He’s just had plenty of time to learn the “appropriate” cliches. I think I’ve mentioned this recently.
Nell Fortner leaned into the difference of accepting responsibility, Vic kinda did, said he did, Kim either wasn’t having it or hasn’t learned that cliche.
I kinda like Kim’s version.
I grok your mouth music, but I also just now reread some of Kim's comments after SC. Aside from the remarks about the "quit" she saw in a lot of her players (which can be compared to Schaefer saying that he'd never coached a team "so soft," that they lacked "heart," etc ), she also made vague references to players not doing things "the right way." What does that even mean? And she said that reporters would have "to ask them why they don't stick together" (comparable to Holly's "I dont know" answers when things went wrong).
Honesty is great but should include self. Coaches at this level are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions in some cases, to recruit, train, and motivate players. Unless there's some internal conflicts among players or undesirable outside influences, the onus is on the coaches to prepare the players mentally and physically to compete. When they don't and there aren't excuses such as injuries, illnesses, family problems, or other things beyond the coaches' control, the coaches should own the bad results even when pointing out the deficiencies. Schaefer was sending a strong message to the team about what they could expect in the near future when he mentioned practices, I think you would agree.
Learning to communicate effectively with the press and the team is part of the coach's public tasks. I'm sure Caldwell and many other coaches don't particularly like having to shill for team sponsors in commercials and ads, either, but it goes with the job. Tough love and "hard coaching" can not only be effective but also even desired by players wanting to become elite. Confident coaches who believe in themselves know how to communicate on the sidelines and in the locker room but know that it's a bad look to seemingly put all the blame on the players. The most successful coaches know how to accept nominal blame as the boss while clearly indicating that they're intending to fix the problem immediately (again, what Schaefer said). It may be a lot of gamesmanship, but that is also what fans expect other than for the ones for whom winning is everything.
Bottom line is that I think it's a shame whenever public verbal floggings are necessary to motivate players who have been blessed with talent that gives them opportunities unavailable to most of their peers: a free education, fame, attention, top-notch resources and facilities, post-graduation connections, and even substantial financial compensation that is legally provided...in some cases, citing a non-All-American athlete at Texas, setting them up financially for life. If all those things plus the hard work they've put in to reach this level plus pride isn't enough to motivate them, that's a sad commentary. I wonder how well that works for them in their personal relationships, in their classrooms, and in any current or future jobs they might hold. My biggest regrets as a former coach was when I neglected players' feelings in favor of demanding more effort. Decades later, I wish I could redo some of the cold shoulder, tough love approaches that may have gotten some results but also reduced the enjoyment of the game. Coaches can be wrong even when they're right. This isn't literal warfare, and the Gunny Hardman approach shouldn't be necessary (I know that's hyperbole here, but you understand the point).
End of wee hours rant. We'll see how her approach works out after the upcoming stretch
www.espn.com
here. Honesty serves you well. 
I don't like Vic, but I really respect that answer.