Kim Mulkey

[Jer]

I wish I could bet on whether she will sue.

Hunter can hook you up.

One thing to note is that the vast majority of times, the accused in these matters don't end up actually proceeding with a lawsuit. If there is any validity to the allegations, discovery often times finds additional proof, corroborating evidence, or other skeletons.

 

[Sigmapolis]

As I've previously stated you could have simply have wrote the first half of the quoted statement. Perfectly acceptable. The inclusion of Hines story was a choice you made. You have no clue regarding the quality of the article. Yet, you felt the need to caution everyone on bad journalism.

Sure did -- because it's an important issue. I don't get your insistence that point is irrelevant.

A "comparison" between the Hines and Mulkey article would have went something like...

"The Hines article is bad because it relies too much on anonymous sources, which undermines its point if nobody was willing to go on record with these assertions. The Mulkey article is similar -- too many anonymous former players with complaints unwilling to put themselves on record."

That's what a comparison looks and sounds like.

But obviously I didn't make such comparisons because... we haven't seen the Mulkey article!

You're spinning way more "connection" between the two on my part that is there.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I don't love her, but a lot of her players clearly love her. You could dig up 10 people for anyone that coached d1 that hated them. Part of doing business at that level.

See what the article says.

A lot don't too...

 

[Halincandenza]

Was. Never. A. Comparison. Made.

Just a "let's reserve judgement because bad journalism can happen, like the Hines article."

Just because people didn't want their name out there doesn't make it bad journalism. That is dumb.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Hunter can hook you up.

One thing to note is that the vast majority of times, the accused in these matters don't end up actually proceeding with a lawsuit. If there is any validity to the allegations, discovery often times finds additional proof, corroborating evidence, or other skeletons.

Such threats usually have some mixture of three objectives...

1.) They think the article is genuinely libelous, in which case they believe they can extract a hefty amount of money from the defendant and/or have their good name cleared in court.

It usually settles before that point, though.

2.) Discovery goes two ways. They're going on a fishing expedition for material unflattering to the defendant, which they can then either leak or introduce in court to embarrass them.

This situation was the going theory about, say, Jon Gruden's lawsuit against the NFL. I'm sure there's all sorts of things the NFL would rather not have come out you might find in discovery. His comments, while vile and contemptable, are not likely to be the only insensitive things said in an NFL email.

3.) They know they don't have much of a case, but they're going to try and intimidate the defendant into caving because the process of litigation is itself punishing. It's time-consuming. Expensive. Keeps people up at night worrying. It's just not pleasant to be on the receiving end of a libel lawsuit from somebody who has deeper pockets and better attorneys than you. So, even this threat can make them cave.

Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos kept their fraud under wraps for years through #3 until the Wall Street Journal (and the Murdoch dollars behind it) were solid on their reporting and willing to take the heat.

 

[Althetuna]

Sure did -- because it's an important issue. I don't get your insistence that point is irrelevant.

A "comparison" between the Hines and Mulkey article would have went something like...

"The Hines article is bad because it relies too much on anonymous sources, which undermines its point if nobody was willing to go on record with these assertions. The Mulkey article is similar -- too many anonymous former players with complaints unwilling to put themselves on record."

That's what a comparison looks and sounds like.

But obviously I didn't make such comparisons because... we haven't seen the Mulkey article!

You're spinning way more "connection" between the two on my part that is there.

Because you're attacking the entire journalism community as a whole.

Yes bad journalism occurs but, again, good journalism vastly outweighs the bad. Why do you feel the need to highlight supposed bad journalism when nothing has been published?

We're obviously not going to agree. Cards on them table? I think you have a blind spot regarding the news media. Pointing out the failures of the media while not acknowledging the positive aspects. There's a fine line between a "healthy skepism" and bias.

You can have the last word. I'll read your post but won't respond for the sake of everyone's sanity here.

 

[HFCS]

True, but a journalistic tenant is newsworthiness. The article is newsworthy because its March and Mulkey is in the news. I think it'd probably be popular no matter what time it was released because it's Mulkey, so my guess is that it just happens this is when they've wrapped up. Not everything is a conspiracy, imo (not saying you are alleging it is, but just my take). Mulkey was told for 2 years that the story was being made and could have commented earlier, it's just that she waited so long that they must have gotten a filing deadline for a final edit on Thursday/Friday and had to give her one last shot. She's just disingenuous and is pretending as if that was her only opportunity to comment - in two years - of being made aware of this story.

I’d also add that LSU and the players/families who signed with her had to know the kind of person they were associating with. If/when something terrible drops the typical thing is to act like it’s affecting others who have nothing to do with it.

Just look at her callousness toward rape victims…you joined her, you get whatever’s coming. That’s life.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Because you're attacking the entire journalism community as a whole.

Nope. Just cautioning a healthy skepticism about a controversial figure... one Cyclone fans already dislike. It's when you're dealing with something like that you need to be extra cautious.

What's the old journalism adage?

"If your mother says she loves you, check it out."

Real journalists (and not posers on the Internet who have a vendetta against me) would agree.

Yes bad journalism occurs but, again, good journalism vastly outweighs the bad. Why do you feel the need to highlight supposed bad journalism when nothing has been published?

Sure does. But one bit of bad journalism can do a lot to undermine the vast majority of the good. That's the main reason that bad, overzealous journalism annoys me... it torpedoes the good stuff.

Your job as a reader isn't to accept something before you've even seen it.

And the journalists' job is to prove it so hard no rational person could disagree with them. "Prove it harder" is something any good editor is going to say several times a day to all their reporters.

We're obviously not going to agree. Cards on them table? I think you have a blind spot regarding the news media. Pointing out the failures of the media while not acknowledging the positive aspects. There's a fine line between a "healthy skepism" and bias.

What are you talking about I can't highlight the good stuff? I've referenced John Carreyrou and his takedown of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos in this thread several times. I bought and read his ******* book! How many 500-page books by investigative journalists have you read in the past two years?

I think your blind spot (and @alarson and the like) is you want to argue against somebody who is blindly critical of journalism and especially prestige papers like the Washington Post (which, again, I pay for and I doubt you do) and the New York Times. It's comforting and familiar ground given your politics. I probably can't go any further than that because it is political, but I think you're smart enough to figure it out.

You don't really have somebody like that on here, so you seek to invent them.

It's still such a stupid point that I somehow "hate all journalism"



If I am really the journalism hater you want me to be, then why the **** am I paying for that?

 

[Die4Cy]

You guys have gone well beyond beating a dead horse to whacking the red spot on the ground with a bat.

 

[Sigmapolis]

You guys have gone well beyond beating a dead horse to whacking the red spot on the ground with a bat.

I'll stop when somebody tells me why I'm paying $120 a year for a paper I think sucks.

Hint: I don't think it sucks.

 

[Rabbuk]

Saying a story is bad and one sided before its even been posted is certainly a new slant to the media bad argument.

 

[cycloneG]

This thread is wild. At this point, it appears to be two different AIs going at each other.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Saying a story is bad and one sided before its even been posted is certainly a new slant to the media bad argument.

When does somebody do this?

 

[CycloneWanderer]

I’d also add that LSU and the players/families who signed with her had to know the kind of person they were associating with. If/when something terrible drops the typical thing is to act like it’s affecting others who have nothing to do with it.

Just look at her callousness toward rape victims…you joined her, you get whatever’s coming. That’s life.

LSU and Mulkey have acted in ways that appear vindictive and petty in their handling of journalists, both national and local (they effectively blacklisted a school reporter who reported the facts of Mulkey's salary and the financial loss of the women's basketball team). Mulkey effectively refused any contact with this particular reporter because he did a relatively benign story on the disparity between the LSU football coach's new salary (highest in the nation at the time) and that of the average LSU professor (one of the lowest of major universities). They used LSU's coach as the example because he had just signed the most expensive deal in the country - it wasn't a hit piece on the coach, it was a critique of broader leadership and society.

If you are in a position where your professional success is under the influence of someone like that, you are going to be damned sure to not get on their bad side (at least until you are free of their control). I've worked with narcissists and they take a pretty extreme tack in terms of friends and foes. They will often believe that if you are not 100% in their corner, that you are their enemy. It can be extremely challenging to work with those individuals long-term because in shorter interactions they can be really charismatic and endearing when they want/need something from you.

 

[mywayorcyway]

Whatever it is that comes out, I hope it's spicy and I hope it comes out in the next day or two. Some drama to fill the void between now and our next game would be nice.

 

[KnappShack]

Whatever it is that comes out, I hope it's spicy and I hope it comes out in the next day or two. Some drama to fill the void between now and our next game would be nice.

With lots and lots of photos

 

[dafarmer]

Probably Only Fans!

 

[BCClone]

I'm not defending Mulkey, but outside of her horrible on court antics, what has she done off the court as a human being? She seems to get players that really like her and many keep playing for her.

Not defending, but can't remember incidents of her off the court.

 

[twincyties]

Oddly, this thread is worse than the one in the cave.

 

[simply1]

Oddly, this thread is worse than the one in the cave.

Often the case when topics straddle..