UMassHoops.com

BostonBert and I traded messages behind the scenes. I'll paraphrase some of the key points here, so people are clear about how I'd like things to go on this board...


My issue with what was posted is this: if a professional journalist won't put it in an article, or even write about it on their blog, then what right do we have? They have to act responsibly about what they write. I'd like us to have the same standards.

I realize my board is what is, and what it's not, but all the same, I'd like people who use it to exercise a little more class about standing behind what they say/post. If you're not willing to back it up like a real journalist would, maybe you should reconsider saying/posting it.

I totally agree with Mike. In certain situations it's okay to post if you think you have a scoop, but I don't think this is one of them. Things like arrests are events that should be confirmed by legit sources first...too much risk that things get out of hand if you are wrong. And honestly, are our lives that much worse because we had to wait an extra day or two to find out from a real source? Aren't we being a little obsessed here?

Anyway, thanks for keeping this board sane, Mike.

MikeUMA wrote: My issue with what was posted is this: if a professional journalist won't put it in an article, or even write about it on their blog, then what right do we have? They have to act responsibly about what they write. I'd like us to have the same standards.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that these controversial events were known to journalists, who chose not to write about them? Truthfully, I don't understand that. If I interviewed a bunch of students who were confirming/witnessing the same story, why not print it? Is it to not mess with Doug's life? Because Doug really isn't a public figure?

By the way, I don't know what a professional journalist would or would not put in an article. Not being a journalist, I don't know what what journalistic standards are, and I have a hunch lots of journalists don't agree, either.

Having said all that--Mike, it's your board, and you make the rules. I will try to follow them as best I can, and the rest of us will, too, I'm sure. At least to the degree we understand the rules. We're grateful for the service you are providing.

One of the rationales (or excuses) made frequently on this board for posting questionable material about players is that they are 'public figures' getting a 'free education' . That they are 'public figures' is a somewhat circular argument - they are public only insofar as the traditional and non-traditional media make them public. That they receive a 'free education' is similarly debatable. In Doug Wiggins' case - he was not receiving a 'free education'.

The "free education" piece means nothing to me. I would never use it as a justification. The "public figure" piece seems to be not just a vague concept but a legal term that is invoked in lots of controversies and court cases involving, well, public figures. And the people who try to make money off them. If a newsman heard from several witnesses whom he trusted that Laura Bush was seen skinny dipping at Puffer's Pond, wouldn't that be news?

Clearly there a varying degrees of 'public figures'. Politicians, for instance, are the most public of public figures. I think we can all agree that student athletes in high profile sports are, to some degree, 'public figures'. My intended point is that the extent to which they are public figures (for example, how much detail do we know of their lives) is almost entirely up to the media - both traditional and non-traditional. As posters of content on this site we are all part of the non-traditional media. Mike is making some decisions as to the extent to which we expose students' lives to the public. I applaud him for this.

uz2b-len wrote:

MikeUMA wrote: My issue with what was posted is this: if a professional journalist won't put it in an article, or even write about it on their blog, then what right do we have? They have to act responsibly about what they write. I'd like us to have the same standards.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that these controversial events were known to journalists, who chose not to write about them? Truthfully, I don't understand that. If I interviewed a bunch of students who were confirming/witnessing the same story, why not print it? Is it to not mess with Doug's life? Because Doug really isn't a public figure?

By the way, I don't know what a professional journalist would or would not put in an article. Not being a journalist, I don't know what what journalistic standards are, and I have a hunch lots of journalists don't agree, either.

Having said all that--Mike, it's your board, and you make the rules. I will try to follow them as best I can, and the rest of us will, too, I'm sure. At least to the degree we understand the rules. We're grateful for the service you are providing.

Any time you're near a police investigation you want to be careful. You don't want something you said to screw things up.

So I guess there may be lots of news stories that don't get printed because of the discretion of the journalists--and we the readers would never know.

My guess would be yes.

As much as I would love to debate everything being discussed in this thread right now, I am going to follow my own advice to the rest of you...Let it go.
We can pretty much believe he did SOMETHING to get himself booted from the team and we know he has a history of being a knucklehead but the bottom line is that he is gone so the story is over. If there were some kind of great juicy story with lots of details it would have hit the papers by now and it hasn't. Who cares...the guy is gone. Good Riddance.

What else is there to talk about?

Where do you think he will go?

Isn't the real point here that Doug Wiggins played basketball at ucon, not UMass? To me that makes him irrelevant and unworthy of a single post, whether he's a public figure or not.

Chizzle wrote:Where do you think he will go?

ill go with binghamton, they have a knack for bringing in players like wiggins, talented but troubled

Doug has already burned his transfer sit-out year, so if he does end up at another D1 program, he'll only have 1 year of eligibility left.