7.30 - Disengenuous or Not Bright?
I turn over the forum to ndoldtown's response to the unprofessional attempts by the South Bend Tribune to stir controversy this past week. One of the authors, Jeff Carroll, attempted to deflect the blame from his unbalanced, needlessly provocative and factually bereft attack series by trying to make it seem that readers were upset with the author cited in the last article, Ellen Staurowsky. Nothing could be further from the truth. Staurowsky makes many good points that are respected by most of the athletic community, but she was used, presented out of context and, negligently, without balance or disclosure. Tenets of journalism most high schoolers would never breach.
ndoldtown, responds:
The citation to Staurowsky -- who is entitled to her opinion -- reveals not that Staurowsky is wrong or should not be heard. Instead it reveals the intellectual incoherence of Carroll's series.
The series was supposed to be about the recruiting of Clausen, as its use of the teenager's name in the headline for days in a row seems to indicate. Despite much huffing and puffing and prominent use of Clausen's name and image, along with negative implications about his personality and character, Carroll and his co-author come up with nothing -- zero -- bupkus -- to indicate that ANYTHING was done contrary to NCAA rules in the recruitment of Clausen. The article teases with much innuendo on that front ("will a sting follow buzz"? comparison of Clausen to drug user Todd Marinovich and mention of scandals involving payement of players at UCLA and Michigan -- all heaped under a series headlined with Clausen's name. A cynical person might imagine Carroll was trying to smear Clausen by unwarranted association with every bad thing he could think of in college sports over the last twenty years.)
In any event, after much build-up, Carroll and colleague chicken out by failing to offer any definitive guidance or conclusion on whether the kid who started this whole torrent of articles or the school recruiting him were involved in anything wrong. Where is the conclusion whether ND did anything wrong in "The Courting Of Jimmy Clausen"? Here is all you get: "At this stage, there is no evidence that Weis or Notre Dame were involved with anything that could be construed as an NCAA violation." Talk about skirting the issue.
Carroll cites no authority on NCAA rules regarding WHETHER, given the facts he posits in his article, ND did anything wrong in Clausen's recruitment. Perhaps because any direct quote from an authority on the subject would unambiguously indicate that Notre Dame did nothing wrong. While his readers are waiting for some reasonable research, quote or citation to authority or an expert source about whether the conduct he outlines in the article violated any rules, Carroll switches gears.
THEN, the series unveils, as it mercifully chugs to its last installment, Ms. Staurowsky, who is someone who simply is against NCAA football, period. She is against scholarships for athletes and thinks schools should deemphasize football. Again, while Staurowsky is entitled to that opinion, I don't understand how that links up with where this article seemed to be going when it started out. Staurowsky is not an authority on NCAA rules and does not say or indicate that she has examined the facts of Clausen's recruitment to determine whether any NCAA rules were violated.
If I wanted to write an article about whether America has violated the Rules of War in Iraq, I might like some input and citations to Colin Powell or a military man versed in those issues. If I wanted a dissertation about why war is illegitimate to begin with and should never be waged, I might want a theologian or philosopher. But I would not start with a viewpoint on the one topic, leave it unresolved and then seek authorization for the viewpoint from a source with no knowledge in the area. It betrays confusion on the part of the authors or -- worse -- a desire to simply print an all-purpose negative piece on Notre Dame football under Weis without having the courage or honesty to fully and diligently research, source and conclude.
Notably, the article was not entitled "Why Notre Dame Should Drop Scholarship Football". It had Clausen's name in the title and implied throughout that somehow something wrong had been done in his recruitment under the now-existing rules by which Notre Dame has certified it will play. Nor does Carroll reveal to his readers the extent or nature of Staurowsky's agenda. Instead, he leaves his papier mache indictment of the Clausen recruitment out there unsupported, but disingenuously propped up for the unknowing by citation to Ms. Staurowsky, someone who knows nothing about that recruitment or the rules under which it was conducted.
If, on the other (third?) hand, Carroll's point is along the lines of "I cant find anything wrong under the rules with how Clausen was recruited, but it left me feeling queasy and wondering whether it would be better to just drop football than to engage in what I consider unseemly, hucksterish behavior by Notre Dame and Ms Staurowsky agrees with me that scholarship football stinks," then an honest statement of this theme would have been appropriate.
And if this really is the Carroll argument, then he might want to do a little bit more reseach about Notre Dame before he concludes that Charlie Weis is an unseemly and hucksterish departure from Notre Dame's past and examine another huckster named Knute Rockne, who had players propped up on horses not Hummers for the sake of a publicity photo and who regularly conned, schmoozed and schmaltzed both the media and his own players.
It is a painful but persistent fact we all must come to deal with as adults: Great people who do much good as well as great institutions which do great good often crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Indeed, with a little bit more research on the program about which you are writing, Mr. Carroll, you might have found that Notre Dame has always been a program interested in winning and showmanship and schmaltz and publicity to the extent it can be useful (first nationwide radio network, tc network, mobies authorized and prmoted by the school etc, all done before anybody heard of Weis). That Notre Dame has engaged in such promotion, buzz and hucksterism while compiling matchless graduation records for its student athletes may take some of the edge off of that disturbing fact. In any event, I am sorry to shatter so many of Mr. Carroll's illusions by revealing this ongoing gambling in Casablanca. In other disturbing facts, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR lied to the public about his polio and JFK had multiple affairs. Sometimes the ugliness of life makes me wonder whether we should go on in a world that always fails to live up to my high ideals.
Speaking as a Notre Dame graduate, I find Mr. Carroll's tendentious lecture as to how "alumni of a top twenty university" are supposed to react to his mediocre journalism to be patronizing and self-serving. Believe me, sir, Notre Dame alumni and faculty have had on an ongoing and regular basis, much more probing, intellectually invigorating and unsparingly critical discussions and disputes over the role of football in the academy and the merits and demerits of deemphasis than that contained in your "junior varsity" article. Believe me further, such discussion and examinations have also been conducted without unnecessarily and opportunistically exploiting the privacy and reputation of a teenager.
By the way, regarding the assertion that Ms. Staurowsky deserves a "platform" and how disappointed Mr. Carroll is in Notre Dame alumni for not wanting to hear from her, I hasten to point out that Ms. Staurowsky was given a quite literal platform AT NOTRE DAME. She spoke for over an hour and was able to expound at much greater length and with greater subtlety and depth I woudl imagine than the few quotes in Mr. Carroll's article. I doubt anyone at Notre Dame wants to squelch her viewpoint fiben the invitation to her to speak on our campus. I suspect that people are more disturbed by the unprofessional use of an incoming student as a prop for a poorly-done and hurtful series of articles.
Let me conclude by noting that perhaps a better writer would not need to so extensively explain post-hoc exactly what he meant or create a straw-man defense of one of his sources to cloak his own shortcomings. In the meantime, although we do come from a Catholic school, we only recognize one voice ex cathedra. so please spare us further pontifications as to how we are supposed to react to your journalistic efforts.
P.S. I will do no more than note the incredibly amateur, indeed embarrassing, Google trick regarding Notre Dame being like everyone else. Real Walter Lippmann stuff there.
ndoldtown
ndoldtown, responds:
The citation to Staurowsky -- who is entitled to her opinion -- reveals not that Staurowsky is wrong or should not be heard. Instead it reveals the intellectual incoherence of Carroll's series.
The series was supposed to be about the recruiting of Clausen, as its use of the teenager's name in the headline for days in a row seems to indicate. Despite much huffing and puffing and prominent use of Clausen's name and image, along with negative implications about his personality and character, Carroll and his co-author come up with nothing -- zero -- bupkus -- to indicate that ANYTHING was done contrary to NCAA rules in the recruitment of Clausen. The article teases with much innuendo on that front ("will a sting follow buzz"? comparison of Clausen to drug user Todd Marinovich and mention of scandals involving payement of players at UCLA and Michigan -- all heaped under a series headlined with Clausen's name. A cynical person might imagine Carroll was trying to smear Clausen by unwarranted association with every bad thing he could think of in college sports over the last twenty years.)
In any event, after much build-up, Carroll and colleague chicken out by failing to offer any definitive guidance or conclusion on whether the kid who started this whole torrent of articles or the school recruiting him were involved in anything wrong. Where is the conclusion whether ND did anything wrong in "The Courting Of Jimmy Clausen"? Here is all you get: "At this stage, there is no evidence that Weis or Notre Dame were involved with anything that could be construed as an NCAA violation." Talk about skirting the issue.
Carroll cites no authority on NCAA rules regarding WHETHER, given the facts he posits in his article, ND did anything wrong in Clausen's recruitment. Perhaps because any direct quote from an authority on the subject would unambiguously indicate that Notre Dame did nothing wrong. While his readers are waiting for some reasonable research, quote or citation to authority or an expert source about whether the conduct he outlines in the article violated any rules, Carroll switches gears.
THEN, the series unveils, as it mercifully chugs to its last installment, Ms. Staurowsky, who is someone who simply is against NCAA football, period. She is against scholarships for athletes and thinks schools should deemphasize football. Again, while Staurowsky is entitled to that opinion, I don't understand how that links up with where this article seemed to be going when it started out. Staurowsky is not an authority on NCAA rules and does not say or indicate that she has examined the facts of Clausen's recruitment to determine whether any NCAA rules were violated.
If I wanted to write an article about whether America has violated the Rules of War in Iraq, I might like some input and citations to Colin Powell or a military man versed in those issues. If I wanted a dissertation about why war is illegitimate to begin with and should never be waged, I might want a theologian or philosopher. But I would not start with a viewpoint on the one topic, leave it unresolved and then seek authorization for the viewpoint from a source with no knowledge in the area. It betrays confusion on the part of the authors or -- worse -- a desire to simply print an all-purpose negative piece on Notre Dame football under Weis without having the courage or honesty to fully and diligently research, source and conclude.
Notably, the article was not entitled "Why Notre Dame Should Drop Scholarship Football". It had Clausen's name in the title and implied throughout that somehow something wrong had been done in his recruitment under the now-existing rules by which Notre Dame has certified it will play. Nor does Carroll reveal to his readers the extent or nature of Staurowsky's agenda. Instead, he leaves his papier mache indictment of the Clausen recruitment out there unsupported, but disingenuously propped up for the unknowing by citation to Ms. Staurowsky, someone who knows nothing about that recruitment or the rules under which it was conducted.
If, on the other (third?) hand, Carroll's point is along the lines of "I cant find anything wrong under the rules with how Clausen was recruited, but it left me feeling queasy and wondering whether it would be better to just drop football than to engage in what I consider unseemly, hucksterish behavior by Notre Dame and Ms Staurowsky agrees with me that scholarship football stinks," then an honest statement of this theme would have been appropriate.
And if this really is the Carroll argument, then he might want to do a little bit more reseach about Notre Dame before he concludes that Charlie Weis is an unseemly and hucksterish departure from Notre Dame's past and examine another huckster named Knute Rockne, who had players propped up on horses not Hummers for the sake of a publicity photo and who regularly conned, schmoozed and schmaltzed both the media and his own players.
It is a painful but persistent fact we all must come to deal with as adults: Great people who do much good as well as great institutions which do great good often crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Indeed, with a little bit more research on the program about which you are writing, Mr. Carroll, you might have found that Notre Dame has always been a program interested in winning and showmanship and schmaltz and publicity to the extent it can be useful (first nationwide radio network, tc network, mobies authorized and prmoted by the school etc, all done before anybody heard of Weis). That Notre Dame has engaged in such promotion, buzz and hucksterism while compiling matchless graduation records for its student athletes may take some of the edge off of that disturbing fact. In any event, I am sorry to shatter so many of Mr. Carroll's illusions by revealing this ongoing gambling in Casablanca. In other disturbing facts, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR lied to the public about his polio and JFK had multiple affairs. Sometimes the ugliness of life makes me wonder whether we should go on in a world that always fails to live up to my high ideals.
Speaking as a Notre Dame graduate, I find Mr. Carroll's tendentious lecture as to how "alumni of a top twenty university" are supposed to react to his mediocre journalism to be patronizing and self-serving. Believe me, sir, Notre Dame alumni and faculty have had on an ongoing and regular basis, much more probing, intellectually invigorating and unsparingly critical discussions and disputes over the role of football in the academy and the merits and demerits of deemphasis than that contained in your "junior varsity" article. Believe me further, such discussion and examinations have also been conducted without unnecessarily and opportunistically exploiting the privacy and reputation of a teenager.
By the way, regarding the assertion that Ms. Staurowsky deserves a "platform" and how disappointed Mr. Carroll is in Notre Dame alumni for not wanting to hear from her, I hasten to point out that Ms. Staurowsky was given a quite literal platform AT NOTRE DAME. She spoke for over an hour and was able to expound at much greater length and with greater subtlety and depth I woudl imagine than the few quotes in Mr. Carroll's article. I doubt anyone at Notre Dame wants to squelch her viewpoint fiben the invitation to her to speak on our campus. I suspect that people are more disturbed by the unprofessional use of an incoming student as a prop for a poorly-done and hurtful series of articles.
Let me conclude by noting that perhaps a better writer would not need to so extensively explain post-hoc exactly what he meant or create a straw-man defense of one of his sources to cloak his own shortcomings. In the meantime, although we do come from a Catholic school, we only recognize one voice ex cathedra. so please spare us further pontifications as to how we are supposed to react to your journalistic efforts.
P.S. I will do no more than note the incredibly amateur, indeed embarrassing, Google trick regarding Notre Dame being like everyone else. Real Walter Lippmann stuff there.
ndoldtown
Who is she?