Lost respect for Katz...

[Marsh01]

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.

You have a better chance of me getting an I heart Uconn tattooed on my buttcheeks

 

[PeteCalvin]

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.

JB may have told Katz that the SU administration told him that he could not talk about it for legal reasons. If he did that and Katz kept pressing, then he is an idiot. I would bet that SU put a muzzle on JB after the initial commentary he put out there.

 

[MadNY3]

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.

I may be in the minority, but I still think Katz is good.

Situation here is Katz is not an interviewer. He can report on college basketball, but is not built for a 60 Minutes style interview that is nothing more than a puff piece.

He might have screwed up the way CTO described and has been through, but he is not a bad source on college basketball.

Reality is today's modern-day journalism forces some square pepsin some round holes. See one of Donnie Webb's new articles under the new Syracuse.com. ESPN pushes Katz to own all things college hoops...when in reality, they would never force a John Clayton to do a similar interview on an NFL issue.

 

[manleyzoo]

With all due respect to any and all on this board, I have been a business and technology journalist for more than 30 years. I've interviewed every major and not-so-major figure in information technology from Bill Gates to Steve Jobs and everyone in between back and forth a hundred times. Good and thoughtful journalists (and there are many of us out there) abide by but a few ground rules: 1) Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to, and I mean never. You never want to be surprised by an answer because it inhibits your ability to guide the discussion and shows you haven't done your homework--there's no faster way to get a public figure to lose interest in talking to you; 2) As Jake alluded, ask twice (maybe a third time if you rephrase to come at it from a different angle) but move on if your subject declines to answer. Years ago Jim Gray blind-sided Pete Rose in an interview and his career fell away soon after to nothing. He deserved it because he made himself the story; 3) Your subjects may be friendly to you, and they may even be your sources, but they aren't your friends and you're not their friends; they are public figures who make news and your job is to get their perspective on the news they make. There are lots of pieces to the truth, not only the subject's version makes the whole story. It is Katz's job to piece together the truth from all angles and JB's option to add his perspective, if he so chooses; 4) Your loyalty is to your readers, not to your subjects and certainly not your employer, even though your employer signs your paycheck. That's the essence of the fifth estate--a fealty to the public to know the truth. True, your employer pays you but their interests very often collide with the public's to know the truth. As a journalist, you must remember that your job is to inform the public of your best version of the truth, that's your only sense of loyalty; 5) No good publicist, and I have dealt with thousands, tries to set boundaries about what his or her client will or won't talk about; instead a good publicist makes sure beforehand that the reporter has a full understanding of what the subject wants to talk about, realizing, as Jake said, that a public figure cannot dictate what he or she is asked, only what he or she is willing to answer.

My guess in this case is that JB served as a source for Katz in the past on matters Big East related, he expected some loyalty as a result and didn't get it when Katz badgered him for Fine answers (grandstanding all the while probably to please his editors and not look soft on the story) hence JB's sense of betrayal. Chances are high that Katz's editors pressed him to nail Boeheim, figuring there was a story there. Katz followed suit and Boeheim was understandably tweaked.

All due respect to CTO's version--and maybe she has inside info to base it on--but JB has been to this rodeo many times and it's hard to believe he didn't understand that he can't control the questions he's asked.

 

[triplethrea]

It's hard for me to be unbiased since I think an ESPN "journalist" is at it's fundamental core, a scumbag profession. Actors reading pre-planned scripts, discussing pre-written talking points, engaging in fake debates, and manufacturing controversy at the expense of careers, relationships, and lives of guilty and innocent people (whichever one they are doesn't matter).

The gist I get is this. Really bad time for JB during the scandal, ESPN looking to confirm their story on Fine (which is their back-up plan when they did not get credit, and enough TV views and page clicks for the Sandusky scandal). College coaches abusing kids was "in" at that moment and they wanted to milk it for everything it was worth, even though it was never as "good a story" as the Sandusky case. Andy Katz is their college basketball guy, has for morals, and would love to get his name out there more.

Game plan: get JB in the room anyway you can. "Yeah, sure, no Fine questions". Press, press, press. Anyone who says that JB should have known, and JB should have done this, and JB should have done that, has never been interrogated with a camera on them knowing they will be viewed by millions of people and any emotional reaction can cost them their job, life, and legacy that they spent 40-50 years building. And Andy Katz couldn't care less. Get the sexy story.

To all the people saying that Boeheim should be more classy, is a bad example, blah blah blah. JB values respect and loyalty above how he appears in public. THAT my friends, is something to be respected. To put on a face, when you feel used, just so you give the appearance of class is weak and pathetic. Its a fantasy concept. It's also a nice excuse for cowards and the submissive. I'll take a guy who calls a scumbag an idiot over the guy who accepts the "way the world is" and refuses to have personal boundaries.

 

[SUFan44]

It's hard for me to be unbiased since I think an ESPN "journalist" is at it's fundamental core, a scumbag profession. Actors reading pre-planned scripts, discussing pre-written talking points, engaging in fake debates, and manufacturing controversy at the expense of careers, relationships, and lives of guilty and innocent people (whichever one they are doesn't matter).

The gist I get is this. Really bad time for JB during the scandal, ESPN looking to confirm their story on Fine (which is their back-up plan when they did not get credit, and enough TV views and page clicks for the Sandusky scandal). College coaches abusing kids was "in" at that moment and they wanted to milk it for everything it was worth, even though it was never as "good a story" as the Sandusky case. Andy Katz is their college basketball guy, has for morals, and would love to get his name out there more.

Game plan: get JB in the room anyway you can. "Yeah, sure, no Fine questions". Press, press, press. Anyone who says that JB should have known, and JB should have done this, and JB should have done that, has never been interrogated with a camera on them knowing they will be viewed by millions of people and any emotional reaction can cost them their job, life, and legacy that they spent 40-50 years building. And Andy Katz couldn't care less. Get the sexy story.

To all the people saying that Boeheim should be more classy, is a bad example, blah blah blah. JB values respect and loyalty above how he appears in public. THAT my friends, is something to be respected. To put on a face, when you feel used, just so you give the appearance of class is weak and pathetic. Its a fantasy concept. It's also a nice excuse for cowards and the submissive. I'll take a guy who calls a scumbag an idiot over the guy who accepts the "way the world is" and refuses to have personal boundaries.

Amen. And I might add, there are fewer and fewer of those "guys who call a scumbag an idiot" out there. And it's a shame.

The shock-journalism generation makes me sick. And it's a damn shame to anyone who wants real, unbiased information on subjects they care about.

 

[alibrat66]

I was a radio talk show host for about 5 years, both on public and commercial radio. I interviewed presidential candidates, Governors, US Senators and US House of Representatives members, as well as those seeking those offices. Also, professional and college coaches, movie stars, big shot business people, famous writers, the entire gamut of public personalities. I never once allowed anyone to set the agenda or rule certain topics off-limits for the time they were on my show. If they tried, I refused to accept those conditions, and they had the choice whether or not they wanted to appear on my show. If they refused to answer a certain question, I might ask them one more time. If they still refused, I honored that, figuring that their refusal spoke volumes. Maybe it was a confidentiality situation, which was fine. However, I quickly learned that confidentiality is used as a basis for evasion of the truth in many cases where it is not warranted or legally sound. Anyway, I didn't badger the person; I might try to ask the question in a different, less confrontational manner. I thought that it probably was evident to all if he/she were being evasive.

Until you're on the opposite side of the microphone from the person being interviewed, it is hard to understand all the PR and self-puffing tricks that many of these people utilize to keep away from being truthful about important issues. I pissed off people like Boeheim on countless occasions because I refused to add my name to their PR lackey list and tried to break through to the truth of the matter. I even got my employer pissed off at me numerous times. I always saw my job as to get my guests to be real, so members of the audience could judge for themselves on whatever the issue was.

Fortunately, my show was very popular and most people wanted to be on because I had a large audience. So, people came on, maybe even against the advise of their flacks. My one caveat to all this is I assiduously tried to do my research, so I didn't come off the wall; sometimes, I still went down in flames . I've also written non-fiction books about controversial subjects. It's hard not to piss someone off when you attempt to shed some light on a hot topic.


In terms of JB, I've known him since he walked on the SU campus; my family had many interactions with him over the years, in terms of helping him (as well as the football-coach-at-the-time) place players for summer jobs. I think he's a fabulous basketball coach, one who has put my school on the national map in terms of the sport. I am grateful and proud. I also think he's very arrogant in certain situations. To wit, he tends to be extremely cordial to those from whom he wants something; if not, he might not give you the time of day. Or worse, treat you like dog .

For sure, he's got the local media cowed; no one will stand up to him. And, it makes me ashamed the way he treats kids in the Newhouse School, who are just learning the trade, who ask him questions in post same interview.

 

[Orangetradition44]

That's not what boeheim said. He said he couldn't answer the fine question. He never said Katz couldn't ask it. So what pissed Jim off is even though he warned Katz prior to the interview, Katz proceeded to badger him.

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

 

[IthacaMatt]

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.

For them to be anywhere near equivalent, it would have to be like Bernie bringing little kids into the Melo Center to diddle them. How would JB know what Bernie did or did not do in his own home?

 

[midloviking]

It is Katz's job to piece together the truth from all angles

ESPN was never interested in the truth. They were looking to lynch JB.

 

[Millhouse]

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.

You do the "i have to ask you this" and then move on. ESPN ventured into bullsh!t 10 pm ambush news

Asking over and over trying to bait someone into an emotional reaction is a dick move. Thankfully JB was smart enough to not take the bait.

JB is usually vindicated everytime he has an explosion. He's no dummy.

 

[Rocco]

It's hard for me to be unbiased since I think an ESPN "journalist" is at it's fundamental core, a scumbag profession. Actors reading pre-planned scripts, discussing pre-written talking points, engaging in fake debates, and manufacturing controversy at the expense of careers, relationships, and lives of guilty and innocent people (whichever one they are doesn't matter).

The gist I get is this. Really bad time for JB during the scandal, ESPN looking to confirm their story on Fine (which is their back-up plan when they did not get credit, and enough TV views and page clicks for the Sandusky scandal). College coaches abusing kids was "in" at that moment and they wanted to milk it for everything it was worth, even though it was never as "good a story" as the Sandusky case. Andy Katz is their college basketball guy, has for morals, and would love to get his name out there more.

Game plan: get JB in the room anyway you can. "Yeah, sure, no Fine questions". Press, press, press. Anyone who says that JB should have known, and JB should have done this, and JB should have done that, has never been interrogated with a camera on them knowing they will be viewed by millions of people and any emotional reaction can cost them their job, life, and legacy that they spent 40-50 years building. And Andy Katz couldn't care less. Get the sexy story.

To all the people saying that Boeheim should be more classy, is a bad example, blah blah blah. JB values respect and loyalty above how he appears in public. THAT my friends, is something to be respected. To put on a face, when you feel used, just so you give the appearance of class is weak and pathetic. Its a fantasy concept. It's also a nice excuse for cowards and the submissive. I'll take a guy who calls a scumbag an idiot over the guy who accepts the "way the world is" and refuses to have personal boundaries.

This is an awesome post. Incredibly thorough. I agree 100% with you.

Post more often!

 

[cto]

Until you're on the opposite side of the microphone from the person being interviewed, it is hard to understand all the PR and self-puffing tricks that many of these people utilize to keep away from being truthful about important issues. I pissed off people like Boeheim on countless occasions because I refused to add my name to their PR lackey list and tried to break through to the truth of the matter. I even got my employer pissed off at me numerous times. I always saw my job as to get my guests to be real, so members of the audience could judge for themselves on whatever the issue was.

Tom, There is a big difference between "You can't ask me that" and "I can't answer that because it is a pending legal matter." In most cases, it is dumb to answer a question that involves a pending legal matter because anything you say can be used against you in a legal case (e.g., JB's initial comment that the allegations about Fine were "a bunch of lies." That comment got him sued, resulting in months of time and expense). Many times during my corporate career, I wanted to tell a reporter how dumb and outrageous some lawsuit was... but our lawyers always made me say... "I can't talk about that because it is a pending legal matter." In retrospect, I was always glad that I listened to the lawyers.

 

[OttoMets]

..
..
.

Great post!

As for Boeheim, given the history of local reporters rolling over for him, it's no stretch to think that he expects to have some control over the questions.

Regarding Katz, he's never come across as a professional journalist. He's a talking television guy; square peg in a round hole, as someone else said.

 

[Marsh01]

He has a chat on espn.com today at 2pm. Wonder if he will take and post a JB question. You know that there will be some sent to him on the topic.

 

[kingtidge]

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.

The reason they went guns blazing on the Fine story was they got scooped on the sandusky/ped state story (by yahoo sports)

Egg on face...

They wanted to own the Fine story from day 1 and threw the kitchen sink at it (Katz included) and put Schwarz on it to milk/over-hype it and even fabricate aspects of the story in an effort to make it a story the scope and significance of Ped St. (which it clearly wasn't even close too...)

ESPN can suck the nuggets... Katz included...Oh Lord

 

[jvbj01]

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.

I don't know if it is necessary to sit down with him, but I do think an apology is owed. The whole name calling thing with society just baffles me. It is immature and hurtful. JB should have said everything he did, except calling Katz an idiot. I think JB looked silly once that popped out of his mouth.

......but who am I to judge...

 

[Hoboken Cuse]

The reason they went guns blazing on the Fine story was they got scooped on the sandusky/ped state story (by yahoo sports)

Egg on face...

They wanted to own the Fine story from day 1 and threw the kitchen sink at it (Katz included) and put Schwarz on it to milk/over-hype it and even fabricate aspects of the story in an effort to make it a story the scope and significance of Ped St. (which it clearly wasn't even close too...)

ESPN can suck the nuggets... Katz included...Oh Lord

The Patriot News of Harrisburg broke the Penn State scandel - not yahoo sports. I believe the female reporter won a Pulitzer Prize last year.

 

[orangecuse]

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.

Precisely! Contingencies are made all the time with high public figures, they're certainly not going in there as anything goes, or no holds barred. It's why when the rare interview of this nature is given, it's highly publicized/advertised as such.

 

[orangecuse]

It's hard for me to be unbiased since I think an ESPN "journalist" is at it's fundamental core, a scumbag profession. Actors reading pre-planned scripts, discussing pre-written talking points, engaging in fake debates, and manufacturing controversy at the expense of careers, relationships, and lives of guilty and innocent people (whichever one they are doesn't matter).

The gist I get is this. Really bad time for JB during the scandal, ESPN looking to confirm their story on Fine (which is their back-up plan when they did not get credit, and enough TV views and page clicks for the Sandusky scandal). College coaches abusing kids was "in" at that moment and they wanted to milk it for everything it was worth, even though it was never as "good a story" as the Sandusky case. Andy Katz is their college basketball guy, has for morals, and would love to get his name out there more.

Game plan: get JB in the room anyway you can. "Yeah, sure, no Fine questions". Press, press, press. Anyone who says that JB should have known, and JB should have done this, and JB should have done that, has never been interrogated with a camera on them knowing they will be viewed by millions of people and any emotional reaction can cost them their job, life, and legacy that they spent 40-50 years building. And Andy Katz couldn't care less. Get the sexy story.

To all the people saying that Boeheim should be more classy, is a bad example, blah blah blah. JB values respect and loyalty above how he appears in public. THAT my friends, is something to be respected. To put on a face, when you feel used, just so you give the appearance of class is weak and pathetic. Its a fantasy concept. It's also a nice excuse for cowards and the submissive. I'll take a guy who calls a scumbag an idiot over the guy who accepts the "way the world is" and refuses to have personal boundaries.

Just an awesome post! If there were any one post that could receive muliple likes, this certainly would be way up there on that short list.

 

[dollarbill44]

To put on a face, when you feel used, just so you give the appearance of class is weak and pathetic. Its a fantasy concept. It's also a nice excuse for cowards and the submissive. I'll take a guy who calls a scumbag an idiot over the guy who accepts the "way the world is" and refuses to have personal boundaries.

I agree with much of what you said, but this last part got too sanctimonious. There are many different ways to deal with people. There is a time and a place for every different type of reaction. "Turning the other cheek", or "To put on a face" as you wrote it, does not necessarily make one weak, pathetic, cowardly, submissive or lacking in personal boundaries. Sometimes it is just the opposite.

 

[triplethrea]

I agree with much of what you said, but this last part got too sanctimonious. There are many different ways to deal with people. There is a time and a place for every different type of reaction. "Turning the other cheek", or "To put on a face" as you wrote it, does not necessarily make one weak, pathetic, cowardly, submissive or lacking in personal boundaries. Sometimes it is just the opposite.

All depends on the situation.

If someone keeps poking you with a stick, and doesn't stop when you ignore them, you need to slap that stick out of their hand.

We never heard about this Katz incident for one year, which sounds like JB did turn the other cheek. Yet here was Katz, in the press room, asking questions to JB like nothing ever happened.

When you deal with scum and people who have little morals, "turning the other cheek" simply means they can get away with what they did again. Have you ever been bullied? Bullies don't care how "classy" you are. They only speak one language and unless you speak it back, it continues.

Katz publicly humiliated JB.
JB publicly humiliates Katz.
Sounds like they're even now.

 

[OttoMets]

Katz publicly humiliated JB.
JB publicly humiliates Katz.
Sounds like they're even now.

If they were preschool classmates, yes.

 

[TexanMark]

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.

You might be right..but you cross a big public figure...you don't get the chance to ask again. You choose carefully before interviewing the Big Guys.

 

[Orangello]

It's crystal clear that what he wanted was a sound bite of JB on tape saying "I can't speak about the Bernie Fine matter" which ESPN would have then run a gazillion times to imply/suggest stonewalling/coverup. That is just dirty pool especially if he was told in advance that topic was off limits.