Skeptic
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,372
Sometimes it is well we have the "media", else we'd have to take responsibility. One of my roles at one time was to work with businessmen and such on something called "media relations". An astonishing number of them claimed misquotes. An equally astonishing number, it turned out, said exactly what the particular institution said they said. You can see it today even when it is on videotape: you didn't see what you thought you saw when I said what I didn't say. I recall a story about Eugene Talmadge, probably anecdotal but maybe not, about Young Humman complaining to him about AJC stories. He was reputed to have threatened a libel suit. "Humman," -- Herman to most of us -- said daddy Eugene, "don't you never sue no newspaper for libel. They might prove it." (And movies like Rudy may be a medium but they ain't the media.) So I accept that Lee said what they said, he said and frankly I don't have a problem with it except the juvenile "Nobody understands me" stuff. If he really thought he would convince Johnson to change his 30-odd year offensive scheme, he is much better off at a smaller school, where perhaps intellectual reasoning is less a premium. Seems to me two QBs made out real well with his transfer.To be fair to Vad, he didn't seek out ESPN to dump all over GT. They sought him out and as the media tends to do, they stirred and dug and embelished to make a story more juicy. You don't see all the questions before the edit. Who knows what they asked and how they asked it. In a courtroom, certain tactics are not allowed and are called leading the witness.
It's like in Rudy where the film makers invented half the stuff at the end of the movie that never happened. The big difference is ESPN presents their "version" of events as fact.