When Bo Pelini Talks, People Hear What They Want To Hear

[Saunders]

^ didn't see too many facts. for the most part the article read like commentary to me.

 

 

Then it gets a little juicy, from my perspective. Pelini says that the media should know that he's not a nut job, yet some members of the media choose to do portray him in that fashion. Take Matt Schick of Omaha radio station KOZN-1620 AM. He started criticizing

Pelini's halftime interview with ESPN's Quint Kessenich before it even began. I've seen Mike'l Severe, his KOZN co-host, suggest that Pelini is going to hire cooking instructors for his staff. So yes, Pelini does have a point here.

And then there's Severe today calling Pelini a "

baby" and taking offense that Pelini feels some members of the media are miscategorizing him. I understand why talk radio hosts like Schick and Severe make outrageous statements; they are in the business of having conversations and sometimes radio hosts have to stoke the conversation. It's entertainment. Just don't deny what you are doing.

The second half meltdown against South Carolina being the result of Pelini losing his cool? Pelini called it "asinine". That fallacy already

been debunked...yet you still hear people insisting that Pelini's outburst in the fourth quarter caused the third quarter breakdowns on the field.

 

So, what about the cited examples? Everyone knows that many members of the media resort to throwing out outlandish claims and sometimes outright lies, just to get more readers/viewers/listeners. There's proof.

[hskrpwr13]

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

 

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

Which is hearing what you want to hear. It means you've made up your mind, and only see facts that support your theory, versus basing your theory on all the facts.

 

My point of that statment was that some in the media and non-Bo-fans many times know exactly what he meant, but conciously make the decision to spin it a different way to further an agenda. I don't see that as "hearing what you want to hear". To me, that attitude is more subconcious, and not as nefarious as spin-doctoring.

 

I agree with your statement too. But since you misunderstood what I meant, this supports my first point, that sometimes the one delivering the message is at fault for not being clear. LOL

[HUSKER FREAK]

Critics will always be there no matter what, but I think Nebraska would be crazy to get rid of Pelini prematurely. He is doing things for the long haul. This is what we needed here not a Bill Callahan. BC could have been great at a school in a talent rich recruiting bed, but not a good fit here at all. He just wasn't good at taking raw talent and molding them, that's why he is good in the NFL.

['SkersRule]

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

 

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

 

If someone "misreads" Bo's statements how exactly is that his fault?

[hskrpwr13]

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

 

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

 

If someone "misreads" Bo's statements how exactly is that his fault?

 

When a message/statement can legitimately be interpreted in multiple ways, its the reciever's fault if he/she doesn't grasp the intended meaning?

[caveman99]

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

 

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

 

If someone "misreads" Bo's statements how exactly is that his fault?

 

When a message/statement can legitimately be interpreted in multiple ways, its the reciever's fault if he/she doesn't grasp the intended meaning?

Not necessarily, but that still doesn't mean it is the fault of the speaker either. A case of misunderstanding doesn't have to be laid in one person's lap all of the time. The real question should be whether in instances like that if either side has a responsibility to cross the gap and try fix the misunderstanding. It is clear neither Bo or most of the press are willing to do so for different reasons, right, wrong, or indifferent.

[IvabigN]

Critics will always be there no matter what, but I think Nebraska would be crazy to get rid of Pelini prematurely. He is doing things for the long haul. This is what we needed here not a Bill Callahan. BC could have been great at a school in a talent rich recruiting bed, but not a good fit here at all. He just wasn't good at taking raw talent and molding them, that's why he is good in the NFL.

The only reason I can think of for saying Billy boy is good in the NFL is that he'll never ever have to step foot in Nebraska-

[zoogs]

The second half meltdown against South Carolina being the result of Pelini losing his cool? Pelini called it "asinine". That fallacy already

been debunked

^ Commentary, not fact.

 

The whole premise of this article is commentary, so yes, it is possible to agree or disagree. I will agree, though. People tend to hear what they want to hear.

[Saunders]

The second half meltdown against South Carolina being the result of Pelini losing his cool? Pelini called it "asinine". That fallacy already

been debunked

 

^ Commentary, not fact.

 

 

The whole premise of this article is commentary, so yes, it is possible to agree or disagree. I will agree, though. People tend to hear what they want to hear.

Read the link.

[kchusker_chris]

The second half meltdown against South Carolina being the result of Pelini losing his cool? Pelini called it "asinine". That fallacy already

been debunked

 

 

^ Commentary, not fact.

 

 

 

The whole premise of this article is commentary, so yes, it is possible to agree or disagree. I will agree, though. People tend to hear what they want to hear.

Read the link.

I think you are a perfect example of people hearing what they want to hear

[zoogs]

Read the link.

 

Yeah, I read it. It's an argument.

 

I don't know why it should be surprising that facts are used to make or support an argument, but that does not make an opinionated conclusion "fact."

 

The reality is - in this game; the team had already lost its cool before Pelini did

 

 

Not all of his arguments are based on fact, either.

 

 

You might think that Pelini was a monster throughout the entire game, but it wasn't until the fourth quarter that Pelini went after the officials. Critics might point out his halftime interview, where he blew off Quint Kessenich, telling him "We'll be fine" instead of answering his question about the touchdown pass to Ashlon Jeffery. How you feel about that is probably related to how you feel about halftime interviews.

 

 

While I get that it is a lovely conclusion that I'd have no trouble believing, it just isn't the kind of thing you can call fact or falsehood.

[Saunders]

double

[Saunders]

The second half meltdown against South Carolina being the result of Pelini losing his cool? Pelini called it "asinine". That fallacy already

been debunked

 

 

 

^ Commentary, not fact.

 

 

 

 

The whole premise of this article is commentary, so yes, it is possible to agree or disagree. I will agree, though. People tend to hear what they want to hear.

Read the link.

I think you are a perfect example of people hearing what they want to hear

How so?

[zoogs]

I'm talking the difference between argument and fact.

 

I don't know how you can possibly empirically quantify at what point Bo "lost his cool", or at what point the team "lost its cool." The author seems to flippantly decide the case of the latter by looking at penalties prior to and during the fourth quarter. And he dismisses the notion of Bo losing his cool prior to the 4th quarter by simply dismissing the halftime interview and claiming, I think, that Bo didn't lose his cool prior to the 4th quarter, based on a review of the TV footage.

 

* Oh, and never mind the fact that the team committed more penalties during the 4th quarter than they had averaged during the first three.

 

* I also reject the notion that Bo's "losing his cool", if it happened, could be attributed to one blowup, which is what this article is based on. If Bo lost it that game, it was more than just one or two highly visible moments -- those are mere symptoms. And the buildup and other symptoms of that are the things that the team would can feel, being around him on the sidelines and in that halftime locker, but not something we can just "tell" from checking out the TV coverage.

 

Granted: I think you'd have to be entering pretty speculative waters if you tried to ascribe a team's struggles to volatility from the head coach. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. So I don't really disagree with the premise of the article. I completely disagree with the notion that his conclusions are fact.

 

Maybe we're dealing with semantics, but I think you set that stage. I don't particularly think the team melted down as a result of Bo checking out, but whether or not you're in agreement, one thing that should be clear is that we do not have, as you suggested, all the facts.

[Saunders]

I'm talking the difference between argument and fact.

 

I don't know how you can possibly empirically quantify at what point Bo "lost his cool", or at what point the team "lost its cool." The author seems to flippantly decide the case of the latter by looking at penalties prior to and during the fourth quarter. And he dismisses the notion of Bo losing his cool prior to the 4th quarter by simply dismissing the halftime interview and claiming, I think, that Bo didn't lose his cool prior to the 4th quarter, based on a review of the TV footage.

 

* Oh, and never mind the fact that the team committed more penalties during the 4th quarter than they had averaged during the first three.

 

* I also reject the notion that Bo's "losing his cool", if it happened, could be attributed to one blowup, which is what this article is based on. If Bo lost it that game, it was more than just one or two highly visible moments -- those are mere symptoms. And the buildup and other symptoms of that are the things that the team would can feel, being around him on the sidelines and in that halftime locker, but not something we can just "tell" from checking out the TV coverage.

 

Granted: I think you'd have to be entering pretty speculative waters if you tried to ascribe a team's struggles to volatility from the head coach. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. So I don't really disagree with the premise of the article. I completely disagree with the notion that his conclusions are fact.

 

Maybe we're dealing with semantics, but I think you set that stage. I don't particularly think the team melted down as a result of Bo checking out, but whether or not you're in agreement, one thing that should be clear is that we do not have, as you suggested, all the facts.

You're arguing that the sky isn't blue. Technically, you are correct. It isn't. But when looking at the big picture, and reality, yes, when you look up, it's blue.

 

If there's a spelling error in a textbook, that doesn't invalidate the whole thing... There may be some incorrect statements in his article, but IMO, the main point stands.

 

The whole point of the article, is that certain media members (and fans) have pre-determined thoughts on Pelini. They bend facts, or outright ignore them, just to solidify their opinion. It's not about being truthful, it's about shock jocking your way to increased numbers. There are people who will never be happy with anything Bo does. The same people who literally bitched because Bo hired Terry Joseph 3 days after saying he was going to take his time. Hell, there's people that don't like TO. Those are the types that hear what they want to hear.

 

But anyway, I'm done with this argument.