Lost respect for Katz...

[Jake]

I'm usually a defender of the media and almost always think fans and coaches have too thin a skin when dealing media stories, but by Katz's own admission he asked jb essentially the same question 5-6 times.

That's bullspit. I get twice, I can even fathom three times, but anything over that is flat out baiting and badgering.

There are legitimate reasons for asking the same question repeatedly in a group interview situation (most often you want an answer to YOUR question) but in a one on one situation, you only get so many cracks.

It surprises me because I liked Katz work prior to this. He will never be confused with a Mensa member, but I thought he was fair. He crossed the line here.

 

[goodroc]

Don't forget Katz was told Pre interview that fine questions off limits.

 

[Solitude]

Don't forget Katz was told Pre interview that fine questions off limits.

Yeah, but he denies it which makes it okay.

 

[wvlax]

Not only that but I've lost respect for ESPN.Their whole mission during the Bernie Fine scandal was to implicate Boeheim and get him fired.Just like they did to Joe Paterno.

 

[Jake]

Yeah, but you don't get to set the topics of interviews as a public figure- you just dont. It's like Sandusky telling a reporter that questions about his behavior are not allowed.

You don't have to answer those questions, but you have to understand a journalists right to ask.

However, after standing firm on the response twice, the reporter has to move on. He did not, he deserves the critivism- though I would not have called him an idiot.

 

[Cuseregular]

Not only that but I've lost respect for ESPN.Their whole mission during the Bernie Fine scandal was to implicate Boeheim and get him fired.Just like they did to Joe Paterno.

dude please don't conflate those two together. ZERO chance JB knew anything about Fines personal life vs. JoPa who did and flat out was informed and knew of the issue there that he more or less swept under the rug, thus deserved of his inglorious exit. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Yeah, but you don't get to set the topics of interviews as a public figure- you just dont. It's like Sandusky telling a reporter that questions about his behavior are not allowed.

You don't have to answer those questions, but you have to understand a journalists right to ask.
owever, after standing firm on the response twice, the reporter has to move on. He did not, he deserves the critivism- though I would not have called him an idiot.

You can set the topics. It happens everyday. Publicists have these conversations all of the time. JB didn't have to do the interview and likely agreed to do it if they stayed away from that line of questioning. Bottom line is JB asked that it not be addressed an it sounds like Katz took one too many cracks at him
H

 

[Cuseregular]

Yeah, but you don't get to set the topics of interviews as a public figure- you just dont. It's like Sandusky telling a reporter that questions about his behavior are not allowed.

You don't have to answer those questions, but you have to understand a journalists right to ask.

However, after standing firm on the response twice, the reporter has to move on. He did not, he deserves the critivism- though I would not have called him an idiot.

though I'm 100% with ya on this I can understand why this one may have fallen outside the realm of normalcy for a reporter. Seems previous to this all or most on here liked him and this wasn't his usual style to this point. Don't really know and can be educated here otherwise on it if wrong.

But on the heels of PSU with all the emotion of the issue or potential of the issue I can get how it happened and how reporters wanted to get to the heart of the issue which they thought may have been known of by JB (which as you and I know is ludicrous him knowing the details of others personal lives regardless of the specific potential of the issue here).

So that said one has to be on board with JB and would have handled it the same way. Always gotta fight fire with fire.

 

[leftytg]

You can set the topics. It happens everyday. Publicists have these conversations all of the time. JB didn't have to do the interview and likely agreed to do it if they stayed away from that line of questioning. Bottom line is JB asked that it not be addressed an it sounds like Katz took one too many cracks at him
H

exactly. I don't know where the idea comes that just because someone is a public figure they are somehow unable to set ground rules on what is and isn't fair game in an interview. It happens all the time with public figures precisely because they are desired as interviews.

 

[orangenirvana]

Yeah, but you don't get to set the topics of interviews as a public figure- you just dont.

Why not? Katz was asking Boeheim for a one-on-one interview. This wasn't a mandatory post-game PC.

 

[Jake]

You can set the topics. It happens everyday. Publicists have these conversations all of the time. JB didn't have to do the interview and likely agreed to do it if they stayed away from that line of questioning. Bottom line is JB asked that it not be addressed an it sounds like Katz took one too many cracks at him
H

No, you can't set topics. This is what gets people in trouble. Bad publicists try and do this, and they end up making their clients look like buffoons.

Once an interview begins and the cameras start rolling, you are at the mercy of a reporter.

You don't think a reporter wouldn't love to ask a question and have the subject freak out or storm out of the interview??

David Letterman had made a career out of this. You have to expect the question and calmly decline to answer. The reporter has to accept that and move on.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Yeah, but you don't get to set the topics of interviews as a public figure- you just dont. It's like Sandusky telling a reporter that questions about his behavior are not allowed.

You don't have to answer those questions, but you have to understand a journalists right to ask.

However, after standing firm on the response twice, the reporter has to move on. He did not, he deserves the critivism- though I would not have called him an idiot.

I wouldn't have called him an idiot; I would have called him a Schwarz.

 

[cto]

I have a somewhat unique perspective here. I have been a journalist... and the head of PR for two major US corporations. My guess is the conversation went something like this:

Katz: I want to ask you some questions.

JB: (Being this was in the midst of the worst part of the Fine mess, and being that Katz was from ESPN); Fine, Andy. I'll talk about the game and the team. But I can't answer questions about Bernie Fine.

Katz: (Does not say yes or no... but proceeds with interview... thereby giving tacit okay to JB's parameters).

Katz: First, second third, fourth, fifth, sixth, whatever ... question is about Bernie.

JB: Since Katz did not object to his ground rules... he had assumed Katz had agreed to them. He was therefore shocked when Katz was asking what JB thought he had agreed not to ask

JB: Therefore... thought he had been betrayed.

AS I SAID ABOVE... BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. I suspect this is what happened.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I have a somewhat unique perspective here. I have been a journalist... and the head of PR for two major US corporations. My guess is the conversation went something like this:

Katz: I want to ask you some questions.

JB: (Being this was in the midst of the worst part of the Fine mess, and being that Katz was from ESPN); Fine, Andy. I'll talk about the game and the team. But I can't answer questions about Bernie Fine.

Katz: (Does not say yes or no... but proceeds with interview... thereby giving tacit okay to JB's parameters).

Katz: First, second third, fourth, fifth, sixth, whatever ... question is about Bernie.

JB: Since Katz did not object to his ground rules... had assumed Katz had agreed to them. He was therefore shocked when Katz was asking what JB thought he had agreed not to ask

JB: Therefore... thought he had been betrayed.

AS I SAID ABOVE... BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. I suspect this is what happened.

likely.

but why would katz be such a freakin IDIOT, that he wouldnt know that it was also very likely, that JB COULDNT LEGALLY talk about those things.

its ridiculous and just adds to the espn is out to get JB and make a story theory.

 

[Hoboken Cuse]

exactly. I don't know where the idea comes that just because someone is a public figure they are somehow unable to set ground rules on what is and isn't fair game in an interview. It happens all the time with public figures precisely because they are desired as interviews.

I disagree. Katz should have declined to do the interview if he had any issues with Fine questions being off limits. Instead he asked him 5x’s making JB & SU look as though we had something to hide. I'm sure JB would have declined the interview if he knew he was going to get ambushed like that. Last November, the Fine investigation was an on-going Federal probe. Katz did not want any answers he wanted the reaction he got last night back in November – why else would you ask 5x? In Katz mind, it would have made for great TV if JB ripped off the microphone and said that the interview was over

 

[pfister1]

No, you can't set topics. This is what gets people in trouble. Bad publicists try and do this, and they end up making their clients look like buffoons.

Once an interview begins and the cameras start rolling, you are at the mercy of a reporter.

You don't think a reporter wouldn't love to ask a question and have the subject freak out or storm out of the interview??

David Letterman had made a career out of this. You have to expect the question and calmly decline to answer. The reporter has to accept that and move on.

And David Letterman does that with people who need the exposure of being the subject of his interviews.

Katz did it with someone who didn't really need to submit to his interview. As a result, it sounds like Katz will never get individual access to JB again. Sounds like JB absolutely set the topic and now Katz will pay the price for failing to adhere to what JB thought he had established as the ground rules.

 

[Jake]

CTO. Yup. Very likely. All coaches should have media training so they are not surprised when stuff like this happens.

 

[Tobias Funke]

I always felt that JB and Ktz had. Goog relationship up until a few years go. I feel like JB may have been looking to Katz as someone he can trust. He was clearly wrong.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Has anyone seen/heard this interview? We have a discrepancy as to the number of times the question was asked... Do we know if it was, verbatim (or close to it), the same question each time, or variations, or hedging away from the originally rejected question? I'm kinda doubting those 5-10 questions weren't rapid-fire and consecutive. How long was the interview? It's one thing if the 5-10 came in 30 seconds and another thing if it was over 5-10 minutes.

It wasn't a live interview, was it? If taped, and you vary the question hoping to get a response, wouldn't the rejected questions be edited away?

I don't think any of us non-reporters have a sense of what it takes to actually be a good reporter. You have to be aggressive, unless you're satisfied with puffery. Defaulting to the cliche of reporting analogies: Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't be names in common parlance if they gave up after one question. How far can you go? And, if this weren't about 'our' coach, and our school, would you still mind so much if a reporter were aggressive in pursuing answers? I gotta say, if it were Katz versus JoePa, and we found out he was bulldogging JoePa, i don't think i'd feel the slightest bit put off by it.

Do we know if JB's statement that there was an 'agreement' not to discuss Bernie reflects that it was Katz himself who agreed? I can't see Katz doing that, personally, and then reneging. Like he's going to trick JB into going there? He's not that naive, is he?

That all said, if and IF JB's account is more accurate, i side with him on this. But, if and only IF there was an agreement and it was explicit between these two men. But, if Katz has called him multiple times in the past year and you don't entertain the possibility of apology/clarification/reconciliation, that kinda makes JB the richard.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Has anyone seen/heard this interview? We have a discrepancy as to the number of times the question was asked... Do we know if it was, verbatim (or close to it), the same question each time, or variations, or hedging away from the originally rejected question? I'm kinda doubting those 5-10 questions weren't rapid-fire and consecutive. How long was the interview? It's one thing if the 5-10 came in 30 seconds and another thing if it was over 5-10 minutes.

It wasn't a live interview, was it? If taped, and you vary the question hoping to get a response, wouldn't the rejected questions be edited away?

I don't think any of us non-reporters have a sense of what it takes to actually be a good reporter. You have to be aggressive, unless you're satisfied with puffery. Defaulting to the cliche of reporting analogies: Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't be names in common parlance if they gave up after one question. How far can you go? And, if this weren't about 'our' coach, and our school, would you still mind so much if a reporter were aggressive in pursuing answers? I gotta say, if it were Katz versus JoePa, and we found out he was bulldogging JoePa, i don't think i'd feel the slightest bit put off by it.

Do we know if JB's statement that there was an 'agreement' not to discuss Bernie reflects that it was Katz himself who agreed? I can't see Katz doing that, personally, and then reneging. Like he's going to trick JB into going there? He's not that naive, is he?

That all said, if and IF JB's account is more accurate, i side with him on this. But, if and only IF there was an agreement and it was explicit between these two men. But, if Katz has called him multiple times in the past year and you don't entertain the possibility of apology/clarification/reconciliation, that kinda makes JB the richard.

If Katz called to apologize that should tell you whether he crossed the line or not.

 

[leftytg]

I disagree. Katz should have declined to do the interview if he had any issues with Fine questions being off limits. Instead he asked him 5x’s making JB & SU look as though we had something to hide. I'm sure JB would have declined the interview if he knew he was going to get ambushed like that. Last November, the Fine investigation was an on-going Federal probe. Katz did not want any answers he wanted the reaction he got last night back in November – why else would you ask 5x? In Katz mind, it would have made for great TV if JB ripped off the microphone and said that the interview was over

I suspect you may have misread my post. I agree with everything you wrote. I was responding in disagreement with the notion that you can't set topics ahead of time. It happens all the time.

 

[JoeMing]

Katz may well deserve what he JB throw at him. Still, i don't think that it justify JB's behavior. This is not the first time he publicly call some one idiot. If I were him, I would sit down with Katz and sincerely apologize to him.

 

[Hoboken Cuse]

I suspect you may have misread my post. I agree with everything you wrote. I was responding in disagreement with the notion that you can't set topics ahead of time. It happens all the time.

You're right. My bad.

 

[Toga]

JB knew Katz was in the house and should have been better prepared. Instead of talking disloyalty (huh?) and calling him an idiot - while having total control of the mic,, JB should have calmly and publicly scolded him by telling the exact story he told a day later.

 

[midloviking]

I have a somewhat unique perspective here. I have been a journalist... and the head of PR for two major US corporations. My guess is the conversation went something like this:

Katz: I want to ask you some questions.

JB: (Being this was in the midst of the worst part of the Fine mess, and being that Katz was from ESPN); Fine, Andy. I'll talk about the game and the team. But I can't answer questions about Bernie Fine.

Katz: (Does not say yes or no... but proceeds with interview... thereby giving tacit okay to JB's parameters).

Katz: First, second third, fourth, fifth, sixth, whatever ... question is about Bernie.

JB: Since Katz did not object to his ground rules... he had assumed Katz had agreed to them. He was therefore shocked when Katz was asking what JB thought he had agreed not to ask

JB: Therefore... thought he had been betrayed.

AS I SAID ABOVE... BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. I suspect this is what happened.

Katz did whatever it took to get JB on camera. He had him where he wanted him and he went for the kill shot. Remember the context. ESPN was in full lynch mob mode. Schwarz was the point man and Katz was looking to score a JB freakout on camera. JB is well know for getting pissed at idiots and Katz was playing the idiot to get JB to lose it. Instead of reporting the news, ESPN was looking to make it happen. If I was JB I would hold a grudge for life. They almost took everything he accomplished away from him.