3&O- Bacon's Input

John Bacon's boss (for lack of a better word) is the publishing company that gave him his advance. It's not the Univ. of Michigan. If he's been tasked with the responsibility of writing a book about Rodriguez, he absolutely needs to keep his mouth shut. He's an observer.

There is a style of writing where people basically insert themselves into their own stories. Hunter Thompson did it. George Plimpton and Paper Lion, of course. There were WWII correspondents who absolutely were parts of their own stories. But, Bacon isn't doing that type of writing and he made the right decision.

At some point during the interview, he commented that this is why it is unfair to label him as a Rodriguez apologist. There were many times that Rich said some things that he knew some things were not going to end well with things he said or things he had done, as well as the times he recognized Rich missed opportunities to win the room. He was there to be a journalist, not to give advice.

I am paraphrasing, but that was the jist of it.

JUB was supposed to be a fly on the wall.  If he offered any suggestions, it would have changed the relationship and he would no longer be able to write objectively.

I heard the full extent of the WTKA program with JUB this morning and I believe it is a question of journalistic ethics which is a rare commodity especially on the subject matter under discussion.

To have done elsewise  would have diminished not only his capacity as an observer but the quality of the substance by which the book would be judged.

I've heard/read Bacon on a couple different media outlets now.. and the one impression I come away with... one that surprised me and I wasn't looking for... is this guy goes out of his way to be objective and non partisan.  He doesn't look find a scape goat or place blame on any one person or action.  The guy seems to recognize the world is shades of grey.

And lets me honest, black and white sells.  Friend or enemy.  His book would have sold more copies if he came out and placed the major blame on any one subject.. if he took a side... if he manufactured controversy.

IMO, he took the high road, and made an attempt to tell as accurate of a story as he could.  I admire him for that.

It is never the writer's job to make himself part of the story.  That is part of what has pissed me off about the whole freep thing.  Bacon was there as an observer, not a confidant or mentor.  He did his job.  

also knows what to leave out -  as apparently many things that were likely true but could not be substantiated were left out of the book. 

Ask him if he has any stories about Roy Tarpley, Butch Wafe, Paul Jokisch, Garde Thompson (white boy could jump!)  Mr. Bacon lived on the same dorm hall as they did their freshman year.  Trust me, there are some (true) stories to be had...

This is a tricky line.

It may well be that he heard something that RR was planning to say that caused his own internal warning alarm to go off and scream silently "Don't say that!". But if he had stepped in and influenced RR (1) he might not have prevented things and (2) would have completely changed the dynamic of their relationship. He would have become a media advisor rather than a member of the media. Sometimes crossing the line is necessary - is it more important to cover a story or save a life. Would you keep recording someone who is in the act of falling from a burning building or would you help pull the person to safety? The former action might win  the Pulitzer prize but the latter is undoubtedly the right thing to do.

This line is very confusing in sports because the so called sports media actually do both. Look at the typical football show. The on-camera people show highlights, report the scores and give analysis but also interject themselves into the story by calling for personnel changes, asking for coaches or players to apologize or explain themselves or offering opinion on what should be done rather than limiting their actions to reporting on what happened.

The old print media differentiated between reporters and columnists or opinion writers. These are all blurred together.

I've read through most of the new book and it seems clear that Bacon does like RR as a person and actually feels a bit sorry for him. RR is one of the few people who actually had his lifelong dream come true, only to see it blow up in his face. He also makes it very clear how nasty many college coaching jobs can be.

There were bigger moral issues; various Freep hack jobs could have been countered.  I assume that Bacon isn't the first to face such a dilemma, and it's something a lot of journalists have to wrestle with.  While I wouldn't say Bacon was in the wrong---either by omission or commission, I don't think doing the oposite would have neccessarily wrong either.  

I was actually thinking of writing in to the show to ask him if he regretted not speaking up.  He didn't address it directly but it sounds like no.

Can't post a new topic, so I thought I would throw this question into one of the many 3 and Out posts.

Reading the chapters about practicegate got me really frustrated on the CARA forms.  Why in this decade do we not have a secure website where students submit their CARA form data directly to compliance?  This seems like such a simple solution to the clear problem of getting the CARA forms turned in regularly. Anyone have any idea if this process has been modernized at all?

Who's to say Bacon didn't try to lend advice?  And from a different perspective, who is John Bacon to give Rich Rodriguez advice on coaching anyway?  Bacon mentions in his book how coaches dislike talking to the press, and Bacon would not have come across well trying to "lend a hand" as someone who didn't know Rodriguez to begin with.  Part of the arrangement was for Bacon to remain objective and discrete so it would have been unethical for him to impose his will in any way.