It Turns Out We All Need 20 Minutes With Tim Tebow

THANKS Brian! Your follow up here is important because it allows the facts to be known. Of course, as a former reporter, I should have known better and not ‘taken the bait’ (believing that the phrase was representative of the young player’s point of view).

The old Bo Jackson (mis)‘quote’ -"…football is a hobby…" comes to mind.
Bo Jackson was dogged for years by that MISquote and some  reporters themselves
actually believed that he said that (when he did NOT). Of course, the ‘spirit’ of his
words was simply that he would continue to focus on baseball and that
"everything else was just a hobby." It simply served as a way of emphasizing his focus on bball. Jackson - one heck of a nice guy — dealt with the LIE created
by the media that day just as Thompson does now.

As you and I both know, MANY reporters (see: ANY from NYT, WPost, LAT, to name a few) will print just about anything — regardless of accuracy — to make a name for themselves or promote the editorial staff’s agenda (see: NYT, W. Post, etc.). It’s RAMPANT in modern ‘journalism’ and has destroyed the profession and its once polished reputation. Edgar R. Murrow would be saddened by all of it!

It’s time for journalists to clean up the profession. Your article here is a perfect example of what can be done and I applaud you for your efforts. I wish that others would ‘join’ you and start cleaning up the profession.

Start with sports — right here, right now! Help clean up sports reporting — be the ‘watchdog’ for SN! Perhaps the deceitful, agenda-driven reporters of the NYT, WP, LAT, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS will eventually follow suit…at least we can hope.

Again, thanks Brian. Your article speaks volumes about your (quality) character!

Akita, you completely miss the point.

Fowler thought he had a ticket to ride.  Fowler heard that quote, saw an opportunity to get his name out there, and make his mark.  That temptation also conveniently helped him ignore the context.

Anyone who thinks reporteres, editors, managers, or any combination of people who comprise a "media organization" are pursuing any agenda beyond a financial one are fooling themselves.  I noticed you didn’t include Fox in your list, which suggests perhaps you buy into the "liberal" media theory.  Let me tell you a lttle secret — if Rupert thought he could double his ratings overnight by firing O’Reilly and hiring Olbermann, he’d do it in a heartbeat.  If Olbermann thought he could triple his ratings overnight by throwing Obama under the bus, he’d do it in a heartbeat.

It’s not a liberal media or an anti-Tebow media.  It’s a capitalist media, composed of people with varying degrees of personal ethics.  And most of the people at the top — and those most desperate to get there — have none.

"The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as
some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the
journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run
free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason."  Hunter Thompson, 1988

Whether Meyer had sufficient grounds to take issue with what was reported is secondary to the fact that he handled it in a juvenile manner.

Yes, Meyer is BMOC in Gainesville, but that doesn’t mean he ought to be browbeating and threatening reporters in public.

If Meyer wants to channel his inner Ron Zook he ought to have the good sense to do it behind closed doors.

OMG who cares what some no body college receiver said, Meyer shouldn’t we shouldn’t and Tebow shouldn’t!  Anyone who cares about this get a life!

Meyer is a douche

The problem is some want to hear the trash and some want to hear the truth.

Brian, it’s nice somebody finally gets it.  Meyer could’ve handled it better, but Fowler is the one who wrote that article misleading people.  He knew exactly what he was doing, anyone that reports on UF knows what will happen if you can report the slightest dig at Tebow.

Meyer behaved like the jerk he is. Don’t blame the reporter for that.

urban meyer is a dick.

all this is so overblown,all but meyer’s reaction.fiirst if thompson’s parents can’t read the whole story,then shame on them.second all gator fans will defend meyer.but this just shows how florida is the new kid on the block and can’t handle any bad press.the AD should find a good PR firm to teach that you don’t need to be in the spotlight all the time

urban meyer is a dick..

That pretty much sums it up

I officially have zero respect for Michigan’s journalism school.  What a crock of absolute sh*t.  Get it through your reject maize and blue brain, Cooker, IT IS NOT A REPORTER’S JOB TO INTERPRET WHAT SOMEONE SAYS!  Their job is to write it down and print it.  Context is 100% irrelevant to a reporter.  Urban Meyer is the highest paid ambassador on his campus, and he acts like a 4 year old when someone asks him a question about something one of his players said.  Colin Cowherd brought up a great point this morning about Meyer’s claim that the reporter was irresponsible.  Florida had over 20 arrests last year.  Who’s the irresponsible one?!

And you Florida fans are also living in some sort of fantasy world.  Your coach acted like a jerk.  HE was out of line.  HE embarrassed the University of Florida.

I went to UF and I’m in no way embarrassed by what he did.  By the way, it was just this guy that went that route with the story.  The others that heard the entire interview decided not to do a "gotcha" article. 

buckeyexb —

Context is 100% irrelevant to a reporter? Are you kidding me? That might be the dumbest quote on this page. Context is only insignificant to a journalist when that reporter is trying to create something that may or may not be there. Meyer didn’t have to publicly blast the guy but when you do a sloppy job like that, you’ve got it coming to you.

First of all, why is it so wrong to say anything bad about Tebow?  Yes, i agree he is / was a great leader, motivator, and "college" QB.  But, truthfully, he was not the typical, conventional QB.  Whether that’s good or bad is not really the point.  The teammate probably just didn’t choose his words too wisely when making his comparison.  As for the reporter and Meyer – both of them appear to be VERY immature!

eyesoredwn —

I’m not kidding you.  Context is significant to an EDITORIALIST — NOT a reporter.  He asked a legit question about something one of Meyer’s players said, and he got lambasted for it?  That’s not sloppy journalism.  Quite the contrary actually.

BuckeyeXB:

I understand your passion for the topic, and that’s commendable. However, on this context question you have it exactly backwards. Removing context creates Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. Removing context creates Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. That’s their SOP: remove the original context in which something was said or done, then replace it with the new context of their show/movie/blog. In other words, removing/replacing the original context is the work of editorialist, and conveying the original context is the job of the reporter.

Fowler’s piece misrepresented what Deonte was saying. There’s no issue of “interpreting” at work here — he chopped some words out of a larger context and made it seem to be something other than what it truly was. That’s sloppy journalism but fair game for editorialists, who do that sort of thing all the time on both sides of the aisle.

As for everyone’s assumption that Meyer was defending Tebow, I think he’s protecting Deonte. The last thing this kid needs as his introduction to a national stage is a “just like TO” narrative. First impressions are everything in media cycles. If I were Meyer, I would have made a horse’s butt out of myself, too. That accomplishes two things:
1 — Makes absolutely sure that Deonte’s side of this story gets some air time
2 — Switches everybody complaining about Tebow/Thompson to complaining about me
3 — Lets me go into parent’s homes and say, “Yes, when it comes to people who might try to take advantage of your kid, I can be a difficult person.”

I’m not saying I agree with it, but it’s a standard media response strategy.

Heel, I don’t have anything backwards.  Rush Limbaugh is not a reporter.  Michael Moore is not a reporter.  Bill O’Reilly is not a reporter.  Keith Olberman is not a reporter.  They’re editorialists.  Their job is to say their opinions.  Thank you for illustrating my point for me.

So, it’s safe to say that it’s Meyer’s fault for not explaining to his kids how to deal with the media or how to answer questions intelligently so as to not confuse context.  Again, it’s not a beat-writer’s responsibility to teach that.  If Thompson didn’t mean what he said, he shouldn’t have said anything in the first place.  That’s not the reporter’s fault.  It’s not the reporter’s job to interpret someone’s words as meaning the exact opposite of what they say.  That’s a ridiculous standard.  Maybe Thompson is an idiot, or maybe he really does think he’ll get more action because there will be a true thrower out there.  Who cares?  The point is, he said it, and a reporter was looking to get a comment on it from the head coach.  Considering the true national context of whether Tim Tebow is a real QB or not makes his question of Meyer incredibly fair and justified.

"Context
is 100% irrelevant to a reporter."  Sorry, I think that’s backwards.  I think it’s 100%
relevant.  If a reporter runs a huge piece blasting for John McCain for
opposing breat cancer research because he voted against some funding in a
bill — but fails to note that McCain has supported such research in the
past and only voted against a much larger bill that contained a minor
research provision — then he’s no longer writing a story.  He’s writing
a political ad for George Bush.

We seem to agree that’s what the Moores and Limbaghs of the world do for a living.  We seem to disagree whether or not reporters should do the same thing or not.

Summary — Fowler’s piece was wrong.  Meyer’s reaction was wrong.  Reporters should make sure their pieces reflect enough context so they are not misleading.

Who cares?  Meyer is still nuts and and his behavior was embarassing, out of context or not.

If context is irrelevant, why did Fowler insist on creating his own context for the quote?  His words:

"For all Tim Tebow’s accomplishments, he didn’t exactly spread the
ball around during his final year in Gainesville. And no receiver
suffered more than Thompson, who finished the year with 24 catches for
343 yards and four touchdowns…

"Thompson’s comment was either intentional or he meant to say Brantley’s a more conventional style of quarterback."

Either/or? Fowler already knew what Thompson meant when he wrote the
article, as Thompson responded, when questioned directly, that he
wouldn’t say he was "underutilized," and said that Brantley was a "pure
passer," which was the real context of his remark.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2010/03/florida-gator…

Context is everything.

guardian, Fowler is just stating facts.  Tebow’s passing production went down in his last 2 years.  Debatable?  No.  Does it support what Thompson says?  Yes.  Relevant?  Yes.

How do you know that Fowler already knew anything?  I’ll save you your own embarrassment – you don’t.  You don’t know that because it’s impossible for you to know that.  Thompson said what he said.  Fowler brought attention to the dicotomy in those statements.  He describes the context right there – confusing statements by a moron football player, and says either/or right there!  So, if the author explains the context in plain text to you, and you still don’t get it, then that’s a personal problem.  I recommend you re-enroll in high school English.

Oh, and if you’re going to post a link…make sure it works.

Fact: Thompson didn’t catch many balls last year because he was injured for much of the season.  It had nothing at all to do with Tebow.

Fact:  Thompson dropped many balls, including sure TDs.

Fact:  Fowler posted the Q/A in his blog before converting it into a story seeming to criticize Tebow.

Fact:  Thompson never said he was glad Tebow was gone, or that he was looking forward to the offense without Tebow.  But those were the headlines of the blog, among others.

Impossible?  I knew the context because I live in Florida and read the original, then the revised, then the spun, blogs.

Fowler knew – as well as everyone else present knew – exactly what Thompson meant.

What part of this do you not understand:

Thompson responded, when questioned directly, that he
wouldn’t say he was "underutilized," and said that Brantley was a "pure
passer?"

I know that because I read the original blog before revisions.  As a matter of fact, those quotes are still being blasted at Fowler as I write this.

Oh, and did it occur to you that the article linked might have been removed by the Sentinel?

Just for you, today’s blog from Fowler.  Be sure to read the comments.  Seems I’m not the only one who read the original blog…
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2010/03/jeremy-fowler-florida-gators-practice-could-end-story-of-urban-meyers-confrontation-with-orlando-sentinel-reporter.html

You didn’t save me embarrassment, but you did cost me a few minutes trying to educate the willfully ignorant.  That waste of my time is the embarrassment.

That link is now dead as well.  Try this one:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/gators/os-urban-meyer-apologizes-0328-20100327,0,5187527.story

Again, read the comments.

BTW:  were you not arguing earlier that context is not important?

You:  "He describes the context right there."  You:  "the author explains the context in plain text to you."  You:  "Context is 100% irrelevant to a reporter."

So which is it?  Is context important or is it not?

Did you read the Q/A?  Obviously not.

Feel free to continue your game of "I don"t know what my point is but if I keep changing my argument I might find one." You will find solitaire a  bit of a lonely, but challenging, game.
 

XB: Usually I fall on the same side of the fence as you do, but in this case I disagree.

As a current Journalism major at the University of Iowa, I can confidently say that context is EVERYTHING to a reporter. Editorialists can change the context to fit their argument because they are stating opinions. They aren’t usually right because the words aren’t used in the same way they were meant to be.

But a reporter’s job is to report the facts, like you said. But that also includes the context. Just because reporting the facts means that there’s no interpretation about what was said doesn’t mean that context is irrelevant. In fact, it’s the most important thing. I’ll give you an example (hypothetical): I’m talking to a reporter about the Don Imus incident regarding the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It’s reported that I said "They’ve got a bunch of nappy-headed hoes out there". Now consider what I actually said: Don Imus was fired last week stemming from his racially insensitive comment on the air regarding the Rutgers women’s basketball team: "They’ve got a bunch of nappy-headed hoes out there".

That puts the quote back into the original context, leaving it to be seen as it was, not how a reporter wants to frame it and manipulate the words to take on a different meaning.

Even in text messaging context is a problem. Ever take a text the wrong way because you can’t hear tone of voice, voice inflection, etc.? Those are the things that put the words into context. Without context, words are just words, and could have a billion different meanings. Context is what makes language one of the most useful tools available to the human race.

In one of my classes last year, my professor showed several cropped images, and asked what each image made us think. We thought a man looked as though he were just rescued from a burning village or something by American troops in Vietnam. Then we got to see the full image: the picture of a suspected VC member being executed by a South Vietnamese officer. That totally changed the meaning for all of us. Reporters must give us the facts, yes. But that means giving us the full picture, not just pieces. Because without the whole picture, things are left to interpretation without complete information. And that’s never a good thing.