Kim Mulkey

[Yellow Snow]

My biggest question would be... what in the name of God would take 2 years of investigative journalism on a women's basketball coach? Weird.

Whatever... we'll see what it is I guess.

 

[Sigmapolis]

With all do respect to the folks at the Ames Tribune, they aren't the Washington Post.

It's a big-league paper... but this is also a big-league story (what might be serious accusations of serious misconduct by probably the biggest name in the sport of WBB outside of Caitlyn Clark).

With all due respect to pre-Bulls Fred Hoiberg and Jamie Pollard and some minor disagreements about how hotel rooms were booked during a trip to Hawaii... none of them are Kim Mulkey. I don't think WaPo is poking around if the "bad thing" that happened was a hungover DeAndre Kane had to check out of his hotel room at noon like normal and sleep the rest of it off on the floor of a hotel ballroom.

The Ames Tribune and that story were at commensurate levels to each other.

So are the Washington Post and Kim Mulkey.

 

[Althetuna]

It's a big-league paper... but this is also a big-league story (what might be serious accusations of serious misconduct by probably the biggest name in the sport of WBB outside of Caitlyn Clark).

With all due respect to pre-Bulls Fred Hoiberg and Jamie Pollard and some minor disagreements about how hotel rooms were booked during a trip to Hawaii... none of them are Kim Mulkey. I don't think WaPo is poking around if the "bad thing" that happened was a hungover DeAndre Kane had to check out of his hotel room at noon like normal and sleep the rest of it off on the floor of a hotel ballroom.

The Ames Tribune and that story were at commensurate levels to each other.

So are the Washington Post and Kim Mulkey.

Sure the story its bigger but I would contend the resources and experience at WaPo dwarfs the Tribune. While not perfect, it has a far superior product and I would expect WaPo not to make mistakes the Tribune did.

 

[Sigmapolis]

My biggest question would be... what in the name of God would take 2 years of investigative journalism on a women's basketball coach? Weird.

Whatever... we'll see what it is I guess.

Quality investigative journalism takes time and money -- and times a million when they're going to counterattack in the form of a libel lawsuit if you have anything in a story wrong.

 

[theshadow]

My biggest question would be... what in the name of God would take 2 years of investigative journalism on a women's basketball coach? Weird.

Getting people who have been afraid of retribution to finally go on the record.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Sure the story its bigger but I would contend the resources and experience at WaPo dwarfs the Tribune. While not perfect, it has a far superior product and I would expect WaPo not to make mistakes the Tribune did.

I would argue both the resources and experience of the papers and the importance and public interest of the stories are different by approximately the same proportion to each other in this instance.

Big-time papers make mistakes all the time. Walter Duranty (the Moscow chief of the New York Times during the 1920s and into the early 1930s) won a Pulitzer Prize for reprinting the "official" story denying purges and genocide against Ukrainians being carried out by Stalin and his cronies in the 1930s.

This story is why I'm reserving any judgment until I see the article.

They've either got the goods or they don't. We'll see if they do.

 

[Jer]

Quality investigative journalism takes time and money -- and times a million when they're going to counterattack in the form of a libel lawsuit if you have anything in a story wrong.

Yeah reporters get a bad rap but hard nosed investigative journalism with deep sourcing of systemic issues can take a couple years.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Getting people who have been afraid of retribution to finally go on the record.

I read John Carreyrou's Bad Blood (the journalist who exposed Theranos).

He had the story quickly once he started looking. Holmes had made lots of enemies.

But 90% of the work was getting those enemies to go on record when Carreyrou and everybody else knew that Holmes and Theranos were extremely litigious. The story had to be bulletproof.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Quality investigative journalism takes time and money -- and times a million when they're going to counterattack in the form of a libel lawsuit if you have anything in a story wrong.

I get that.

I'm going to wait and see what the story is before i judge, but spending 2 years on something seems pretty serious.

We'll see.

 

[Althetuna]

I would argue both the resources and experience of the papers and the importance and public interest of the stories are different by approximately the same proportion to each other in this instance.

Big-time papers make mistakes all the time. Walter Duranty (the Moscow bureau chief of the New York Times during the 1920s and into the early 1930s) won a Pulitzer Prize for reprinting the "official" story denying purges and genocide against Ukrainians being carried out by Stalin and his cronies in the 1930s.

This story is why I'm reserving any judgment until I see the article.

They've either got the goods or they don't. We'll see if they do.

Your original argument was using Tribunes mistakes to discredit a yet to be published WaPo story.

I agree judgement should be withweld until the article and response is given. But, be honest, that wasn't what your first post was.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I would argue both the resources and experience of the papers and the importance and public interest of the stories are different by approximately the same proportion to each other in this instance.

Big-time papers make mistakes all the time. Walter Duranty (the Moscow chief of the New York Times during the 1920s and into the early 1930s) won a Pulitzer Prize for reprinting the "official" story denying purges and genocide against Ukrainians being carried out by Stalin and his cronies in the 1930s.

This story is why I'm reserving any judgment until I see the article.

They've either got the goods or they don't. We'll see if they do.

I get your point, but I don't think your example supports it. If they make mistakes all the time, it might behoove you to use an example that is less than 90 years old.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Your original argument was using Tribunes mistakes to discredit a yet to be published WaPo story.

I agree judgement should be withweld until the article and response is given. But, be honest, that wasn't what your first post was.

Nonsense. And you know it. A bad-faith reading of my post to the point of malice.

I was using a small-fry story that's familiar to most of us to make the simple point... just because a newspaper publishes it doesn't mean it's automatically 100% true and not misleading.

The "...and therefore the WaPo is wrong because Travis Hines was wrong about this stupid basketball article from eight years ago!" inference you assert isn't there. It is purely your imagination.

I am (and was!) perfectly willing to believe the Washington Post article when it comes out based on the quality of its evidence and reporting. But we haven't seen it and... hence judgement is reserved.

But even big-time papers get things wrong. See the New York Times missing on genocide.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I get your point, but I don't think your example supports it. If they make mistakes all the time, it might behoove you to use an example that is less than 90 old.

I was going for a BIG one... like denying genocide... and one safely buried in the historical past.

Anything new is likely to run afoul of the moderators for being too political.

 

[alarson]

Your original argument was using Tribunes mistakes to discredit a yet to be published WaPo story.

I agree judgement should be withweld until the article and response is given. But, be honest, that wasn't what your first post was.

Yep. The tribune's mistake was clearly not doing any kind of due diligence, and if ISU is to be believed, Hoiberg had told Hines it wasn't true before he ran to press with it anyway.

The post is going to have multiple levels of approval on something like this, everything will be ran through legal, etc. It won't just be one person going wild and reporting this ****.

Any comparison between the two is pretty dumb tbh

 

[Althetuna]

Nonsense. And you know it. A bad-faith reading of my post to the point of malice.

I was using a small-fry story that's familiar to most of us to make the simple point... just because a newspaper publishes it doesn't mean it's automatically 100% true and not misleading.

The "...and therefore the WaPo..." inference you assert isn't there. It is purely your imagination.

I am (and was!) perfectly willing to believe the Washington Post article when it comes out based on the quality of its evidence and reporting. But we haven't seen it and... hence judgement is reserved.

But even big-time papers get things wrong. See the New York Times missing on genocide.

Then all you really needed to say was, "I'm gonna reserve judgement until the article is published."

The rest was superfluous.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I was going for a BIG one... like denying genocide... and one safely buried in the historical past.

Anything new is likely to run afoul of the moderators for being too political.

Except your example also involves significant geopolitical factors that contributed to it (i.e., Russia probably made it that guy's job to print their version of events). Are you suggesting that this particular investigative journalist is being paid by some foreign government to smear... Kim Mulkey?

You are judging someone for writing something that you don't know the content of based off of events they had nothing to do with. So far, many of us are judging Kim by what we know she's done in the past in combination with her behavior regarding this upcoming, uncertain but evidently serious, allegation. Unless you can give a specific example of this journalist being untruthful/misleading or the WP doing so, I don't see why we should be skeptical of them when they haven't even published anything yet.

 

[Cycsk]

Would saying Mulkey is somewhat a female version of Bob Knight be a fair comparison? No one argues that she has got results on the court just like Knight did and both have confrontational and nasty personalities. Eventually when you are a horrible human your actions over the years eventually will come back to bite you.

Has anyone seen Bob Knight and Kim Mulkey together?

Maybe they are the same person and we have just been thrown off by the wardrobe differences.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Yep. The tribune's mistake was clearly not doing any kind of due diligence, and if ISU is to be believed, Hoiberg had told Hines it wasn't true before he ran to press with it anyway.

The post is going to have multiple levels of approval on something like this, everything will be ran through legal, etc. It won't just be one person going wild and reporting this ****.

Any comparison between the two is pretty dumb tbh

Still missing the point with the bad-faith assertion I was trying to compare the process followed by Travis Hines and the Ames Tribune to the process the Washington Post would be following here.

The Post is full of good reporters and good attorneys who are going to do about as good of a job as one can here. But humans make mistakes. Institutions have financial pressures that seep into newsrooms. Sometimes sources have axes to grind. Groupthink can always happen. We make mistakes as a species.

It's kind of what we do.

All I want is a tiny bit of epistemological humility -- let's see the evidence before we assume which side is wrong and which side is right. "Newspaper X reported it so it must be true even if I haven't seen their article and the supporting evidence presented by it yet" isn't a sound bit of reasoning. "Newspaper X has solid, documented evidence in its article and draws unimpeachable conclusions that logically follow from that evidence" is what I'm looking for... and we might end up with that once it comes out.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Except your example also involves significant geopolitical factors that contributed to it (i.e., Russia probably made it that guy's job to print their version of events). Are you suggesting that this particular investigative journalist is being paid by some foreign government to smear... Kim Mulkey?

You are judging someone for writing something that you don't know the content of based off of events they had nothing to do with. So far, many of us are judging Kim by what we know she's done in the past in combination with her behavior regarding this upcoming, uncertain but evidently serious, allegation. Unless you can give a specific example of this journalist being untruthful/misleading or the WP doing so, I don't see why we should be skeptical of them when they haven't even published anything yet.

Like there aren't "political factors" that influence writing about women's sports in 2024...

You're trying to introduce a bunch of unrelated complications.

Which is this -- newspapers can and do get thing wrong. Even huge stories. They're run by and staffed by human beings. And history shows we're profoundly capable of getting things wrong.

I'll just concentrate on your last line...

"I don't see why we should be skeptical of them when they haven't even published anything yet."

You should always be skeptical... OF EVERYTHING. Especially when nobody has read this article!

I'm perfectly willing to believe 'em if they've got the goods.

They just ain't shown 'em yet. They might. They very well might.

I have no love for Mulkey (though probably not the burning hatred for her that some of you do... just not that level of WBB fan). I'm sure some of you are receptive to prestige journalism saying she's a jerk (or worse) when you already think she's a jerk for her various sideline antics. You might get your wish.

I just don't presume any article I haven't read is true/false without seeing it.

 

[IowaSTATCyclone]

I am certain Mulkey has done nothing wrong. She is quite obviously a victim of circus pants.