Idiot Of The Year Award(Brett McMurphy).......No media allowed now, wonder why ?

[BDYZR]

I replied to the e-mail Matt showed. I got a reply from the managing editor named Mass. He said he would like to discuss the problem.

I think they're listening. Especially when I told them how long I've been a subscriber and that when my subscription runs out I would not renew if he still covered the BULLS.

[Jamie]

I don't like the "Greg isn't mean to us" reaction I'm seeing. If USF truly screws something up, I expect the media to talk about it and say they got it wrong. The difference is Greg doesn't invent controversy or go digging for gratuitous things to make USF look bad. He is appropriately critical, if that makes sense.

[mikebeau]

I don't like the "Greg isn't mean to us" reaction I'm seeing. If USF truly screws something up, I expect the media to talk about it and say they got it wrong. The difference is Greg doesn't invent controversy or go digging for gratuitous things to make USF look bad. He is appropriately critical, if that makes sense.

it does.

[FazaUSF]

I don't like the "Greg isn't mean to us" reaction I'm seeing. If USF truly screws something up, I expect the media to talk about it and say they got it wrong. The difference is Greg doesn't invent controversy or go digging for gratuitous things to make USF look bad. He is appropriately critical, if that makes sense.

Yes, we all agree. Brett likes to make sensational headlines about something horrible, something that says to the reader "USF screws up royally again." Except, in the majority of cases, it's not true, and after more facts come out about the subject (you know, when somebody engages in true journalism and actually looks up FACTS), we usually find out that it's totally untrue and there's a perfectly good explanation for whatever devilish spin Brett conjured up. It'd be one thing if it was every once in a while, with BOTH positive AND negative articles coming out. The issue is, Brett very rarely sensationalizes a positive article, if he even writes them at all. Even when an article is generally positive in its subject, it's got shots at the school plugged in all over the place. It's not good journalism, and the readership is tired of it.

[Who'sYourData?]

Had that been his storyline and NOT named the player on the story, then I wouldnt have a problem with it. But that was not the point of the story and naming the kid was unproffesional on his part.

100% correct.  If Brett just reported the incident without the player name, he might have even gotten quotes from Leavitt on the situation.  To call out an 18 year old kid that has been on campus one week is rather bush.  If it was Selvie or Grothe, it might mean more.  But Giddens hasn't been on campus long enough to know what is appropriate and what isn't.