exceptional journalism on your part. & you’re the supposed Griz guy. I didn’t bother with any of the rest of it.

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

The interview may have been good and included some interesting information but the question about Stitt was unprofessional and immature.

I don't agree. I listened to the question, how it was presented, and the answer. It was fine. While I think a lot of "journalists" are jerks and sometimes unprofessional, generally, I don't view a hard or direct question as being unprofessional. And certainly not immature. Had the interviewer keep asking the same question, trying to get an answer, then my view would be different.

 

[PlayerRep]

So you start out by asking Reece if the firing of Stitt was a “good decision or a great decision?” Really... Really? What kind of question is that of a tremendous kid who was nothing but loyal to a coach who took a chance on him?

Exceptional journalism on your part. & you’re the supposed Griz guy. I didn’t bother with any of the rest of it.

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

So now that he’s not a Griz player, it’s ok to ambush this kid right out of the gate with a bullshit question like that? WTF is the matter with you?

I’ve avoided it until now, but this proves that there’s no reason not to put your sorry ass on ignore.

Again, the question was fine. Not unprofessional. Not immature. Not out of line. Not asked in a bad or jerky way. Yes, the standard for questions changes a bit as players leave the program (and graduate). Had Phillips been planning to stay at UM to play for Hauck, then I would not have liked the question.

Feel free to put me on Ignore. I couldn't care less, and, quite frankly, would prefer to provide the good information I get to more appreciative people anyway.

 

[PlayerRep]

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

So now that he’s not a Griz player, it’s ok to ambush this kid right out of the gate with a bullshit question like that? WTF is the matter with you?

I’ve avoided it until now, but this proves that there’s no reason not to put your sorry ass on ignore.

Don’t blame PR because he’s addicted to arguing, no matter how right or wrong he is. It’s a disease and he needs our support in times like these. Don’t worry PR, I get it and I’m here for you. My dad can take you to some AA meetings (Arguer’s Anonymous) and there’s plenty of help there, but you gotta want it. They won’t do it for you.

Yes, it's true that I like to stick up for people and things that are right, and people who are being trashed unfairly. Usually, it's players, but in this case it's an interviewer that I have no clue about. Think the posts trashing his first questions are wrong, and out to lunch. And you can go to Jerk Anonymous. Jeez, what's the point of posts like that?

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

So now that he’s not a Griz player, it’s ok to ambush this kid right out of the gate with a bullshit question like that? WTF is the matter with you?

I’ve avoided it until now, but this proves that there’s no reason not to put your sorry ass on ignore.

Don’t blame PR because he’s addicted to arguing, no matter how right or wrong he is. It’s a disease and he needs our support in times like these. Don’t worry PR, I get it and I’m here for you. My dad can take you to some AA meetings (Arguer’s Anonymous) and there’s plenty of help there, but you gotta want it. They won’t do it for you.

Yes, it's true that I like to stick up for people and things that are right, and people who are being trashed unfairly. Usually, it's players, but in this case it's an interviewer that I have no clue about. Think the posts trashing his first questions are wrong, and out to lunch. And you can go to Jerk Anonymous. Jeez, what's the point of posts like that?

50% joke, 30% pointing out your desire to debate, and 20% to get a reaction out of you. I think all aspects were reached to my liking.

 

[signedbewildered]

Nailed it Big Dog! Shitty interviewer or the shittiest interviewer?

Total dick move.

Again, the interview and the interviewer were good. There was a lot of interesting information in it. You obviously didn't even listen to it. Dick move by you and others to jump to (the incorrect) conclusion based on one question, and then post the crap you posted.

The interview may have been good and included some interesting information but the question about Stitt was unprofessional and immature.

I don't agree. I listened to the question, how it was presented, and the answer. It was fine. While I think a lot of "journalists" are jerks and sometimes unprofessional, generally, I don't view a hard or direct question as being unprofessional. And certainly not immature. Had the interviewer keep asking the same question, trying to get an answer, then my view would be different.

You're right.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Yes. It was a bad opening question. In hindsight I agree it was a dick move. BUT it only bothered me for a second. I rolled on with the interview and forgot about the opening.

My gosh! What a bunch of hypersensitive .......... rotesst: rotesst: rotesst: rotesst:

I don’t generally follow podcasts, mainly because they tend to lack substance compared to the time they consume. But this one has generated so much discussion … I figured I’d better check it out.

MrG has it about right. For perhaps a different reason, I agree that the first question might have been “ill-advised” as a starting point. Yes, it comes across as a “trap” question. I consider it perhaps “ill advised” because of where it could have led the interview (and maybe that’s what the interviewer was hoping for). But that’s pretty common in broadcast journalism today, and, IMO, is no particular reason to go off on the interviewer. The fact that the segment stayed at a high level is a tribute to the (already well-known) class of Reese Phillips … with some credit to the interviewer for not pushing harder, trying to generate some controversy (now all too common).

... While I think a lot of "journalists" are jerks and sometimes unprofessional, generally, I don't view a hard or direct question as being unprofessional. ... Had the interviewer kept asking the same question, trying to get an answer, then my view would be different.

After that, as PR observed in another post, the segment was full of lots of good stuff. Reese clearly picked up on Hauck’s passion for Montana football. He also had the insight -- based on “reading” remarks from those who knew Bobbie “back in the day” -- to think that Hauck has changed, both personally and in a coaching sense, since his last go-‘round at UM.

I really liked his comments about the ISU game and the (almost) phantom handshake after the game -- that was a hoot.

So … I disagree with those who suggest staying away from the podcast. The interviewer might have chosen a more “neutral” lead-in to the segment … but the question was legit, and it’s a credit to Reese and the interviewer that it was handled properly.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Yes. It was a bad opening question. In hindsight I agree it was a dick move. BUT it only bothered me for a second. I rolled on with the interview and forgot about the opening.

My gosh! What a bunch of hypersensitive .......... rotesst: rotesst: rotesst: rotesst:

I don’t generally follow podcasts, mainly because they tend to lack substance compared to the time they consume. But this one has generated so much discussion … I figured I’d better check it out.

MrG has it about right. For perhaps a different reason, I agree that the first question might have been “ill-advised” as a starting point. Yes, it comes across as a “trap” question. I consider it perhaps “ill advised” because of where it could have led the interview (and maybe that’s what the interviewer was hoping for). But that’s pretty common in broadcast journalism today, and, IMO, is no particular reason to go off on the interviewer. The fact that the segment stayed at a high level is a tribute to the (already well-known) class of Reese Phillips … with some credit to the interviewer for not pushing harder, trying to generate some controversy (now all too common).

... While I think a lot of "journalists" are jerks and sometimes unprofessional, generally, I don't view a hard or direct question as being unprofessional. ... Had the interviewer kept asking the same question, trying to get an answer, then my view would be different.

After that, as PR observed in another post, the segment was full of lots of good stuff. Reese clearly picked up on Hauck’s passion for Montana football. He also had the insight -- based on “reading” remarks from those who knew Bobbie “back in the day” -- to think that Hauck has changed, both personally and in a coaching sense, since his last go-‘round at UM.

I really liked his comments about the ISU game and the (almost) phantom handshake after the game -- that was a hoot.

So … I disagree with those who suggest staying away from the podcast. The interviewer might have chosen a more “neutral” lead-in to the segment … but the question was legit, and it’s a credit to Reese and the interviewer that it was handled properly.

The question isn’t the issue, it’s the way it was formed. Had he asked if firing Stitt was a good or bad choice, it would have come across better. Instead he asked a known Stitt supporter if firing Stitt was a good call or a great call. Not the best approach and clearly unprofessional. But then if the interviewer isn’t paid for these interviews, then I guess he’s not a pro and just an amateur and not quite held to a better standard.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Yes. It was a bad opening question. In hindsight I agree it was a dick move. BUT it only bothered me for a second. I rolled on with the interview and forgot about the opening.

My gosh! What a bunch of hypersensitive .......... rotesst: rotesst: rotesst: rotesst:

I don’t generally follow podcasts, mainly because they tend to lack substance compared to the time they consume. But this one has generated so much discussion … I figured I’d better check it out.

MrG has it about right. For perhaps a different reason, I agree that the first question might have been “ill-advised” as a starting point. Yes, it comes across as a “trap” question. I consider it perhaps “ill advised” because of where it could have led the interview (and maybe that’s what the interviewer was hoping for). But that’s pretty common in broadcast journalism today, and, IMO, is no particular reason to go off on the interviewer. The fact that the segment stayed at a high level is a tribute to the (already well-known) class of Reese Phillips … with some credit to the interviewer for not pushing harder, trying to generate some controversy (now all too common).

... While I think a lot of "journalists" are jerks and sometimes unprofessional, generally, I don't view a hard or direct question as being unprofessional. ... Had the interviewer kept asking the same question, trying to get an answer, then my view would be different.

After that, as PR observed in another post, the segment was full of lots of good stuff. Reese clearly picked up on Hauck’s passion for Montana football. He also had the insight -- based on “reading” remarks from those who knew Bobbie “back in the day” -- to think that Hauck has changed, both personally and in a coaching sense, since his last go-‘round at UM.

I really liked his comments about the ISU game and the (almost) phantom handshake after the game -- that was a hoot.

So … I disagree with those who suggest staying away from the podcast. The interviewer might have chosen a more “neutral” lead-in to the segment … but the question was legit, and it’s a credit to Reese and the interviewer that it was handled properly.

The question isn’t the issue, it’s the way it was formed. Had he asked if firing Stitt was a good or bad choice, it would have come across better. Instead he asked a known Stitt supporter if firing Stitt was a good call or a great call. Not the best approach and clearly unprofessional. But then if the interviewer isn’t paid for these interviews, then I guess he’s not a pro and just an amateur and not quite held to a better standard.

Ever since Watergate it has been a rush by those in this industry to seek fame and accolades by tricking someone into answering a falsely loaded question. Accepting this effort to make the news rather than report it is why the practice continues. Too bad this practice continues.

In legal proceedings the party tricked has counsel of their own to seek immediate clarification of answer and rehabilitation of the witness. Now you should understand why some lawyers don't mind journalists using the tactic. All I can say is kudos to Reese for not rising to the cheap bait.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... The question isn’t the issue, it’s the way it was formed. Had he asked if firing Stitt was a good or bad choice, it would have come across better. Instead he asked a known Stitt supporter if firing Stitt was a good call or a great call. Not the best approach and clearly unprofessional. But then if the interviewer isn’t paid for these interviews, then I guess he’s not a pro and just an amateur and not quite held to a better standard.

I can't really disagree with your assessment. It was a poorly-formed and badly-timed question. I guess I'm just old and tired -- that's just how it's done any more (sadly, professional or "amateur").

A perceptive reader (or viewer/listener) has to accept that (stay with me, here!) as a clue to the presenter's bias or "angle." The information is still there, but quite likely slanted by the presenter's point of view ... you just have to factor that into your reaction. The interviewer (perhaps) trotted out the "trap" question, hoping for a big reaction that would "spice up" his interview. When that didn't happen, he played it straight the rest of the way. In the end -- to be honest -- the interview seemed pretty even-handed.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... Ever since Watergate it has been a rush by those in this industry to seek fame and accolades by tricking someone into answering a falsely loaded question. Accepting this effort to make the news rather than report it is why the practice continues.

... All I can say is kudos to Reese for not rising to the cheap bait.

Exactamundo!

Since "Watergate" is ancient history (before they were born) to a lot of people, I avoided that connection. But I totally agree that it marks a major turning point in how "professionals" handle "the news."

 

[alabamagrizzly]

... The question isn’t the issue, it’s the way it was formed. Had he asked if firing Stitt was a good or bad choice, it would have come across better. Instead he asked a known Stitt supporter if firing Stitt was a good call or a great call. Not the best approach and clearly unprofessional. But then if the interviewer isn’t paid for these interviews, then I guess he’s not a pro and just an amateur and not quite held to a better standard.

I can't really disagree with your assessment. It was a poorly-formed and badly-timed question. I guess I'm just old and tired -- that's just how it's done any more (sadly, professional or "amateur").

A perceptive reader (or viewer/listener) has to accept that (stay with me, here!) as a clue to the presenter's bias or "angle." The information is still there, but quite likely slanted by the presenter's point of view ... you just have to factor that into your reaction. The interviewer (perhaps) trotted out the "trap" question, hoping for a big reaction that would "spice up" his interview. When that didn't happen, he played it straight the rest of the way. In the end -- to be honest -- the interview seemed pretty even-handed.

So for the most part your saying we see it the same way, you just accept it as the way it is and I think it was dirty pool. Correct?

 

[IdaGriz01]

... The question isn’t the issue, it’s the way it was formed. Had he asked if firing Stitt was a good or bad choice, it would have come across better. Instead he asked a known Stitt supporter if firing Stitt was a good call or a great call. Not the best approach and clearly unprofessional. But then if the interviewer isn’t paid for these interviews, then I guess he’s not a pro and just an amateur and not quite held to a better standard.

I can't really disagree with your assessment. It was a poorly-formed and badly-timed question. I guess I'm just old and tired -- that's just how it's done any more (sadly, professional or "amateur").

A perceptive reader (or viewer/listener) has to accept that (stay with me, here!) as a clue to the presenter's bias or "angle." The information is still there, but quite likely slanted by the presenter's point of view ... you just have to factor that into your reaction. The interviewer (perhaps) trotted out the "trap" question, hoping for a big reaction that would "spice up" his interview. When that didn't happen, he played it straight the rest of the way. In the end -- to be honest -- the interview seemed pretty even-handed.

So for the most part your saying we see it the same way, you just accept it as the way it is and I think it was dirty pool. Correct?

Correct.

I'm not a religious person, but religion does offer a lot of useful wisdom. Serenity prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
...

I personally, know of no way to change how "journalists" (so-called) go about their business. I'm a total believer in incentives ... and the incentives for "content providers" value controversy and sensationalism. Sadly, many (most?) content readers/viewers seem to prefer that material compared to a straightforward presentation of facts.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

... The question isn’t the issue, it’s the way it was formed. Had he asked if firing Stitt was a good or bad choice, it would have come across better. Instead he asked a known Stitt supporter if firing Stitt was a good call or a great call. Not the best approach and clearly unprofessional. But then if the interviewer isn’t paid for these interviews, then I guess he’s not a pro and just an amateur and not quite held to a better standard.

I can't really disagree with your assessment. It was a poorly-formed and badly-timed question. I guess I'm just old and tired -- that's just how it's done any more (sadly, professional or "amateur").

A perceptive reader (or viewer/listener) has to accept that (stay with me, here!) as a clue to the presenter's bias or "angle." The information is still there, but quite likely slanted by the presenter's point of view ... you just have to factor that into your reaction. The interviewer (perhaps) trotted out the "trap" question, hoping for a big reaction that would "spice up" his interview. When that didn't happen, he played it straight the rest of the way. In the end -- to be honest -- the interview seemed pretty even-handed.

So for the most part your saying we see it the same way, you just accept it as the way it is and I think it was dirty pool. Correct?

Correct.

I'm not a religious person, but religion does offer a lot of useful wisdom. Serenity prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
...

I personally, know of no way to change how "journalists" (so-called) go about their business. I'm a total believer in incentives ... and the incentives for "content providers" value controversy and sensationalism. Sadly, many (most?) content readers/viewers seem to prefer that material compared to a straightforward presentation of facts.

So I think I’m coming at this from a different point of view. Your defending the journalist’s right (or freedom) to ask the questions he wants to get his story and I get that. There are interviews that do need to be handled that way. I think the reason for the reaction to most on this thread is they see a Griz family member being asked a loaded question and are coming to his defense letting Mint know it wasn’t appreciated.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... So I think I’m coming at this from a different point of view. Your defending the journalist’s right (or freedom) to ask the questions he wants to get his story and I get that. There are interviews that do need to be handled that way. I think the reason for the reaction to most on this thread is they see a Griz family member being asked a loaded question and are coming to his defense letting Mint know it wasn’t appreciated.

He does have that freedom. Since I'm "old school" (or just old), I believe that any specially-granted freedom (and it is specially granted, not a "natural right," BTW) comes with an attendant responsibility. That responsibility is to use his/her privileged position wisely and fairly.

So in terms of "incentives," I totally agree with those who jumped on the interviewer -- to let him know that his approach "was not appreciated" and that he should avoid the attempt at sensationalism in the future.

But to then dismiss the entire interview as worthless is neither fair nor smart. The interviewer did not try to belabor the Stitt-Hauck point, and conducted an informative and balanced interview the rest of of the way. The results were well worth hearing, and (in my view) only enhanced Reese's stature.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

... So I think I’m coming at this from a different point of view. Your defending the journalist’s right (or freedom) to ask the questions he wants to get his story and I get that. There are interviews that do need to be handled that way. I think the reason for the reaction to most on this thread is they see a Griz family member being asked a loaded question and are coming to his defense letting Mint know it wasn’t appreciated.

He does have that freedom. Since I'm "old school" (or just old), I believe that any specially-granted freedom (and it is specially granted, not a "natural right," BTW) comes with an attendant responsibility. That responsibility is to use his/her privileged position wisely and fairly.

So in terms of "incentives," I totally agree with those who jumped on the interviewer -- to let him know that his approach "was not appreciated" and that he should avoid the attempt at sensationalism in the future.

But to then dismiss the entire interview as worthless is neither fair nor smart. The interviewer did not try to belabor the Stitt-Hauck point, and conducted an informative and balanced interview the rest of of the way. The results were well worth hearing, and (in my view) only enhanced Reese's stature.

And now we have reached our conclusion. I agree with all you say there. It’s been a pleasure debating this with you in a very cordial way.

See PR, it’s not hard to debate and not come off as being rude and insulting. :thumb:

 

[uofmman1122]

Yeah, I have no issue with him asking Reese about Stitt or Hauck, because it’s newsworthy to hear what he thinks.

Asking him like he did was just terribly rude to Reese.

I get what he was trying to do. I think he wanted a question like “I know it sucks that Stitt was let go, but do you think hiring Bobby Hauck a good decision or a great decision?” That would’ve been a lot more appropriate.