The writers, particularly Forde and Low, that were lied to and used have got to be pissed. Not only that, but I would guess this is going to piss off some other national writers. My guess is this is going to put a lot of writers on UMs *** for a long time.
So, has this been mentioned?
- Thread starter Tin Cup Cowboy
- Start date
So when will Hugh Kellenburger come out that he was lied to all this time?
I'm guessing Freeze told him to blame things on Nashville.
I'm guessing Freeze told him to blame things on Nashville.
Not an issue for Hugh Kellenberger since the CL never published an article about the investigation!
The truest statement ever written. Technically it's right. Every article they wrote was just a biggy back. No real investigative journalism has been done by the CL. Not a resource dollar spent.
So now that's it's documented Hugh Freeze used the national media to, unknowingly, lie for him. To bolster the lies he had told recruits, all in attempt to save a recruiting class is there any question he receives a 10 year to life show cause?
Last edited:
Not only did he use the national media to lie for him, he used what is supposed to be the MSU representative on the state's largest sports talk radio show. Wyatt lied for him to help secure the 2016 recruiting class for Freezus. Wyatt has some explaining to do.
It's funny. The OM fans are so hell bent on disregarding anything Nutt said in his lawsuit that they are missing an opportunity to point and laugh at us because Wyatt carried Hugh's water.
I'm of the opinion that Matt is guilty of being deceived and not doing his due diligence in making sure his source was telling the truth. Honestly, I'm guessing most of us reading this would NOT assume a D1 college head coach would blatantly lie to them. NO DOUBT Matt is more careful going forward.
Yep, Leo did it, Merlinz did it, Nutt did it, Sankey didn't defend them, bunch of fvcking douches...
I should have clarified. I'm not blaming Matt for it at all. He was just doing his job. Although, I still think OM fans under normal circumstances would enjoy the hell out of it.
Less we forget...what Matt reported was very pleasing to the guy who writes his paycheck. Matt's in a pretty tough spot in this deal IMO.
I wouldn't believe ANYTHING a coach told me because "coach speak" is a term for a reason. And I wouldn't even believe anything Freeze said more than the rest. The fact Wyatt did it so easily points to a complete lack of common sense on his part.
I guess Im not familiar enough with who pays Matt. I thought his job was to be the MSU voice on H2H, as well as MSU media. How is anything that he reported pleasing to MSU?
Valid point. I don't think anyone thinks Matt is a graduate of the Edward R. Murrow School of Hard-Hitting Journalism. He's a talking head (fan) like most of us would be. Matt gets grilled by both sides. He's too much of an MSU homer if he says something positive about us. So maybe he's careful or even goes overboard the other way to NOT show partiality...now he's a traitor. Bear fans do the same thing to Dick Cross.
I don't think you understand how the relationship between a head coach and the press works. "Coach speak" is generally accepted for public statements by a coach. But when the head coach is speaking to you "off the record" with the understanding you're going to use him as the anonymous source for your story, there's an expectation that he's not just outright lying to you. This is why Forde and Wolken have been all over his *** the last 18 months.
Do some research on TeleSouth Communications and it's ownership. Not saying the owner or the station gave or implied any directive to Matt whatsoever in any way shape or form in this matter. Just saying if Matt were to broadside OM with the truth using SuperTalk as his platform it would be a risky career move for him IMO. Kinda biting the ole hand that feeds you type thingy.
Last edited:
Why the **** would you assume that? Especially when the coach in question is an obvious huckster?
Exactly, reporters don't expect coaches to lie to them unequivocally, especially when the means to check the statement will be released eventually.
Matt gets paid by the Rebel broadcasters
Head to Head is produced by the Mississippi Network, which is owned by the same company that has the contract to broadcast TSUN athletics. The show started out independent but Steve Davenport (head honcho) bought the show and put it only on Supertalk stations, which are also solely owned by the Mississippi Network. In this you have a MPB-level network that is biased exclusively to the Confederates,,,
Head to Head is produced by the Mississippi Network, which is owned by the same company that has the contract to broadcast TSUN athletics. The show started out independent but Steve Davenport (head honcho) bought the show and put it only on Supertalk stations, which are also solely owned by the Mississippi Network. In this you have a MPB-level network that is biased exclusively to the Confederates,,,
lets flip the script....how would dick cross react if mullen had called him up with a fresh take and a suspicious one at that?....matt should have been more skeptical imo. i sure would have been unless he is ultra-buds with freeze...and if so, why is that the case? as a journalist, i see why he did it, but why is he getting the call?
Manipulation is part of the world of sports journalism
It goes both ways... be truthful if it helps and lie if it will cover a mistake. As a sportswriter I once reported the verbatim comments of a coach after his team lost a game, and I had them recorded, with no "off the record" from the coach. When I wrote the story with his comments in there I had to deal with a lot of "I never said that." My managing editor at the time also got on my case about reporting something detrimental to the local community college. From that point on until I left less than a year later (and got out of journalism) I only wrote "positive journalism."
Of course this does in no way excuse what the Rebels did and how the media fell in like lap dogs. They could only run with what they had and assume they were being talked to honestly -- then be called a liar later even if they had proof they were given bad information. I had no other staff at one paper and only one at the other, so there was little time outside of the daily grind to follow an in-depth story like this. That in no way excuses the Clarion-Liar because even now they have enough staff to cover a story like this. Actually this sounds like a story that Jerry Mitchell would be perfect for.
It goes both ways... be truthful if it helps and lie if it will cover a mistake. As a sportswriter I once reported the verbatim comments of a coach after his team lost a game, and I had them recorded, with no "off the record" from the coach. When I wrote the story with his comments in there I had to deal with a lot of "I never said that." My managing editor at the time also got on my case about reporting something detrimental to the local community college. From that point on until I left less than a year later (and got out of journalism) I only wrote "positive journalism."
Of course this does in no way excuse what the Rebels did and how the media fell in like lap dogs. They could only run with what they had and assume they were being talked to honestly -- then be called a liar later even if they had proof they were given bad information. I had no other staff at one paper and only one at the other, so there was little time outside of the daily grind to follow an in-depth story like this. That in no way excuses the Clarion-Liar because even now they have enough staff to cover a story like this. Actually this sounds like a story that Jerry Mitchell would be perfect for.