you tell me?
Good God Audrey Snider, how do you have this job after following up the first question…
Good God Audrey Snider, how do you have this job after following up the first question…
Is this amateur hour at its finest?
- Thread starter grinagrin
- Start date
I might be in a small minority but i don’t have any issue with her question. While i understand that a reporter covering PSU football is not dealing with elected officials who must be held accountable, sometimes uncomfortable questions should be asked.
From what we know, it seems PSU has handled this situation appropriately so no need to be defensive. Not sure who that official is who intervened but he seemed angry and defensive over the questions of the free press.
Just my.02.
From what we know, it seems PSU has handled this situation appropriately so no need to be defensive. Not sure who that official is who intervened but he seemed angry and defensive over the questions of the free press.
Just my.02.
Saw this on X when she posted it. Not sure how I feel but what did they expect. The PR people come out and say no questions about these former players will be answered yet the reporters ask questions any way. If it was me in JFs position my blood would be boiling and I would prolly walk away as well. Or the filter would come off and I would ask them if they were not paying attention to what was just said. However, it is the reporters job to ask tough questions but why waste everyone's times when you know they won't be answered? Or are they trying to piss JF off like Col Jessup in A Few Good Men and hope he goes off on them? Some reporters are better then others I guess and they try to cause controversy in hopes to make a name for themselves in attempts to get to the next level.
Kaffee: Did you order the 2-point conversion up by 3?
Franklin: You’re damn right I did!
Oddly enough, Audrey Snyder and John Sauber's podcast, Nittany Dispatch has not been uploaded this week - they usually do that early in the week. Not sure if this issue had anythng to do with it.
I don't have a problem with CJF's response. This is a legal matter of two former players/students. What kind of response is he supposed to provide? Any kind of response would have just invited more questions that he is not in a position to answer.
But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities of former players.
I don't have a problem with CJF's response. This is a legal matter of two former players/students. What kind of response is he supposed to provide? Any kind of response would have just invited more questions that he is not in a position to answer.
But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities of former players.
Last edited:
I agree. Reminds me of the old saying what is it exactly that you don’t understand about the word no. I get that they would ask but why keep asking after you have already seen a press clipping and been reminded directly that there will be no further comment?
Oddly enough, Audrey Snyder and John Sauber's podcast, Nittany Dispatch has not been uploaded this week - they usually do that early in the week. Not sure if this issue had anythng to do with it.
I don't have a problem with CJF's response. This is a legal matter of two former players/students. What kind of response is he supposed to provide? Any kind of response would have just invited more questions that he is notin a position to answer.
But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities of former players.
The university released a statement yesterday and indicated there would be no further comment. Then, the spokesperson read a statement which concluded with "...we released a statement yesterday and our program and athletic department will have no further comment.”
What effin part of that statement did she and her buddy not understand? For her to ask a question literally 20 seconds after being told there would not be any further comments was like dealing with a 1st grader and was complete grandstanding on her part.
If I were PSU, I'd yank her media credentials for the rest of the year.
I agree completely. That's what happens to head coaches all over the country when this stuff happens.
That was Greg Kincaid that was on camera (and Kris Peterson also jumped in off-camera).
That's the job of every coach in the country...they can deflect or not answer the questions, but I'd hope the media at least asks about it. Coaches get very defensive about this stuff (I remember Chambers laying into Mark Brennan when he asked questions about Mike Watkins after he had gotten arrested). Or Joe would just send Jeff Nelson out to lie, and tell us that Mo Humph was on the plane.But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities of former players.
Oddly enough, Audrey Snyder and John Sauber's podcast, Nittany Dispatch has not been uploaded this week - they usually do that early in the week. Not sure if this issue had anythng to do with it.
I don't have a problem with CJF's response. This is a legal matter of two former players/students. What kind of response is he supposed to provide? Any kind of response would have just invited more questions that he is notin a position to answer.
But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities of former players.
Franklin runs the university.
So didn’t Franklin not answer the question? Again why would any rational person (1) expect Franklin or PSU to comment on pending criminal charges in the first place and, more importantly, (2) keep asking the question after being told before the interview that Franklin and PSU would have no further comment other than the press release and was again told the same thing right before the question was asked? Typical media grandstanding at its most pathetic.
What she really did was waste the time of her colleagues who were also there to do their jobs. Self-importance.
I wouldn't expect him to comment on the case, or the pending charges. However, nothing stops him from commenting on when he became aware (and when the guys were kicked off the team), impact of missing them, etc. No problem with a reporter asking a follow-up question along those lines.
He's compensated very well, and sometimes that job involves answering tough questions.
No issue with her question, his response, or the university's response. She and John can say, 'I asked the question.' Franklin isn't compelled to answer but I will say he could say the university script himself without having to step to the side - that, IMO, is not a good look. He should be able to say nothing for himself if he wants to (the question was to Franklin, the coach, not the university athletic department). I get why they asked, I get why he didn't answer, it is what it is. She did her job IMO.
This. She can ask, he can do what he wants with the question. If he feels the statement that was issued covers the question, you kindly direct her to the statement and move on to the next question. Easy, no harm done. To just shut it down altogether and say "nothing you could possibly come up with about allegations of women getting raped by two former football players will be answered; any questions about how our starting cornerback is recovering from that severe case of jock itch that he had last week?" is not a great look by PSU.
He answers Audrey's question with a "the allegations are horrible, and we removed the players from the football program the moment I learned about them. At this point, our focus is on Wisconsin, and I'm here to answer questions about this week's game", and this might not be a front page story on ESPN with the video of Coach Franklin that creates pretty bad optics. Even James giving a total non-answer himself of "I can't comment on it, please refer to Greg's statement and you can follow up with him for any further questions" would make things look a whole lot better.
I laugh that some think removing Audrey's credential for having the nerve to do her job and try to get any type of comment from the coach about two of his players allegedly raping a 17 year old girl (and sounds like possibly multiple girls) would end well for PSU in any way, shape, or form.
She and Sauber have a Podcast and both asked questions they were told wouldn't be answered immediately after being told they wouldn't be answered. She posted it on Twitter while standing in Lasch. Thirsty for clicks much?Oddly enough, Audrey Snyder and John Sauber's podcast, Nittany Dispatch has not been uploaded this week - they usually do that early in the week. Not sure if this issue had anythng to do with it.
I don't have a problem with CJF's response. This is a legal matter of two former players/students. What kind of response is he supposed to provide? Any kind of response would have just invited more questions that he is notin a position to answer.
But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities of former players.
You are wrong Any kind of response could be used in a legal action against the Unuversity by the defendant.
There is no correlation between making money and answering questions about legal issues. You are flat out wrong in your premise.
Last edited:
Part of my job is helping large corporations (and PSU is a large corporation) deal with this kind of stuff. The days of telling reporters to shut up, that we are not going to talk about anything, that we would prefer to talk about something else, here is our statement now go pound sand, is over. Social media changed that, forever. Back in the day, you would read about it in the newspaper and maybe your local late night TV news for 10 seconds before they switched topics. Now, you have a 24/7 news cycle on your phone. Wishing it away invites other people within the 24/7 news cycle to craft your narrative for you. No comment is fine, but it needs to be done in a semi-transparent, reasonably done good faith way. Looking like you are muzzling the football coach or only interested in talking about what you want to talk about, even though the topic you want to talk about still shares a common element of "football" with the other story, is asking for scrutiny.
Absolutely no reason for him to answer those questions. When the guys were kicked of the team is already a matter of public record. What precisely don’t you understand about the statement that neither Franklin nor PSU will have any further comment about the matter?
First time yes.
What exactly confuses you about the statement both before and at the beginning of the media session that neither Franklin nor PSU will have any further comment about the matter? Why is it acceptable to again bring up the subject after Franklin asks if anyone has any Wisconsin questions? Not a good look by the grandstanding and muck taking media but then again what the hell else is new?
You fail to realize who has the power in that room. You don't have to like it, but things have changed with how these things are documented and presented to the public. Reading in the newspaper or hearing from a TV anchor on late night news that PSU said they wouldn't answer questions about this is a lot different than seeing in video HOW they said they wouldn't answer questions about this. Distrust of corporations is at an all time high. Distrust of government agencies is at an all-time high. If Joe Public thinks everyone is distrustful, and you, large corporation, tell reporters to shut up about only certain topics, that doesn't look good.
There is a process for dealing with sexual abuse. The coach's job is to report what he knows to the relevant people and then stay out of the way. That should work out perfectly, right?
On a different note, I wish media types would ask hard questions of the administration and the BOT about some of their strategic decisions. Do any reporters request sit down interviews with Neeli or Matty Lice?
On a different note, I wish media types would ask hard questions of the administration and the BOT about some of their strategic decisions. Do any reporters request sit down interviews with Neeli or Matty Lice?
This was a self inflicted PR mess. All Franklin had to do was say ‘The university released a statement which you all just heard. I have no further comment on a pending legal matter and refer you to X with any further questions.’
His running from the mic while summoning the university rep and returning each time saying ‘Hey guys, any questions?’ was a poor way to handle it. Really poor.
The Penn State rep being angry and irritated in his responses rather than calm and professional only compounded the error.
I have no problem with the reporter asking the question. It’s their job and the minute you tell the press they can’t ask something you can be assured they will fixate on it.
This was pretty much a prime example of how not to handle this type of situation.
Sure enough, it’s now headline news on espn with the story being “Franklin refuses to comment on PSU rape charges” (and that video is now posted in the story for all to see).
His running from the mic while summoning the university rep and returning each time saying ‘Hey guys, any questions?’ was a poor way to handle it. Really poor.
The Penn State rep being angry and irritated in his responses rather than calm and professional only compounded the error.
I have no problem with the reporter asking the question. It’s their job and the minute you tell the press they can’t ask something you can be assured they will fixate on it.
This was pretty much a prime example of how not to handle this type of situation.
Sure enough, it’s now headline news on espn with the story being “Franklin refuses to comment on PSU rape charges” (and that video is now posted in the story for all to see).
Last edited:
Didn’t Greg already tell her just that? Someone needs to give Franklin your phone number so he can consult with you about how to answer future media questions.
Didn’t realize PSU was a government agency. Thanks for your help. It’s only because people who think like you that the media has “control” these days.
Agree to an extent. OTOH, even allowing CJF to say those two sentences makes him a de facto spokesman on the matter and he'd likely be criticized for stonewalling by saying "no comment". The university likely wants the public information office to be the sole outlet for such statements.
Well the lynch mob ESPN was going to give this an anti-PSU spin regardless of how it was handled.
Fixed it for you, psuro.But, I guess at PSU, it is the head football coach's responsibility to deal with, and address questions about, criminal activities.
Joe was supposed to arrest Sandusky himself. CJF should have jailed these accused kids in his prison under the Beav.
Certainly couldn't handle it much worse, so I can pass it along. They've already got a great resource on the University payroll in someone like Steve Manuel, but I'm sure everyone is too smart to need his help.
Just read an article on the SI website. It stated the PSU made a statement in the summer before the season started that these 2 were removed from the university and the team before the season even started. So PSU already made a statement about the incident. This is only now being talked about because the police finally formally filed charges? So these hacks need to ask the question to cause problems. This situation seems to have been handled exactly as it should have by the university but the media wants the football coach to be a lawyer/PR/expert on these things? Why does a football coach need to respond to university legal proceedings which he can't talk about anyway? I mean WTF!! No one saying these guys are innocent and they have been dealt with by the university and now it is up to the law. Why does Franklin need to comment on it? PSU should just put out another statement to get a head of the narrative the media is going to make up.
Welcome to the comments section on X (followed by, 'this happened at Vanderbilt too,').
I hope you will forgive my intrusion into your workday 'educational' environment, however, may I make a suggestion about the supposed integrity of the Journalism news - people / companies / editorial boards / IT compositors.
One flagrant misuse of news 'reporting' can be found each evening on 'NBC Evening News'. The individual reporters are lazy, the main news reader/anchor interrupts each 'story' so that he can be identified as important to the broadcast, and the director/producer reproduces a timely news setting similar to a local/local TV station that would report the local fishing calendar.
Another example is '60 Minutes' as the reporter does not have any background information on the past election habits of the electorate in PA. Not one mention of any research, completed investigation or reporting without any bias. Just keep asking a fluff question for an 'answer'.
In my opinion, today's reporters are afraid they will not get a 'breaking-news' story before someone else. They must post their 'feelings' on social media to claim 'importance', not having total accuracy as an absolute must. Which gives ammunition to those who will subvert any information for deliberate rumor or laughter. I believe Journalism of the past has given way to the dollars provided by the number of subscribers on each cable system in each geography. Comcast and others pay miniscule amounts per channel that adds up to women who look good and men in jeans.
I have worked with Neilsen for over 30 years on various subjects (NCAA, internet companies, radio stations, TV shows), the reporters today are not educated in - research, investigate, report without bias using the tenets of 'who/what/when/where/how and why'. Too many times these Journalism students use emotion, not education learned in 11th grade, and not much in college.