CNN Piece on Hardwick Lawsuit

[UConnCat]

Jim fuller and John A reported last week that Anderson Cooper's show was going to do a segment on the lawsuit against Geno. I wasn't very surprised to hear that as I was thinking the plaintiff and her lawyer would want to keep the matter in the news. Well, I'm not sure which show this aired on, but this video was recently posted on youtube courtesy of CNN. Soledad O'Brien interviews Hardwick and her lawyer.

A couple of initial thoughts: 1) it includes no reference whatsoever to Geno's statement denying the allegations in the complaint, but instead includes a short clip from his interview at the golf tournament in which he answered a question about the response of people in CT, former players, etc., to the lawsuit; and 2) this segment includes the strongest response yet by USA Basketball (CEO Toomey) which I am very pleased to see.

Pretty crappy journalism by CNN, but that's what we've come to expect from what was once a credible network.

BTW, by my estimate Geno, USAB and the NBA should be filing their responses to the complaint next week.

 

[Vowelguy]

Jim fuller and John A reported last week that Anderson Cooper's show was going to do a segment on the lawsuit against Geno. I wasn't very surprised to hear that as I was thinking the plaintiff and her lawyer would want to keep the matter in the news. Well, I'm not sure which show this aired on, but this video was recently posted on youtube courtesy of CNN. Soledad O'Brien interviews Hardwick and her lawyer.

Soledad O'Brien filled in for Anderson on his show "360" this past week. It may have aired then. Would also suggest that they didn't think it was a particularly juicy story as they chose to show it during a vacation week with a fill-in host.

 

[JimGunther]

The story doesn't seem to have gotten much traction.

If the plaintiff's attorney thought the Olympics would cause the NBA or Geno's attorney to try to settle quickly - That doesn't seem to have worked.

They may have calculated Geno as collateral damage in their complaint against NBA - maybe wrongly so.

 

[msf22b]

The total absence of me-toos has been a huge boost to Geno's credibility.

 

[Icebear]

The total absence of me-toos has been a huge boost to Geno's credibility.

That certainly has been very encouraging and reinforcing of UConn fans' belief in him.

 

[CL82]

Shoddy journalism? I think that's kind. There is no mention that the Hardwick alleges that this event took place in 2009. She "reported the incident to a colleage"? No she allegedly mentioned the incident to a friend. No mention of Geno's unequivacal denial or the many people who have worked with him over the years who say that's not his style.

Listen to her description of the event. He put his hand on her arm, and leaned in to kiss her (but did not) and walked away when she allegedly rebuffed him. I can't wait to hear what information the NBA has about her. I don't think this thing survives summary judgement.

 

[pap49cba]

A perfect example of why CNN has lost 50% of its audience in the past twelve months.

 

[HGN]

I too am amazed that NO Mention was made in the interview of GA denial of the incident and charges....We have only heard one(1) side of the incident , if it truly happened , it will be interesting to hear Geno's side of things. Also , it would have been Responsible Journalism if CNN had mentioned in the piece that this alleged incident took place in 2009.

This could very well be a ploy by Hardwick to try to secure a permanent job and future Choice Assignments. Strange that she ONLY brought this alleged incident up when she was removed from the USA Basketball gig......A Choice Assignment.

 

[UConnChapette]

Unfortunately this has become the MO for mainstream "journalism". Why show both sides of the story when showing only one side makes it so much more fascinating, more scandalous. They seem to take the "if someone makes an accusation then it must be true so why present both sides" approach. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between "real" news (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) and Inside Edition. They all seem to have content more like your grocery store tabloids, except with talking heads and video clips.

[mod edit - political content removed]

 

[UcMiami]

I think the primary problem with most 'news' shows is that they aren't news, but commentary. When they do 'cover' news they replace 'facts' with 'statements' and almost never make an attempt to actually determine thruths. They consider a nobel scientist and a preacher equally competent to speak to the science of evolution and consider it 'balanced'.

We wonder why we have such low scores in maths and sciences, and then read facts like 90% of first world populations believe in evolution, but only 60% of US citizens.

Wow - did I get off subject!

 

[winlots]

The CNN way ( and, unfortunately, the way of most of our news media). Rather than giving us their best fair assessment re a piece of news, they pick and choose what to report about the event, in a manner which best serves their partisan politcal/societal agenda.
Examples here: check the photos; a "glowing" accuser....a rumpled, haggard accuser (for the most part). Many have already commented well on bias in the content of the reporting.

 

[Bestiarius]

What does she like about her job? Travelling to exotic places, meeting fascinating people and schmoozing with them. No mention of protecting those under her care (i.e., her job). I wonder it that's why she fell out of favor with her employer?

 

[OneTrickPony]

Anyone who's managed businesses over the last 40 years knows that employees can and do make self-serving allegations that are, in many cases, demonstrably false. My experience is that insurance companies often dictate seemingly outrageous settlements to avoid jury trials, causing these events to become almost commonplace - particularly in venues where anti-business animus is strong. The fact that Mr. Auriemma's accuser offers no meaningful corroboration for her complaint against him, and the particular circumstances alleged, make it impossible to prove or disprove. For that reason alone, common sense would seem to dictate that this could not come to trial. However, the standard for civil trials in many U.S. States is simply that someone is willing to make an allegation with only their own corroboration...a diminishingly low threshold. No serious agency should deem such allegations newsworthy...alas, the term newsworthy today has no standards.

You know Mr. Auriemma far better than I, but I have been given no reason to believe Ms. Hardwick's allegations against him. In fact, I had fully expected that anyone with an ax to grind would have seen this as a sterling opportunity to pile on. The silence has been deafening!

 

[pppggg]

As the Fonz would say, " Not Guilty Amondo!"

 

[Kibitzer]

The complaints about low journalistic standards are not new. Or don't you know how William Randolph Hearst amassed such a fortune selling trashy newspapers that he built himself a castle, fit for a king?

The same rule applies today that did a hundred (or 200, or more) years ago: "If it bleeds, it leads."

 

[kibblesnbits]

The CNN piece was another example of the fundamental flaws exhibited by many news outlets (both left and right). Given a choice between reporting the news (the dry, formal denial of the charges) and entertainment (an edited interview with the accused making a joke in response to a completely different question), they went for entertainment. As Kibitzer's quote above indicates, if it can be made more entertaining through sensationalism or any other method, that's the way most will go.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Unfortunately this has become the MO for mainstream "journalism". Why show both sides of the story when showing only one side makes it so much more fascinating, more scandalous. They seem to take the "if someone makes an accusation then it must be true so why present both sides" approach. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between "real" news (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) and Inside Edition. They all seem to have content more like your grocery store tabloids, except with talking heads and video clips.

[mod edit - political content removed]

Trying to avoid political content, but I see, at most, 2 of Chapette's examples as real news.

News, and media in general, seem too focised on the sensational. They are interested in conflict. One person, group, or political party can be essentially telling the truth, while the opponent is blatantly lying. The media seems to be focused on the controversy, not what the truth really is. For our form of government to really work, we need an objective, diligent, and courageous media.

 

[UcMiami]

The complaints about low journalistic standards are not new. Or don't you know how William Randolph Hearst amassed such a fortune selling trashy newspapers that he built himself a castle, fit for a king?

The same rule applies today that did a hundred (or 200, or more) years ago: "If it bleeds, it leads."

Yes and no. Not very long ago, the news department of the major broadcast networks was seen as a 'loss leader' - it was not supposed to make a profit but was supposed to create a prestige brand for the network and create a loyalty to the network. There were a number of safeguards built into the arrangement to make sure the entertainment and corporate aspects were divorced from what happened in the news department.
That all went out the window about 20 years ago and both entertainment and corporate influences on the news product became the norm. Staffing of the news departments has been cut way back as profits have become all important.
It has become harder and harder to find an actual 'news' program - a half hour (or hour!) summary of the national and international events of importance. Interestingly the 'News Networks' (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) don't actually carry a news program any more - they are filled with 'shows' that don't even pretend to report daily news - but offer up left right and center spin by commentators and 'expert' guests. News is reserved for minute long commercial style 'updates' unless they get some exclusive footage of a car chase or a major fire, or some other 'man bites dog' breaking event.
And newspapers - the venture capital folks fell in love with their cash flow - attach one to any other company and you could increase the 'value' by multiplying the cash flow by 10 or 20. Of course you added all sorts of debt to the structure and removed the original management. Then you had to cut overheads, reduce staff and dilute the product - reducing the real value of local papers by reducing the local reporting and buying all the content from AP.
Finally - we have gone from somewhere around 100 separate national news outlets (those that had their own staffs located across the US and were independent of each other) to something like 6 corporatations that own 95% of the national/international reporting staffs and to varying degrees dictate news policy to their outlets. A little scary. (I much prefer the idea of Walter Cronkite deciding what news was worthy, than having the management of a a mutinational corporation editing/spinning it (read GE or Rupert M.))

 

[Kibitzer]

I am old enough to remember how we got our news on the radio. Gabriel Heater, Lowell Thomas, H.V. Kaltenborn, Edward R. Murrow. Each of these fellows (and others, I can't recall them all) put their own "spin" on the daily news. Perhaps the last big radio "news" guy was Paul Harvey who spun (and distorted) the news as he pleased.

Big difference back then was that you relied on one voice at a time, or another. No talking heads.

I recently had the honor of sitting next to Richard Hotelet, an old member of the Murrow team, based in London during the Blitz. He is now 90, sharp as a tack, and we talked about all this news stuff. His thesis was that during WW II, he and his colleagues were intensely aware of how much their listeners on the home front were so eager to hear their accounts of unfolding events. A captive audience if ever one existed.

 

[MilfordHusky]

.
It has become harder and harder to find an actual 'news' program - a half hour (or hour!) summary of the national and international events of importance. Interestingly the 'News Networks' (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) don't actually carry a news program any more - they are filled with 'shows' that don't even pretend to report daily news - but offer up left right and center spin by commentators and 'expert' guests.

Exactly!

 

[boontonbomber]

public television news programs are informative. they are all we watch for the news anymore.

 

[speedoo]

public television news programs are informative. they are all we watch for the news anymore.

IMO the BBC is pretty reliable also. And The Economist might be the best news weekly in the world.. Those Brits do a couple of things very well.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I trust the Economist...for other news you need to survey a variety of sources and rely on your own discretion.

 

[UcMiami]

Interesting discussion - I agree about public broadcasting and the BBC, and for all my complaints there are some newspapers that I trust (even if they screw up occasionally.)
All the rest of the broadcast stuff is really only good as 'entertainment' and beyond the varieties of spin surprisingly consistent in content - never deviating far from the meaningless 'scandal' of the day.

 

[FairView]

Is that really true? Only 60% of US citizens believe in evolution?