In defense of Greg...

[Triple B]

Wow. This is still going. For people who don't like anything but facts in print, you sure like guessing publicly here what might have happened or why decisions might have been made.

I could write a thousand words on the backstory to this and not even get going, but here's the nutshell: we were told in mid-November from someone aware of the situation (no, not Shauna or Ben) that he had abruptly left the family. At that point, it was just an awkward separation; nobody knew what would happen. Separation isn't anything final; couples that are separated can and often do get back together. The only intention of the original tip was to stop my paper from continuing to write what a great father and husband Ben was. In talking to the people that had tipped us, we were told there was still a reasonable expectation that they might reconcile, that was a compelling reason not to write anything on the matter, since making their problems public would damage the chances of a young family of four getting back together. We recognized -- and warned people at USF -- that the Moffitt-family-man story would likely be written again during bowl week by papers new to covering the Bulls, and one of those stories triggered Thursday's events.

When Shauna and the kids weren't with Ben at Senior Day, it reinforced the thought that something wasn't right. I asked Moffitt directly about it at the Pittsburgh game, and he said everything was fine. Until Thursday morning, when an e-mail was sent to the Times and Tribune, I did not make a single phone call or e-mail to any family members once to ask about this. I'm not digging, I'm not violating privacies, I'm simply reading e-mails sent directly to me. The e-mail and ensuing conversations Thursday established two things that made it, in our judgment, a story unquestionably newsworthy: Ben's lawyer said he was filing for divorce that day, and Shauna's academic allegations. Merging those two things into one story wasn't an easy thing to do -- which was more important? if the lesser issue ultimately caused the more relevant issue to come to light, did that make it a more natural starting point? Writing a headline that addressed both elements wasn't easy, either; what we chose reflected both aspects of the news, and made it clear where the accusation was coming from, two things we thought were important.

I hope that explains the timeline a little. I'm writing more here than I have on my blog or anywhere else -- not really sure why, but I don't like you guys thinking I'm hiding from anything. I'll discuss this as much as I can. A lot of you -- some flogging me, some closing with a kind "may God have mercy on your soul," some not bringing my soul into the conversation -- have sent e-mails to auman@sptimes.com, and I've tried to address as many questions as possible, either by responding to e-mails or posts here. I'll continue to do so. As you were ...

Thanks for sharing that, Greg. While I don't agree with some of the decisions made, I understand a little better where you were coming from after seeing the thought processes behind them.

[Bullpride08]

Yes. Asking a question you know the answer to is sneaky, especially a personal question from a journalist that few would answer with complete honesty. You backed Ben into a corner with those personal questions and he gave you the answers you needed to bolster the statement "He's living a lie".

he's gotcha on that one greg.  Not that the article was intended back when you interviewed him in November but you did use those tiny tid bits to lead up to a rather scathing headline.  You're not a friend of Ben's so what did you expect his response to be in November, particularly to the media. 

At the end of the day I will continue to say it was newsworthy and worthwhile to print.  What wasn't helpful to the article was the ignorant headline, or the comments by his wife that were clearly intended to be hurtful, i.e. "He can barely spell."  You can type away defending your position but you publically humiliated Ben in that article using some irrational quotes by his estranged wife.  That's where the issue truly lies.

[IncrediBULL]

I like the thread of this email "in defense of Greg".   Aside from the first post, most people are rag-ging on Greg.  

It is doubtful that anyone who posts on here, or at least most who post on here, are Journalists who make a living from writing articles.   Every Monday morning QB on this board has chimed in their opinion on this.  That is like us prognosticating on how a cardiovascular surgeon shoud perform a triple bypass, or if the should do the surgery to begin with.  Maybe a few "journalism wannabes" but not too many actual journalists.

No one on this board gets paid for writing articles.  No one here was involved with all of the "family" man articles that Greg and other press wrote.  No one was on here when he observed the issues he observed.  No one here has read all of the emails, or knows all of the details Greg has had to pour through as a journalist to derive his final article.  I suspect that most of the people on here have never even had an article published, not even an editorial.  

My advise, don't criticize the writer.  Greg IS NOT a USF Alumni nor a USF employee.  Greg works for a paper WHO IS A SPONSOR for the Bulls.  Their product is a new paper and selling ads.  Period.   Their "role" is to report the news.   We may not like the news they are reporting, but it is news and it is of interest to people.  In fact, I had at least a couple of people I know point out the article to me, and they could care less about USF.  One even saved the article and gave it to my wife to read.  

The article needed to be written, it is newsworthy, and it told a story.  Read the newspaper today.  Pick an article from the local section.  You will see lots of quotes from real people with their opinions on why an accident occured, or a neighbor next to a murderer, or from a casual observer who witnessed an event.  Each of these are published because it is that person's account of a situation.  In this case, the article was published with sources close to the situation (one of the two affected individuals).  The other person was contacted but chose not to respond as it was moving to a legal matter.

The article was relevent, newsworthy, and needed to be printed regardless of how you feel.  Take off the green and gold glasses, read your local newspaper "objectively" today, and you will see this was no different than any of the other articles.

Now move on....  Leave Greg alone and let him stop defending himself (which shouldn't be required) and let him start covering "new" Bulls News like tomorrow's Pitt game.  

Go Bulls....

[IncrediBULL]

Yes. Asking a question you know the answer to is sneaky, especially a personal question from a journalist that few would answer with complete honesty. You backed Ben into a corner with those personal questions and he gave you the answers you needed to bolster the statement "He's living a lie".

he's gotcha on that one greg.  Not that the article was intended back when you interviewed him in November but you did use those tiny tid bits to lead up to a rather scathing headline.  You're not a friend of Ben's so what did you expect his response to be in November, particularly to the media. 

At the end of the day I will continue to say it was newsworthy and worthwhile to print.  What wasn't helpful to the article was the ignorant headline, or the comments by his wife that were clearly intended to be hurtful, i.e. "He can barely spell."   You can type away defending your position but you publically humiliated Ben in that article using some irrational quotes by his estranged wife.  That's where the issue truly lies.

So now reporters are not supposed to ask subjects and local celebrities questions.  whow, got to think our news papers are going to get less interesting.  A guy who has been reported to be "Joe Family Man" and up for "dad/student/athelete of the year" who is not wearing a ring and his "family" are not there on Senior Day - should not be asked wheer his family is?  Crazy. 

[Triple B]

 I suspect that most of the people on here have never even had an article published, not even an editorial....  

My advise, don't criticize the writer.  

I suspect that most of the people on here have never played college football or basketball but should still be allowed to crtitique games. It goes with the territory .....

Now move on....  Leave Greg alone and let him stop defending himself (which shouldn't be required)

I think it's pretty cool to have a platform where Greg CAN defend himself .....

[Bullpride08]

Yes. Asking a question you know the answer to is sneaky, especially a personal question from a journalist that few would answer with complete honesty. You backed Ben into a corner with those personal questions and he gave you the answers you needed to bolster the statement "He's living a lie".

he's gotcha on that one greg.  Not that the article was intended back when you interviewed him in November but you did use those tiny tid bits to lead up to a rather scathing headline.  You're not a friend of Ben's so what did you expect his response to be in November, particularly to the media. 

At the end of the day I will continue to say it was newsworthy and worthwhile to print.  What wasn't helpful to the article was the ignorant headline, or the comments by his wife that were clearly intended to be hurtful, i.e. "He can barely spell."   You can type away defending your position but you publically humiliated Ben in that article using some irrational quotes by his estranged wife.  That's where the issue truly lies.

So now reporters are not supposed to ask subjects and local celebrities questions.  whow, got to think our news papers are going to get less interesting.   A guy who has been reported to be "Joe Family Man" and up for "dad/student/athelete of the year" who is not wearing a ring and his "family" are not there on Senior Day - should not be asked wheer his family is?  Crazy.   

For a man that wants to criticize people for their posts you are certainly quick to jump into the foray.

Re-read my post, the point is he inquired about the lack of a ring and his relationship with his wife in mid-November...then used that point as a basis for his headline/topic "Living a Lie," people automatically presumed from reading greg's article that Ben was in someway intentionally lying or concealing something from the Times.

Again, I concurred with the newsworthiness to the extent that it stuck to a piece about the academic issue.  A more appropriate headline would be, "Mr. Family Man getting divorced"  allow the reader to draw a conclusion.  Headlining it "Living a Lie" then subsequently including scathing accusations by his wife SUPPORTING the headline, that were unsubstantiated and given in malice, was shallow reporting.  Remember he put a quote in the paper from his wife that "Ben could barely spell"......

BTW, incredibull I also find the crappy media information about Britney, and all those stars to be useless drivel as well.  In most cases, reports on high profile divorces do not include tasteless quotes from an estranged spouse, even in Greg's paper.  There have been a number of high profile divorces, Bob Basham...and Good ole Bob had every reason to tell the media his wife couldn't read, write, or spell....they reported it, as it should be reported, but they kept it above board sticking to the facts pretaining to the divorce, and away from the finger pointing and name calling.  Leave that for TMZ and the wannabe's- Greg's better then that.

[IncrediBULL]

 I suspect that most of the people on here have never even had an article published, not even an editorial....  

My advise, don't criticize the writer.  

I suspect that most of the people on here have never played college football or basketball but should still be allowed to crtitique games. It goes with the territory .....

Now move on....  Leave Greg alone and let him stop defending himself (which shouldn't be required)

I think it's pretty cool to have a platform where Greg CAN defend himself .....

Both good points.   I guess I am just frustrated because everyone is bashing him and I think if anything he has been extra careful in the past to represent USF in a positive light at all times.  He leaves out most of the bad (and there is plenty) but publishes a lot of good articles about our rise.  Then something bad happens, he reports it because it is his job, and everyone lambasts him.  We all have to do things in our jobs we may not be happy about, or agree with, but we do them because it is our job.  I want Greg to get back to his job writing about the Bulls and he should not have to look over his shoulder.  I think he cares about USF, The Bulls, Leavitt, Heath, etc....

[Bullpride08]

Incred,

Greg is overall good to USF, but given the personal nature of this it's understandable some have taken exception to the nature of the article.

[IncrediBULL]

Yes. Asking a question you know the answer to is sneaky, especially a personal question from a journalist that few would answer with complete honesty. You backed Ben into a corner with those personal questions and he gave you the answers you needed to bolster the statement "He's living a lie".

he's gotcha on that one greg.  Not that the article was intended back when you interviewed him in November but you did use those tiny tid bits to lead up to a rather scathing headline.  You're not a friend of Ben's so what did you expect his response to be in November, particularly to the media. 

At the end of the day I will continue to say it was newsworthy and worthwhile to print.  What wasn't helpful to the article was the ignorant headline, or the comments by his wife that were clearly intended to be hurtful, i.e. "He can barely spell."   You can type away defending your position but you publically humiliated Ben in that article using some irrational quotes by his estranged wife.  That's where the issue truly lies.

So now reporters are not supposed to ask subjects and local celebrities questions.  whow, got to think our news papers are going to get less interesting.   A guy who has been reported to be "Joe Family Man" and up for "dad/student/athelete of the year" who is not wearing a ring and his "family" are not there on Senior Day - should not be asked wheer his family is?  Crazy.   

For a man that wants to criticize people for their posts you are certainly quick to jump into the foray.

Re-read my post, the point is he inquired about the lack of a ring and his relationship with his wife in mid-November...then used that point as a basis for his headline/topic "Living a Lie," people automatically presumed from reading greg's article that Ben was in someway intentionally lying or concealing something from the Times.

Again, I concurred with the newsworthiness to the extent that it stuck to a piece about the academic issue.  A more appropriate headline would be, "Mr. Family Man getting divorced"  allow the reader to draw a conclusion.  Headlining it "Living a Lie" then subsequently including scathing accusations by his wife SUPPORTING the headline, that were unsubstantiated and given in malice, was shallow reporting.  Remember he put a quote in the paper from his wife that "Ben could barely spell"......

BTW, incredibull I also find the crappy media information about Britney, and all those stars to be useless drivel as well.  In most cases, reports on high profile divorces do not include tasteless quotes from an estranged spouse, even in Greg's paper.  There have been a number of high profile divorces, Bob Basham...and Good ole Bob had every reason to tell the media his wife couldn't read, write, or spell....they reported it, as it should be reported, but they kept it above board sticking to the facts pretaining to the divorce, and away from the finger pointing and name calling.  Leave that for TMZ and the wannabe's- Greg's better then that.

Agreed, stick to the facts.   First, the divorce papers had not been filed when the news broke, so putting Divorce in the title would have been an issue.  Second, regarding the facts, teh only two parts of the storyline were the family for Mr. Family man are breaking up possibly (he has dissapeared from teh scene according to her, and is talking through lawyers to the paper) and academic concerns about him (which in the wake of FSU, online classes are a hot topic in teh paper now).  He didn't speculate on where Ben was living, but I would suspect she speculated on it given her statement of she doesn't know where he is.  It was definitely her side of the story only, but there wasn't much dirt that wasnt directly related to either the estrangement or the academic charges....

[Brad]

Again, I'm having a real hard time understanding the gripes here.  When Greg reported on Ben Moffitt's wonderful family, you didn't criticize him.  Then he reports that the family is not so wonderful, and all he gets is criticism.  That, my friends, is not being objective.

One can be objective and say that if a reporter wants to build up a player's family life, it doesn't give him a right after that family life is over, to assassinate the player's character.  It might be well enough to say "they are separating, and guess what, she says they committed academic fraud together."