Media or Fans?

[dubsker]

You can't do it because he didn't say it, and that's all there is to it.

You claim you don't over analyze, but you're taking an innocuous comment where nothing untrue was said and inferring, based upon your word dissection that what he said was not appropriate. You even go on to say what he SHOULD have said, but you aren't over analyzing. No way.

You're also claiming that someone is using negative press as an excuse for poor play? I'd like to see where anyone besides you has imagined it up as an excuse. Certain members of the '07 defense have been gone for a while.

You guys keep obsessing over comments that mostly get passed on with 0 context, I'll continue enjoying football for what it is. The media sucks almost everywhere. Why is it so inconceivable that some people prefer to side with their team over a dying monster that has to keep getting more sensational just to survive?

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Fair enough, I took a quote someone posted and I don't even know where it was taken from, in what context it was said or how he intended it.

I stand by my comments about Bo, though. He is terrible at dealing with the media, and whether he likes it or not, that's at least a small part of his job. And as people, right or wrong, become less satisfied with the results of his teams, it starts to bite him. The media finds more things to snipe at, and more fans are willing to believe and accept it. I think fan negativity would be there anyway, but the media fuels it.

 

[dergibog]

Switzer and Bowden both got chased out of town. Dr. Tom wasn't the greatest with the press. Remember when Armen Katiayan came to town? Bo is just Bo, but really some of the stuff people write is just so much bull$h!t, I can't blame him for having a hard time with it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Yeah, there are sports journalists who enjoy stirring up the pot. More often they're trying to find a storyline (we consume more sports stories than we do say...geopolitics). Some of those take a few liberties, but they're rarely egregious or entirely inaccurate. They do ask a lot of stupid questions. Post-game press conferences rarely reveal anything interesting beyond what it takes to get a coach or player pissed off.

But on the other hand: beat reporters often know a lot more than they actually report. They know the little locker room melodramas and the real reason why some players are benched, having a snit, hiding injuries or under investigation. For a variety of reasons (including liability and access) sports reporters actually DON'T dish the dirt. It may come off as speculation and innuendo, but sometimes they're putting what they can't say directly between the lines. I'll always pay attention to what the beat reporters are saying. The part-time pundits, not so much.