EAGLES LINEBACKER Stewart Bradley was injured during an intra-squad scrimmage and the media wanted details. When the team wouldn't provide information, a few reporters called Bradley's cell phone, as well as his agent.Bradley tore his ACL and will likely miss the entire upcoming season, the journalists reported. Coach Andy Reid was fired up. At the media, that is.
"Some of your colleagues here decided that they would go to the players and/or other personnel here and ask about injuries," Reid said to the media the day after Stewart was injured. "I made a pact with you guys when I first got here that I would disclose to you the injuries -- just stay away from the players, stay away from other personnel in the organization, and I would take care of you with that. That part was breached."
He wouldn't say anymore, and he refused to talk to the media about any other injuries to players.
Does Reid have the right to be upset with the media? Or were the journalists just doing their job?
9 comments:
I felt the need to -- if only for my own satisfaction -- share my opinions on this. In lecture today I did get the chance to share my view that journalists are out to satisfy society's basic curiosity about other people but that is far from my full position on this issue.
As for our discussion in class, I feel discouraged and outraged even at my classmates' ideas on this topic. This issue is, in my opinion, solely about Andy Reed's infamous temper and his inability to control it.
Journalists have an obligation to inform the public. Yes, journalism is a business and this must be taken into account, as journalists get paid for what they report... This may seem like I'm rambling but I wonder what my classmates themselves would do if they were the journalists who needed a story by deadline? Likely, in order to keep food on the table, etc, they would have gotten their story any way possible... Keep in mind that a story about a mysterious injury that hasn't been explained by coach, administration, or the player himself probably wouldn't win many points with your editor. As much as journalists are writing to inform and entertain the public, they also have to please their employers.
I feel that the journalists did nothing wrong. There should be no pacts -- that itself invites bias and incomplete information. Andy Reed had multiple opportunities to divulge information and he refused to share. The journalists then had every reason/right to find another source for the information they needed.
This is basically how I feel. I'm sure there will be a lot of argument.
You are so wrong.
Just kidding.
Get fired up! Voice your opinions, people! That is what college is all about! Explore the information and develop a thought process - I believe this, because of this. Then listen to the debate.
I love it.
So ... anyone agree or disagree with Rosella? Should Andy Reid be treated deferentially? Or should the reporters probe and do whatever they must to get their stories?
- George
(the teacher who loves a good verbal sparring)
This topic can be viewed both ways, from both perspectives. I feel as though the journalists were doing their jobs as well as Andy Reid was doing his job. As a long time eagles fan I know first hand that Andy Reid is not the man to tell you his life story, let alone anyone elses. But in this case I feel like the personal information the journalists were seeking was up to Stewart Bradley himself. If he was happy to answer the quesions the journalists asked, then why not let them ask them. I understand that Andy Reid must be in "power" all the time because he is the coach of a grat football franchise, but c'mon now Andy, let the guys breathe. All of these men are old enough to decide who they should talk to and who they want to tell information too. Yes, Andy Reid is under contract with the eagles and he feels like it is his responsibility to protect the integrity of his players and the franchise. But you have to understand that journalist are employed as well, and their bosses could care less how they get the story as long as they get it. So i agree with both sides, but I feel like the final decision should be made by Stewart Bradley himself, with the concent of Andy Reid if it's that big of a deal.
Andrew Heiland
Journalism and Society
You agree with both sides? That's too easy! Take a stand!
How about this: Andy Reid can't control the media. He should be able to control his players. Shouldn't he be upset with Bradley for speaking to the press?
Isn't that where his anger should be placed?
That's what I'm saying.
- George
(the teacher who thinks Andy Reid should chill)
I understand its Andy Reids team and he needs to control his players and how they act on and off the field. But I truly believe that Stewart Bradley had every right to talk to the press without the concent of his coach. I understand that he created this "pact" with the journalists, but when the editor calls for a story the journalist must bring it to them. I feel like I would have done the same thing as journalist, I would have called up Stewart Bradley and asked him myself, then deal with Andry Reid at a later date. It's hard enough to get the man to say anything about certain issues, but when it comes to an injury, that privacy belongs to the player and if Stewart Bradley did not have a problem with releasing the information, then Andy Reid should be ok with that. All this does is keep Andy off the podium which is probably all he wants anyways. At the end of the day the journalist needs his/her story and they got it from the source itself, not the coach who keeps everything quiet.
sorry about the many spelling errors.
You will be deducted points for spelling errors.
There is no pact. There never was a pact. Andy Reid is living in Andy Reid land.
There is no pact.
- George
(the teacher who was kidding about deducting points for spelling errors)
I'm just going to restate my opinion in one sentence:
Andy Reid is a total and complete "effing" jackass and really ought to shut up.
I'm sick of the man.
This said, I was quite upset about the way students have been responding to questions in our class about what should and shouldn't be published. These are the people who will be writing the news in the future and for so many students to say the journalists shouldn't have gone beyond Andy Reid and such, strikes fear into my heart for the future of journalism.
Get the story. Publish it. Backlash for publishing something is better than not publishing it for fear of backlash. How can we be a free democracy if we have a restricted press, whether it be restricted by the government or just the journalists' "principles"?
I hope I'm making sufficient sense. It just really makes my stomach hurt to hear my classmates basically say that we need to protect the delicate sensitivities of jackasses like Andy Reid, etc.
-Rosella
(The girl who feels very strongly about publishing it all & who thinks Andy Reid's never done anybody any good so... yeah.)
Bradley should consider his contract and his boss which is Andy Reid. Andy Reid should be angry at Bradley and not journalists.
Post a Comment