Kim Mulkey

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,947
41,653
113
Waukee
Then all you really needed to say was, "I'm gonna reserve judgement until the article is published."

The rest was superfluous.

At least we can agree on the first statement.

But I'm surprised you insist on calling supporting evidence for that statement "superfluous."

You can feel as you wish, but past instances or journalists doing the very human thing of screwing it up (like Travis Hines ignoring counterevidence and seemingly having an axe to grind against Hoiberg and Pollard) sound like a pretty good reason to me to reserve judgement until we see their actual evidence.

I'll be clapping along with the rest of you if they have the stuff to nuke her.

She sure seems frightened like they might.
 

Cycsk

Year-round tailgater
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 17, 2009
28,435
17,388
113
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.

Come on. Your serious journalism conversation is taking away from the fun of my snarky photos of Knight and Mulkey.:confused:
 

Cyched

CF Influencer
May 8, 2009
38,426
66,450
113
Colorado
She sure seems frightened like they might.

I shouldn't speculate until the story actually comes out - but her reaction doesn't seem to line up with a "Kim is a tough coach that sometimes mistreats players" type storyline.

Imagine if it ends up being something criminal?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sigmapolis

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,947
41,653
113
Waukee
The only one engaging in bad faith here is you.

Oh, @alarson, never change. You're a treasure on here.

"Dumbing" me for insisting on seeing the evidence before passing judgement (because newspapers and news organizations can and do make mistakes) is very on brand for you. Trying to put words in my mouth that "Travis Hines did a bad journalism so therefore so did the WaPo!" is also on brand.

I don't like Mulkey. She's a clown and always has been. But she deserves a fair hearing.
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,540
74,331
113
Ankeny
Oh, @alarson, never change. You're a treasure on here.

"Dumbing" me for insisting on seeing the evidence before passing judgement is very on brand for you.

I don't like Mulkey. She's a clown and always has been. But she deserves a fair hearing.

No, dumbing you for consistently misrepresenting other people's arguments (which, funnily enough you do with this post too), doing one thing while claiming another (it was clear what you were doing with that ames tribune comparison, no matter how much you deny it), etc.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Sigmapolis

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
23,898
32,259
113
Parts Unknown
I shouldn't speculate until the story actually comes out - but her reaction doesn't seem to line up with a "Kim is a tough coach that sometimes mistreats players" type storyline.

Imagine if it ends up being something criminal?

Would anything surprise you? Even if it's criminal or completely salacious or violent or wildly political

Would you be surprised?
 

Althetuna

Ducky was the best dog.
SuperFanatic
Jul 7, 2012
14,848
14,197
113
Somewhere in the Minneapolis Area
At least we can agree on the first statement.

But I'm surprised you insist on calling supporting evidence for that statement "superfluous."

You can feel as you wish, but past instances or journalists doing the very human thing of screwing it up (like Travis Hines ignoring counterevidence and seemingly having an axe to grind against Hoiberg and Pollard) sound like a pretty good reason to me to reserve judgement until we see their actual evidence.

I'll be clapping along with the rest of you if they have the stuff to nuke her.

She sure seems frightened like they might.
Citing the actions of the Ames Tribune to impune the Washington Post isn't evidence.

Yes, newspapers do mistakes but way, way more often they get the story correct and the reputable publishers correct their errors.

Again, everyone should wait until the story is released before passing judgement Seems like a given. I believe you should give the same courtesy to the Washington Post.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Sigmapolis

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,947
41,653
113
Waukee
No, dumbing you for consistently misrepresenting other people's arguments (which, funnily enough you do with this post too), doing one thing while claiming another (it was clear what you were doing with that ames tribune comparison, no matter how much you deny it), etc.

"It was CLEAR" how exactly? I just reread it now. There's nothing like that in there.

Because of words that aren't in there that only you can see for some reason?

I'm denying it because it's a ******** assertion without textual evidence on your part.
 
  • Creative
Reactions: alarson

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,947
41,653
113
Waukee
Citing the actions of the Ames Tribune to impune the Washington Post isn't evidence.

I'm not impugning the Washington Post. At least specifically.

I'm impugning journalism as a whole -- it's hard. People make mistakes. Real journalists would agree with me. And I probably personally know far more people in the biz on the East Coast than you do.

A healthy skepticism is a good thing.

Especially when they're reporting negatively on a figure we don't like as it is!
 
  • Creative
Reactions: alarson

Althetuna

Ducky was the best dog.
SuperFanatic
Jul 7, 2012
14,848
14,197
113
Somewhere in the Minneapolis Area
I'm not impugning the Washington Post. At least specifically.

I'm impugning journalism as a whole -- it's hard. People make mistakes. Real journalists would agree with me. And I probably personally know far more people in the biz on the East Coast than you do.

A healthy skepticism is a good thing.

Especially when they're reporting negatively on a figure we don't like as it is!

Yes you are. Point made. Thanks.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Sigmapolis

CycloneWanderer

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2007
8,337
5,687
113
Wandering
Like there aren't "political factors" that influence writing about women's sports in 2024...
I specifically stated GEOpolitical for a reason. There isn't a reason to worry about nation-state influence here.
You're trying to introduce a bunch of unrelated complications.
You have introduced unnecessary skepticism. No one is saying Kim is guilty of whatever is written, we're saying she's ******* weird to be acting the way she is.
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.
Yep. At the same time, you can't throw out all the good work they do just because you haven't seen this story yet. Let me remind you that WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT had LSU people not started talking about it. What little we know about this story hasn't come from the WP - it has come from LSU and Mulkey. The WP hasn't acted anything but professional so far relating to this.
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 don't have anything to be skeptical of yet. The only thing we can be skeptical of right now is Kim's story. If being skeptical of everything that exists is your stance, why are you not skeptical of her story? Kim Mulkey is being paid to coach basketball. The journalist writing this story is being paid to find an interesting truth. If his story is false, that journalist loses his career. Frankly, it's ******** for Kim to be essentially dragging someone through the mud for actions he has NOT YET TAKEN. If the story is false, refute the allegations in private and no story gets published. By not engaging with the reporter at all, you aren't giving him a shot to verify your story.
I'm perfectly willing to believe 'em if they've got the goods.
We haven't seen the story yet, much less the goods. All we've seen is reaction from LSU and Mulkey.
They just ain't shown 'em yet. They might. They very well might.
Exactly, there is no reason to be skeptical when you don't even know what to be skeptical of. Saying Kim is acting weird isn't blindly believing an allegation that doesn't exist yet. It's an expression of skepticism towards someone who is clearly agitated by something with something to gain by getting ahead of bad news.
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.
You can express skepticism about allegations only after knowing what they are. By expressing skepticism in the allegation before you've seen it, you are really expressing distrust for the journalist who has done nothing to earn that skepticism. The journalist's behavior is, so far, trustworthy (i.e., he appears to be expending lots of time and effort chasing down this story, verifying it, and being fair to Kim/LSU). Your skepticism towards this journalist and his story is a blind one.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,947
41,653
113
Waukee
I specifically stated GEOpolitical for a reason. There isn't a reason to worry about nation-state influence here.

Bias can seep into papers for reasons that don't have anything to do with goings on in Moscow.

You have introduced unnecessary skepticism. No one is saying Kim is guilty of whatever is written, we're saying she's ******* weird to be acting the way she is.

"Unnecessary" is doing a lot of work there. Too much.

It is appropriate to be skeptical of an article nobody has seen on a controversial figure that many people already dislike about what could be a very serious set of allegations.

Dismissing it without seeing it would be "unnecessary skepticism." I'll wait until I can read it, consider the evidence they present, and then decide to accept or reject its conclusions.

@KnappShack made the strong point earlier that imputing her motivations ("weird to be acting the way she is") and drawing conclusions from them isn't the strongest ground to be on.

Yep. At the same time, you can't throw out all the good work they do just because you haven't seen this story yet. Let me remind you that WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT had LSU people not started talking about it. What little we know about this story hasn't come from the WP - it has come from LSU and Mulkey. The WP hasn't acted anything but professional so far relating to this.

I never threw out any of their work. How could I? I haven't seen it. None of us have.

I don't have anything to be skeptical of yet. The only thing we can be skeptical of right now is Kim's story. If being skeptical of everything that exists is your stance, why are you not skeptical of her story? Kim Mulkey is being paid to coach basketball. The journalist writing this story is being paid to find an interesting truth. If his story is false, that journalist loses his career. Frankly, it's ******** for Kim to be essentially dragging someone through the mud for actions he has NOT YET TAKEN. If the story is false, refute the allegations in private and no story gets published. By not engaging with the reporter at all, you aren't giving him a shot to verify your story.

The skepticism is a principle, not a specific reaction to this yet unseen story.

Such principles are good to have -- especially nowadays.

I have nothing but respect for investigative journalists. Like I said earlier in the thread and elsewhere, I read John Carreyrou's book about the Theranos scandal late last year. When was the last time you sat down and read 500+ pages of reporting about a scandal put together by an investigative journalist?

I also pay for a WaPo subscription (even if I no longer live there) to support such research.

So not only do I support it... I pay for it!

Exactly, there is no reason to be skeptical when you don't even know what to be skeptical of. Saying Kim is acting weird isn't blindly believing an allegation that doesn't exist yet. It's an expression of skepticism towards someone who is clearly agitated by something with something to gain by getting ahead of bad news.

You can express skepticism about allegations only after knowing what they are. By expressing skepticism in the allegation before you've seen it, you are really expressing distrust for the journalist who has done nothing to earn that skepticism. The journalist's behavior is, so far, trustworthy (i.e., he appears to be expending lots of time and effort chasing down this story, verifying it, and being fair to Kim/LSU). Your skepticism towards this journalist and his story is a blind one.

Again, a general principle, and one I stand behind.

@Sigmapolis dumbed my post seconds after I posted it. It is clear you don't even care to read what I'm saying at this point. More blind skepticism.

It took like 30 seconds to read. I'm on a computer, not mobile.

It clearly earned the "DUMB" long before that.