LSU coach, what's the backstory

#5
#5
lawgator1 said:
She seems pretty mad. A hundred stories about her threat to sue. Can't find any hint of what its about.
Click to expand...
No one knows yet. But Kim Mulkey has had other “scandals” before that put her in a pretty bad light. So the fact that she’s coming out about this so strong must mean it’s pretty damning. Which says a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT, davethevol, NashVol11 and 9 others
#13
#13
Coach Jumper said:
You might want to look at the OM of this thread,,,started by a driveby called @lawgator1
I'd be careful what you write here
Click to expand...
I think all the posters have done a good job of not actually providing an answer to his question.

I'm not sure Lawgator could successfully object on the basis of hearsay, 'cause so far it sounds like only say and no evidence of hear.
 
#19
#19
maple said:
No one knows yet. But Kim Mulkey has had other “scandals” before that put her in a pretty bad light. So the fact that she’s coming out about this so strong must mean it’s pretty damning. Which says a lot.
Click to expand...
It’s not that, it’s because they are contacting her old players and telling them they can give anonymous negative quotes about her, I would be pissed as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#22
#22
DarkPhoenix said:
It’s not that, it’s because they are contacting her old players and telling them they can give anonymous negative quotes about her, I would be pissed as well.
Click to expand...


Wrong. You don't understand journalism. A reporter would ask a former player if she'd be willing to talk about her years playing for Baylor and Mulkey. If the player agree, you talk--the journalist asks questions, the player answers. If the former player/player is hesitant, expresses a reluctance to talk, then the reporter might ask her if she'll be willing to talk on a "not for attribution" basis--meaning any information /quotes would come from "a former Baylor player." The player's name would not be used. A lot of people are happy to offer information, opinions anonymously. It's not ideal--you'd prefer to ID sources--but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It is a method used a lot by reporters covering government, policy or other sensitive stories.

No reporter necessarily seeks negative quotes or negative information. Of course, if there are controversial or questionable situations in the coach's past, the reporter would ask former players for their take on them. He or she would certainly ask for players' views on the personality or coaching style of the coach, etc. Mulkey's threats may not mean that there is some scandal that the reporter has uncovered that the coach wants to keep out of public view. Mulkey could just be paranoid about a major newspaper doing a major profile on her coaching career, personality, etc. There may be incidents or aspects of her career that she's sensitive about but don't qualify as scandalous. It's hard to know. Threatening a paper like the Washington Post is not going stop it from printing the story. Her comment about getting a defamation lawyer seems childish and stupid since the story probably hasn't even been written yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT, BigOrangeMojo, maple and 3 others
#23
#23
turbovol said:
Wrong. You don't understand journalism. A reporter would ask a former player if she'd be willing to talk about her years playing for Baylor and Mulkey. If the player agree, you talk--the journalist asks questions, the player answers. If the former player/player is hesitant, expresses a reluctance to talk, then the reporter might ask her if she'll be willing to talk on a "not for attribution" basis--meaning any information /quotes would come from "a former Baylor player." The player's name would not be used. A lot of people are happy to offer information, opinions anonymously. It's not ideal--you'd prefer to ID sources--but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It is a method used a lot by reporters covering government, policy or other sensitive stories.

No reporter necessarily seeks negative quotes or negative information. Of course, if there are controversial or questionable situations in the coach's past, the reporter would ask former players for their take on them. He or she would certainly ask for players' views on the personality or coaching style of the coach, etc. Mulkey's threats may not mean that there is some scandal that the reporter has uncovered that the coach wants to keep out of public view. Mulkey could just be paranoid about a major newspaper doing a major profile on her coaching career, personality, etc. There may be incidents or aspects of her career that she's sensitive about but don't qualify as scandalous. It's hard to know. Threatening a paper like the Washington Post is not going stop it from printing the story. Her comment about getting a defamation lawyer seems childish and stupid since the story probably hasn't even been written yet.
Click to expand...
They are seeking negative quotes, some of her players told her what they were asking, I’m assuming the ones that had nothing negative to say. Every Coach is not liked by all players for whatever reason, it’s funny how this is all coming out now during the tournament to try to distract them. Isn’t this coming from some Sc reporter or something, I wouldn’t be surprised since they are classless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and Old Geezer
#24
#24
BruisedOrange said:
Ah, yes... "unnamed sources"... the DoorDash of investigative journalism.
Click to expand...

A lot of good investigative stories of importance to the public would not get produced were it not for "unnamed sources." It's a key reporting method for learning what is really going on behind the scenes--in government, for example. Certain people have witnessed or are privy to sensitive/important info but don't want to be identified as they could lose their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11, StrangeVol and maple
#25
#25
turbovol said:
A lot of good investigative stories of importance to the public would not get produced were it not for "unnamed sources." It's a key reporting method for learning what is really going on behind the scenes--in government, for example. Certain people have witnessed or are privy to sensitive/important info but don't want to be identified as they could lose their job.
Click to expand...
if u won’t be named u can say anything with no proof, u can have an ax to grind for whatever reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennrich1 and Voluble2
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top