Jump to content

DCI HoF determination on Hopkins delayed unit at least September


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

I spoke with Tricia yesterday. She gets it. She also understands that changing the culture starts with changing minds and in some cases changing people. Apologist and boot licking sycophants are to be expected when there are livelihoods involved. 

As AAs mantra goes: you can’t correct a problem until you recognize there is a problem.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

I spoke with Tricia yesterday. She gets it. She also understands that changing the culture starts with changing minds and in some cases changing people. Apologist and boot licking sycophants are to be expected when there are livelihoods involved. 

Yep- especially people who have never worked in the real world outside DCI and the Band/Indoor seasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Another optics problem for DCI. The boat is springing leaks all over the place. They either don't really care, or are not sufficiently nimble to act quickly on something like this. You mean to tell me you can't schedule a conference call of the HOF committee volunteers and get this taken care of ......well before September?

Yes... DCI fails to recognize they have a severe communications issue. And it is bigger than the HoF issue. They are trying to handle this in house and the are FAILING miserably. YEA got great outside PR assistance and it shows. DCI trying to do it themselves and it shows. That can't get out of their own way and when they have some good news to share they step all over it with bad messaging. Hoping this all goes away is not a strategy... and if they do not figure this out soon they will get caught up in the whole thing as being enablers and not defenders of the students and/or the victims.

Edited by MusicManNJ
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cowtown said:

Tricia most certainly has another agenda, getting paid and getting clicks. She stumbled into a loyal, niche activity and is using that loyalty to promote her career because she knows they will follow her every word. *Click*. To be expected as its the nature of the best. I’m not saying this to be unfair but when talking about quality journalism to ignore it and pretend otherwise, insults me.  Anyone sniff out her social media history and see how this story is spiking for her as a context? Altruistic journalism has been dead for a long time, even if it ever exited; Watergate helped put the nail in the coffin.

Journalism is no more or less altruistic now than it ever was. Journalists for centuries have always been motivated by a combination of two desires: to pursue and expose the truth, and to gain personal glory. In each journalist, the percentage of each motive differs. Some are as altruistic as a human being can be; others quite the opposite. All that changed with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate was that, for a time, some journalists decided that they'd been too chummy with powerful people, who had been using them to cover up their misdeeds, so the journalists became less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. (Last year's movie The Post captures that aspect pretty well.) That deference to power is not just a journalistic failing. Could George Hopkins have gotten away with his behavior for so long if his victims thought they'd be believed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cowtown said:

I’m not bothered by the delay, prefer they get it correct as opposed to some half measure. Hoppy being in the Hall of Fame for a few more months is pretty irrelevant as is the HOF in general as it’s seem to be mainly resume fodder.

 

 

Tricia most certainly has another agenda, getting paid and getting clicks. She stumbled into a loyal, niche activity and is using that loyalty to promote her career because she knows they will follow her every word. *Click*. To be expected as its the nature of the best. I’m not saying this to be unfair but when talking about quality journalism to ignore it and pretend otherwise, insults me.  Anyone sniff out her social media history and see how this story is spiking for her as a context? Altruistic journalism has been dead for a long time, even if it ever exited; Watergate helped put the nail in the coffin. But anyway, overall,  she is doing an OK job, a little sloppy and would it hurt to reference the Chicago Manuel of Style a few times or perhaps gift it to her editors?

I'm not a journalist, and i don't care how many clicks she gets. I care that she gets facts right, and helps expose ######## that deserve to be exposed.

 

To date I am stunned no male on male harassment issues have come to the forefront

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

I'm not a journalist, and i don't care how many clicks she gets. I care that she gets facts right, and helps expose ######## that deserve to be exposed.

 

To date I am stunned no male on male harassment issues have come to the forefront

2
2

I have no doubt she does though. just sayin

Edited by GUARDLING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Journalism is no more or less altruistic now than it ever was. Journalists for centuries have always been motivated by a combination of two desires: to pursue and expose the truth, and to gain personal glory. In each journalist, the percentage of each motive differs. Some are as altruistic as a human being can be; others quite the opposite. All that changed with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate was that, for a time, some journalists decided that they'd been too chummy with powerful people, who had been using them to cover up their misdeeds, so the journalists became less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. (Last year's movie The Post captures that aspect pretty well.) That deference to power is not just a journalistic failing. Could George Hopkins have gotten away with his behavior for so long if his victims thought they'd be believed?

Pentagon Papers definitely showed they were too chummy.....Bradlee admitted it. What helped Watergate was Woodward and Bernstein at that time were local reports...Woodward on the job not even a year and Bernstein continuously being threatened with termination. Those two didn't know enough about being chummy or stepping on toes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

I have no doubt she does though. just sayin

she probably does. You think she's going to put her ### on the line to sensationalize something that could come back to blow up on her? Ask the NBC dude or Dan rather how that worked out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

she probably does. You think she's going to put her ### on the line to sensationalize something that could come back to blow up on her? Ask the NBC dude or Dan rather how that worked out

 

could be. Shes no Dan Rather and happens almost on a daily basis, especially lately.

Edited by GUARDLING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to file this under "Who the hell cares?" It's not like there's a hall of busts in a museum that millions visit on a yearly basis, it's a photo on wall and a list on a website. They'll get rid of him eventually, as they should, but I'm really struggling to figure out why this is such a hit-button issue for some folks when there are way more important things to be doing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...