Here's an example of my problem with modern "journalism."
On Twitter, Rocky Top Insider is reporting that the Schiano MOU is "reportedly" invalid:
Twitter
When you click the link, it takes you to a story on rockytopinsider.com, which basically says that according to Jimmy Hyams, the MOU is invalid. It links to this piece:
http://www.sportsradiownml.com/2017/12/08/jimmys-blog-schiano-mou-invalid-according-to-ut-bylaws/
Of course, Jimmy has not seen the MOU. Likewise, he is not reporting "news" that the MOU has been deemed invalid by a court of law. Likewise, he is not a judge or even a practicing lawyer who might have a reasonably well educated opinion on this matter. He doesn't cite to the opinions of any lawyers or judges either. Jimmy just gives his opinion, which appears to be: based on UT's bylaws (which may or may not have been provided to Schiano) the university would not consider itself to have signed the MOU unless it was signed by the Chief Financial Officer. In other words, UT has some internal rules about who needs to sign an agreement like this, and that may be relevant, but there is no indication that Schiano would have known this, or that a judge has even considered the issue. NOTHING IS RESOLVED!
The headline should have been that "(Non-Lawyer) Jimmy Hyams Believes UT May Have an Argument That the MOU is Invalid, But Nothing Is Settled Yet." Instead, Hyams declares the MOU invalid, and the other outlets report his opinion as fact. Their "articles" mostly just repeat what Jimmy said, but they have a "source" so they call it news. Then Twitter, because you only get 280 characters, can't report the nuance and the story that propagates through the social media sphere becomes "Schiano MOU is Invalid."
There's lots of blame to go around, but the "reporting" is crappy. Also, Hyams' legal opinion is lacking.