Lost respect for Katz...

[Texas Otto]

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.

^^^^this

 

[PeteCalvin]

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.

Great post. Very informative. As I posted earlier in the thread, I think JB was gagged by the university, otherwise he probably would have said something. He has never turned down an opportunity to offer an opinion, educated or otherwise. In that Fine situation, however, his first response to the media was not taken very well. From that point on I think he was advised by SU legal counsel to not say anything. Period. I would bet money that he told Katz the subject is off limits, and for legal reasons, not because he had no comment. Katz, in an effort to appease his bosses and push the ESPN driven story, was put in a position where he couldn't win. Either ask the questions and piss off JB or don't ask them and face the wrath in Bristol. What makes Katz look like an ass in this situation is that he really tried to push the issue on camera to try and get a JB reaction, which would have been undoubtedly used against him in ESPN's court of public opinion.

If Katz really wanted to follow the journalistic protocol Manleyzoo lays out above, he could have said to JB '...look, I understand, coach. You can't talk about it. But I've got the whole of ESPN management breathing down my neck to ask these questions, so I'm going to do it. So I'll ask them, you give your "no comment", and we'll move on to the rest of the interview.'

Seems to me that would have been an easy conversation to have. Katz was not going to get any information of consequence anyway. It's not like he had Deep Throat on the phone. Seemed to be a very unnecessary approach to the questioning with the only obvious outcome being to embarrass Jim Boeheim on camera and get off showing it in a constant loop for the next two weeks. Katz deserves whatever criticism he gets. As a professional, he could have taken control of that situation and made less of an ass of himself. It didn't have to go down like that.

 

[alibrat66]

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.

I was referring to the former situation, Joyce. And, I'm sure you can admit that corporations, institutions, and even government for the most part do their best to obfuscate; they are trying their best to look good rather than tell the truth.

 

[manleyzoo]

Great post. Very informative. As I posted earlier in the thread, I think JB was gagged by the university, otherwise he probably would have said something. He has never turned down an opportunity to offer an opinion, educated or otherwise. In that Fine situation, however, his first response to the media was not taken very well. From that point on I think he was advised by SU legal counsel to not say anything. Period. I would bet money that he told Katz the subject is off limits, and for legal reasons, not because he had no comment. Katz, in an effort to appease his bosses and push the ESPN driven story, was put in a position where he couldn't win. Either ask the questions and piss off JB or don't ask them and face the wrath in Bristol. What makes Katz look like an ass in this situation is that he really tried to push the issue on camera to try and get a JB reaction, which would have been undoubtedly used against him in ESPN's court of public opinion.

If Katz really wanted to follow the journalistic protocol Manleyzoo lays out above, he could have said to JB '...look, I understand, coach. You can't talk about it. But I've got the whole of ESPN management breathing down my neck to ask these questions, so I'm going to do it. So I'll ask them, you give your "no comment", and we'll move on to the rest of the interview.'

Seems to me that would have been an easy conversation to have. Katz was not going to get any information of consequence anyway. It's not like he had Deep Throat on the phone. Seemed to be a very unnecessary approach to the questioning with the only obvious outcome being to embarrass Jim Boeheim on camera and get off showing it in a constant loop for the next two weeks. Katz deserves whatever criticism he gets. As a professional, he could have taken control of that situation and made less of an ass of himself. It didn't have to go down like that.

From a journalist's point of view, you are 100 percent correct and I couldn't agree more.

 

[manleyzoo]

I was referring to the former situation, Joyce. And, I'm sure you can admit that corporations, institutions, and even government for the most part do their best to obfuscate; they are trying their best to look good rather than tell the truth.

Tom, similar to you, I have been in thousands of situations where corporate communications insists that their version of the news is the truth and anything else constitutes the reporter's or the publication's agenda.It's their best smokescreen to get you to do half of your job, and what goes hand in glove with that is insisting that your subject will not talk about something so don't bother even to ask. As you noted in your experience, I, too, never have let an interviewee frame the conversation, that's my job, and, surprisingly, in enough cases to remember, I've asked a question I was informed he/she wouldn't address, only to find them more than willing to talk about it. Happened just last week with John Chambers at Cisco. As you mentioned, it's PR's job to limit the conversation but that often limits the truth as well. With Katz, he was right to ask the Fine questions, but from there on maybe not so good.

 

[CuseTroop]

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.

Just read the chat, he didnt answer any questions on it, Its only mentioned a few times in the comments section. The first question he answered was from a dude in Syracuse tho

 

[Cuseregular]

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.

amen bro, well said. If anything life has taught me is that there is one thing and only one thng a bully understands, and that's a hard punch to the nose. Here with this issue it's metaphorical but needed be done nonetheless. As the other poster mentioned there ARE time to turn the other cheek, this was not one of them.

 

[tbonezone]

coach JB says he regrets calling katz an idiot. knows there are better ways to handle said situation.
you're all basically defending the man whose actions he himself admits were probably a mistake.

 

[PeteCalvin]

coach JB says he regrets calling katz an idiot. knows there are better ways to handle said situation.
you're all basically defending the man whose actions he himself admits were probably a mistake.

Calling him an idiot may have been childish, but calling him out seems fair at this point.

 

[tbonezone]

ok. wow. so we got the full confession and the jury still says not guilty ? it's no wonder JB'S accusers sought a change of venue. apparently he can do no wrong around here.