Started By
Message
Is it just me or are Dawg beat writers adding mentions of FOIA everywhere now?
Posted on 4/21/16 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 4/21/16 at 5:31 pm
LINK
Seems like every 3rd or 4th article I see has this mentioned somewhere, often where it's entirely unnecessary. Additionally, it would seem that while the 90 day extension has been enabled, that we very clearly are being more forthcoming with info than that time range, so seems like much ado about nothing for now.
quote:
UGA will pay the Racers $500,000 for the trouble. That’s according to the terms outlined in a contract turned over to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday in compliance with an open records request. The contract was signed by Murray State Athletic Director Allen Ward on March 7 and by UGA AD Greg McGarity on March 28.
Also included in documents turned over via that Freedom of Information Act was the contract for the recent agreement between Georgia and the University of Massachusetts to play a football game on Nov. 17 of 2018. It revealed that UGA will pay the FBS team $1.5 million to come to Athens for that game. The Bulldogs released the news of the addition through its sports communication office but did not include the contract terms.
Seems like every 3rd or 4th article I see has this mentioned somewhere, often where it's entirely unnecessary. Additionally, it would seem that while the 90 day extension has been enabled, that we very clearly are being more forthcoming with info than that time range, so seems like much ado about nothing for now.
4
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:02 pm to fibonaccisquared
It hasn't gone into effect yet (July 1), so these beat writers that are all butt hurt by it are dropping that in there every time they tell you some new detail that they presume they wouldn't have had access to yet if the law was already in effect.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 6:07 pm to fibonaccisquared
They totally are and its annoying as frick. They mentioned it in the UMass article, the Ludacris article, and some others.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK (The one you mentioned)
They never once bothered to mention any of this finance shite in the few years I've been reading Dawgnation until now. All of a sudden every other article is referencing it. Pisses me off
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK (The one you mentioned)
They never once bothered to mention any of this finance shite in the few years I've been reading Dawgnation until now. All of a sudden every other article is referencing it. Pisses me off
Posted on 4/21/16 at 7:28 pm to fibonaccisquared
I think it's hilarious how mad they all have been about it, especially Seth Emerson and Chip Towers.
Posted on 4/21/16 at 8:38 pm to Hobnail
quote:
It hasn't gone into effect yet (July 1), so these beat writers that are all butt hurt by it are dropping that in there every time they tell you some new detail that they presume they wouldn't have had access to yet if the law was already in effect.
Do they really think we care?
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:36 am to dhuck20
quote:
I think it's hilarious how mad they all have been about it, especially Seth Emerson and Chip Towers.
Fletcher Page has been bitching up a storm about it too. Claims that none of us care about government transparency because we aren't supporting them.
I would invite them to all live in glass houses and make every facet of their lives available via FOIA. I'll bet they would change their tune under those circumstances. They are just mad because they are actually going to have to work for their scoops now.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 6:45 am to DawgHolliday
It's not about government transparency, it's about the fact that their jobs just got a lot harder. When shite happens that you don't like, bitching and figure it out.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 7:07 am to gatorhata9
quote:
It's not about government transparency, it's about the fact that their jobs just got a lot harder. When shite happens that you don't like, bitching and figure it out.
You will get no argument from me, but Fletcher Page claims it's a matter of government transparency.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 7:40 am to fibonaccisquared
Barnhart did it in an article I read the other day, and it was completely out of place. It's getting ridiculous.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 7:50 am to DawgHolliday
quote:
but Fletcher Page claims it's a matter of government transparency.
I'm sure he is. That's his cover so it doesn't just look like he's complaining about his job getting harder.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 8:20 am to gatorhata9
quote:
I'm sure he is. That's his cover so it doesn't just look like he's complaining about his job getting harder.
Yep.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 8:48 am to GhostofCrowell
Well it does cut both ways. If something happens and we, as fans, want to get more information about it, it could take up to 3 months to get the info rolled out to us from B-M.
So it could effect us as well.
So it could effect us as well.
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 8:50 am
Posted on 4/22/16 at 9:02 am to ugasickem
The funniest was Barnhart's "more media transparency is an indicator of a healthier program" point. Just a hilariously self-serving thing to say without a shred of evidence in his favor.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:40 pm to Hobnail
I don't have any problem with them doing it. The school is absolutely wrong on this.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 12:48 pm to athenslife101
quote:
The school is absolutely wrong on this.
why do you feel that way? Just curious.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 2:59 pm to DawgHolliday
Any state agency spending tax dollars should be required to be as open as possible about how that money is spent. No one seemed to mind when Richts salary was discussed openly here nd across all media in the state.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 9:00 pm to WG_Dawg
Because I believe in transparency. I know what it's like when there is no transparency and it's not a pretty sight. I do agree that their are benefits to this, but I think it's more likely to create petty bullshite and hurt people trying to do honest work.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News