Kim Mulkey

[Sigmapolis]

Never said that. I suggested, as you have, to wait until the article is published prior to passing judgement on Mulkey. I merely added the caveat to apply the same logic to the author of the WaPo article.

I don't even know the name(s) of the WaPo IJs/writers.

So I don't know what (or even how) I could have said anything about them and their work at this point.

I guess we'll just have to have a lively discussion once the actual story comes out.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

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



"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.



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



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!



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



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

It clearly earned the "DUMB" long before that.

But here's the deal: when people to ask why you are blindly skeptical of this paper and this journalist, you gave an example that was 90 years old and had nothing to do with either. That's like me saying I'm skeptical of you being a real person because AI chat bots are getting better and I haven't personally seen evidence that you are a living, breathing, human being. While you haven't earned my trust that you are a person, you also haven't earned my skepticism and it would be silly of me to be skeptical of your humanity because of that. While the Washington Post and this reporter haven't earned my trust yet in relation to this story (how could they?), they also haven't done anything to warrant a blind skepticism.

Processing information with a default of deep-seeded skepticism is a paranoia. Processing information with a default of blind trust is naivety. When talking skepticism as a value, the focus has to be on healthy skepticism, not either extreme.

There are a few things about Kim's behavior that earns my skepticism for her story that journalists are out to get her and this one in particular is about to lie about her. If you want to read about that, here is an interesting piece: Article from Outkick the Coverage (It's funny that your original example of bad media was caused by Soviets; check out how this article ends.)

Chances are, the WP article isn't even going to be a "hit-piece" so much as a profile of Kim Mulkey that happens to include some of her flaws. That might not be acceptable to her, though.

 

[Sigmapolis]

But here's the deal: when people to ask why you are blindly skeptical of this paper and this journalist, you gave an example that was 90 years old and had nothing to do with either. That's like me saying I'm skeptical of you being a real person because AI chat bots are getting better and I haven't personally seen evidence that you are a living, breathing, human being. While you haven't earned my trust that you are a person, you also haven't earned my skepticism and it would be silly of me to be skeptical of your humanity because of that. While the Washington Post and this reporter haven't earned my trust yet in relation to this story (how could they?), they also haven't done anything to warrant a blind skepticism.

Processing information with a default of deep-seeded skepticism is a paranoia. Processing information with a default of blind trust is naivety. When talking skepticism as a value, the focus has to be on healthy skepticism, not either extreme.

There are a few things about Kim's behavior that earns my skepticism for her story that journalists are out to get her and this one in particular is about to lie about her. If you want to read about that, here is an interesting piece: Article from Outkick the Coverage (It's funny that your original example of bad media was caused by Soviets; check out how this article ends.)

Chances are, the WP article isn't even going to be a "hit-piece" so much as a profile of Kim Mulkey that happens to include some of her flaws. That might not be acceptable to her, though.

The best examples of journalistic malpractice to use would be...

1.) big important issue
2.) recent
3.) well-known

Sorry, but anything that checks all those boxes is going to be insanely political. Even something from, say, the 2000s in the runup to the Iraq War is likely to still be raw enough on the political nerves that the mods will not look kindly on it, and I'm trying to respect what @BoxsterCy said in Post #4.

So, I can't use those examples. I did my best otherwise...

Travis Hines' article is #2 and #3. But it is definitely not #1.

Walter Duranty is #1 (with spades) and kind of sort of #3 but definitely not #2.

I don't think the fact I can't use certain pieces of evidence doesn't mean they're not there. And I don't think it somehow invalidates my overall point that we should all have a healthy skepticism -- especially when Iowa State fans just generally have a low opinion of Mulkey after years of her antics.

 

[Cyched]

Can we take a step back and appreciate how…interesting…this set of coaches LSU has had recently?

Kim
Coach O
Wade
Les Miles

 

[Althetuna]

I don't even know the name(s) of the WaPo IJs/writers.

So I don't know what (or even how) I could have said anything about them and their work at this point.

I guess we'll just have to have a lively discussion once the actual story comes out.

Exactly! You cast doubt on a yet-to-be-written article by a journalist you have no knowledge of.

To be clear you cast doubt on the article by attempting to link it to a poorly received article written by another journalist in a different news outlet 8 1/2 years ago.

 

[Jer]

Let's try to get this back on topic, please.

 

[mramseyISU]

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.

I see her as Bob Knight in heels.

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.

View attachment 126278 View attachment 126280

Somebody needs to photoshop Bob Knight wearing that outfit.

I think there's plenty of evidence she's a terrible human with or without this upcoming article. It'll be interesting to see what they've come up with considering how pissed she seems about it.

 

[MeowingCows]

Getting out in front of something nobody has seen yet strictly to attack the source, attack the system, plead ignorance/intentional uninvolvement, and then paint yourself as a victim of society is not a strong way to make yourself look innocent in...whatever it is that it's about. Much the opposite. I can only assume it's some sort of banger piece, she wouldn't have pre-emptively struck with this strange response if it wasn't.

 

[chuckd4735]

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.

IIRC, the Ames Tribune piece wasn't wrong... It just came off as a bigger deal then it actually was, and was pushed by a former assistant who had it out for JP (you can probably guess who). I'm sure I'm hindsight, Travis would of never pushed it if he knew what he does now.

 

[Cyfan1965]

I wish I could bet on whether she will sue.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Exactly! You cast doubt on a yet-to-be-written article by a journalist you have no knowledge of.

...which is why I haven't done that. Show me where I did. I'll wait. Probably a long time.

And I mean explicitly in the text. Not by some implication only you can see.

To be clear you cast doubt on the article by attempting to link it to a poorly received article written by another journalist in a different news outlet 8 1/2 years ago.

I was stating the principle we should all have a healthy level of skepticism because sometimes journalists make mistakes (intentionally or not). I linked to the Hines article because it was (1.) easy to find on Google, (2.) wasn't political, and (3.) was going to be something well-known by this audience.

I don't get why you insist I was trying to slyly smuggle in some ridiculous leap in logic that goes something like: "The dopey Hines article on hotel rooms from eight years ago sucks, so therefore the yet unseen article on Mulkey is going to suck! She's a victim!" Do you really think I meant that? Do you really think that?

I'm opinionated on here. I've expressed numerous unpopular ones. I'm perfectly comfortable making a post longer if I need to, as well you know, if a point is a complex one. If I really believed and intended to say something like that, I'd come out and say it. If not explicitly stated, I don't assume I know more about the motivations or the intended meaning of a piece of writing than the original author, especially when it comes to "implied meanings" outside the plain meaning of the text. And if my interpretation of these issues differs from theirs, I'm always going to give them the benefit of the doubt clarifying their meaning rather than put words in their mouth.

I guess I just lack your clairvoyant space brain to be able to divine other people's meaning and motivation on here with the limited information provided by a few dozen words on a college sports forum. Or you just find doing that easier than grappling with the substance of the argument, which fits your bill perfectly.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

Let me preface this by saying that this is not meant to be me defending Mulkey at all, because I really despise several of her actions over the years. Also, full disclosure, I don't know when the story was supposed to be run, but I can only assume that she was recently contacted, or she would have probably waited to address it.

I'm genuinely curious about the timing of everything. It's certainly not out of character for her, but, she could be acting a little more unhinged based on the timing of the potential story (during the middle of the NCAA Tournament). Or, conversely, maybe she wanted the biggest stage to shout the loudest from. I guess I could see both possibilities as both options fit her personality.

IMO, if a negative story comes out during this time, it normally has to do with something that just occurred versus a compiled expose done over years. We are accustomed to the fluff pieces about player and then highlights of the madness at this time of the year. It's honestly one of the reasons that I like this tournament. The negativity tends to get drowned out for a few weeks, with the focus being almost exclusively on the games and some of the more uplifting stories that come out. If something like this came out against TJ or Bill right at this time, it would be hard to think that there wasn't some additional malicious intent involved based on timing.

 

[chuckd4735]

I wish I could bet on whether she will sue.

Oh she will. Her ego won't let it go.

 

[Althetuna]

...which is why I haven't done that. Show me where I did. I'll wait. Probably a long time.

And I mean explicitly in the text. Not by some implication only you can see.



I was stating the principle we should all have a healthy level of skepticism because sometimes journalists make mistakes (intentionally or not). I linked to the Hines article because it was (1.) easy to find on Google, (2.) wasn't political, and (3.) was going to be something well-known by this audience.

I don't get why you insist I was trying to slyly smuggle in some ridiculous leap in logic that goes something like: "The dopey Hines article on hotel rooms from eight years ago sucks, so therefore the yet unseen article on Mulkey is going to suck! She's a victim!" Do you really think I meant that? Do you really think that?[/b]

I'm opinionated on here. I've expressed numerous unpopular ones. I'm perfectly comfortable making a post longer if I need to, as well you know, if a point is a complex one. If I really believed and intended to say something like that, I'd come out and say it. If not explicitly stated, I don't assume I know more about the motivations or the intended meaning of a piece of writing than the original author, especially when it comes to "implied meanings" outside the plain meaning of the text. And if my interpretation of these issues differs from theirs, I'm always going to give them the benefit of the doubt clarifying their meaning rather than put words in their mouth.

I guess I just lack your clairvoyant space brain to be able to divine other people's meaning and motivation on here with the limited information provided by a few dozen words on a college sports forum. Or you just find doing that easier than grappling with the substance of the argument, which fits your bill perfectly.

I want to be clear. I'm not personally attacking you. I simply believe a comparison of the journalism between the current Mulkey situation and the Hines story was a bad one for many reasons.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Getting out in front of something nobody has seen yet strictly to attack the source, attack the system, plead ignorance/intentional uninvolvement, and then paint yourself as a victim of society is not a strong way to make yourself look innocent in...whatever it is that it's about. Much the opposite. I can only assume it's some sort of banger piece, she wouldn't have pre-emptively struck with this strange response if it wasn't.

That way is one way to read it.

But we also know she has exceptionally thin skin. A piece profiling her could present a mixed picture of a lot of good but some bad about her career... and still royally piss her off.

And we also know a Louisiana audience is going to eat it up when you attack a DC paper.

It might be obnoxious to us (and it is) but it could fit other fact patterns.

 

[swclone11]

Let me preface this by saying that this is not meant to be me defending Mulkey at all, because I really despise several of her actions over the years. Also, full disclosure, I don't know when the story was supposed to be run, but I can only assume that she was recently contacted, or she would have probably waited to address it.

I'm genuinely curious about the timing of everything. It's certainly not out of character for her, but, she could be acting a little more unhinged based on the timing of the potential story (during the middle of the NCAA Tournament). Or, conversely, maybe she wanted the biggest stage to shout the loudest from. I guess I could see both possibilities as both options fit her personality.

IMO, if a negative story comes out during this time, it normally has to do with something that just occurred versus a compiled expose done over years. We are accustomed to the fluff pieces about player and then highlights of the madness at this time of the year. It's honestly one of the reasons that I like this tournament. The negativity tends to get drowned out for a few weeks, with the focus being almost exclusively on the games and some of the more uplifting stories that come out. If something like this came out against TJ or Bill right at this time, it would be hard to think that there wasn't some additional malicious intent involved based on timing.

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.

 

[Urbandale2013]

I want to be clear. I'm not personally attacking you. I simply believe a comparison of the journalism between the current Mulkey situation and the Hines story was a bad one for many reasons.

Anyone who claims they can make any definitive statement about the validity or lack of validity at this point is full of it. Let’s wait until the actual article is released.

 

[Althetuna]

Anyone who claims they can make any definitive statement about the validity or lack of validity at this point is full of it. Let’s wait until the actual article is released.

I've never claimed validity for either Mulkey or WaPo. Currently, there's only Mulkey's statement.

I'm not sure how any comparison between the Mulkey article and the Hines article could even be made yet because the WaPo story hasn't been published.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I'm not sure how any comparison between the Mulkey article and the Hines article could even be made yet because the WaPo story hasn't been published.

Was. Never. A. Comparison. Made.

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

 

[Althetuna]

Was. Never. A. Comparison. Made.

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

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.