What's up with DD
- Thread starter bang63
- Start date
There is another thread about this in the football forum. I speculate that all this is just to get more attention on DD. Other thread has a post that says DD had hip replacement and that sure is a good time to suspend him temporarily. Heh... I don't listen to him on radio and I won't listen to him on TV. And I sure won't watch him when he tells everyone what teams should do with the ball on court.
Let's talk about something that matters. IU sports without DD being shrill.
It brings up a question...
How much should sports radio agitators -- that's a more apt description than "commentator" -- be held to "journalistic principles"?
It's basically their job to be lightning rods. That's how they rile up their listeners' emotions, which drives ratings. How successful would a sports talk show be if it wasn't programmed this way? There's a reason that Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, Cowherd, etc. act the way they do. And they're clearly in a different role than sports *reporters*.
I'm not saying that shock jocks should be above reproach. And I'm not sure what Dakich did to warrant the suspension. But I don't think his employer should treat him as if he's a reporter. He's not -- he's an entertainer.
How much should sports radio agitators -- that's a more apt description than "commentator" -- be held to "journalistic principles"?
It's basically their job to be lightning rods. That's how they rile up their listeners' emotions, which drives ratings. How successful would a sports talk show be if it wasn't programmed this way? There's a reason that Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, Cowherd, etc. act the way they do. And they're clearly in a different role than sports *reporters*.
I'm not saying that shock jocks should be above reproach. And I'm not sure what Dakich did to warrant the suspension. But I don't think his employer should treat him as if he's a reporter. He's not -- he's an entertainer.
There are different standards for "opinion" and "hard news" type reporting. But they are both governed by the same standard constitutional protections, which also likely set the demarcation lines Emmis uses to guide it's opinion programming.
We don't know what rule he broke, if any, so its tough to comment intelligently about it.
I think u r correct. I won’t listen to Smith or Bayless. Why r they angry all of the time?
Smith is an angry man, unlistenable. Dakich is just a dick to get under IU fans' skin.
https://awfulannouncing.com/local-n...dio-suspension-on-air-comments-last-year.html
This may shed some light, possibly related to Romeo.
This may shed some light, possibly related to Romeo.
While a lot of what DD talks about falls into the Opinion category, there are standards for sharing opinions. Op Eds must meet those standards. There is some news/information that is shared on his show and there are standards for news. Despite his pleadings to the contrary, he is part of the media.
Hmmm. Riveting amount of investigative reporting here:
"Ultimately, it seems Dakich said something on air where he didn’t “adhere to the journalistic principles” of the station. And more than a year later, he now finds himself suspended. What remains to be seen is what exactly was the statement or statements that Dakich made that got us here, and how this played out behind the scenes. But it certainly seems as if loose lips on the air led to a case of zippered-shut lips nearly a full year later."
My opinion: i support Dakich as a player, coach, IU alum, and as someone who truly understands Indiana basketball and college basketball in general. I do not support throwing college freshmen completely under the bus without sources. But the whole thing is a guess. Maybe he got suspended for some other reason.
I absolutely love me some double d. I understand the hatred for him here. Furthermore, what are the guidelines for journalistic principles anyways?
It depends on the situation and the publisher, but the basics are: a journalist should not state facts about a person that the journalist knows are false, or with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the allegation.
Sometimes it is just a label to sanitize what the case is really about.
Are there really, though? Maybe there are in theory. And maybe at some point they were strictly and consistently practiced. Maybe there still are today, but that seems dependent on what the particular story is.
It seems often the case to me that the narrative drives the reporting, rather than the other way around. There are reasons that news media (which I would assume includes sports media) gets consistently low marks in trust and esteem from the general public.
Too many journalists report the stories they want to report...and don't report the stories they don't want to report. They may still have standards. But I don't think those standards often overcome that practical reality.
Many sports journalists say shocking things to create strong emotions in the listener and thus gain ratings. They don't want the Boom Goes The Dynamite sportscaster guy. Even though sometimes so bad that he's good also applies.
Because lots of people -- you and I not among them -- tune in specifically to hear the rants. These hosts stir up emotions in sports fans and, ultimately, it doesn't matter whether they're for or against...what matters is that they're engaged.
What's the old saw about a train wreck being far more intriguing than a train ride?
Let me put it this way: compare the TV ratings of the staged "professional wrestling" to the actual sport of wrestling (when it actually finds its way on television, that is). Now consider not only the vast differences in the respective activities taking place, but also the demeanor of the personalities involved.
"Let me put it this way: compare the TV ratings of the staged "professional wrestling" to the actual sport of wrestling "
Brilliantly phrased.
You must be speaking from the point of view of someone who hasn't been to law school or studied or worked as a journalist.
My son wears many hats in the local media and is involved in many sporting events. The job that pays his bills also requires him to rotate writing an editorial in the news department on a rotating basis. A few years ago, the publisher requested he write his editorial on a particular political topic. My son wrote the editorial on facts and and the values and beliefs he has developed (not always the same as me or his mother). He was told to rewrite it with a stand opposite of the way he felt. He was forced to put his name on crap he didn't believe to satisfy the views of the publisher. I'm not a journalist, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose of an editorial.
He received emails critical of the editorial and had to resist the urge to agree with those that responded. Journalism is dead. I'm sure he isn't the only one forced to take a stand they don't believe in.
"Guidelines...is" pretty much tells it all. Would that those this ignorant knew better than to opine.
Not remotely the case if one cares/knows where to look. Is democracy dead because of Agent Orange? Challenged/compromised at home to be sure, but hardly dead...
In any case take it to the Cooler or OTF.
Interesting interview with Tom Izzo. They discussed the 20 hour limit on student athletes. Not a joke per Izzo--it's STRICTLY enforced.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I listened to some of it. He talked about what he did during the suspension week. He went to Chicago to a show, went to some restaurant called the sandwich shop or our sandwich shop. He did say that he had a paid vacation. lol I thought that was pretty good. I still really don't know what he did. Some say it was from last season. If that is true then why did it take so long to suspend him?
Possibly, and I emphasize possibly, because his suspension was a term of a settlement agreement.
