Started By
Message
re: Houston Nutt files lawsuit against OM.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:58 pm to skirpnasty
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:58 pm to skirpnasty
Unlike most of their fans.. Ole Miss is fricked.
0
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:05 pm to Dave1999
quote:
No way any legitimate journalist shares off the record information and the source if they want to continue in their career.
If the source lied to you and made you look like a doofus, you don't worry too much about protecting that source.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:25 pm to Dave1999
quote:
way any legitimate journalist shares off the record information and the source if they want to continue in their career.
They can't plead the fifth amendment if they're subpoenaed. They could commit a crime and lie under oath but I don't see that happening either. And they can't just refuse to say anything. Has nothing to do with their career and wanting to divulge a source. It's just, like, the law if they're asked questions in court.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:28 pm to Vecchio Cane
OK I made it to page five, but can we put Nutt, Freeze, and Ole Mrs. in the same basket and push it off a cliff?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:29 pm to lsufball19
The question to me, is, what dollar figure does Houston go into the settlement meetings demanding?
Knowing Nutt, it'll be 50M, and it'll drag out until just before a set trial date, if OM can keep it as quiet as they can.
Realistically, he should open at about 30M, and settle for half.
This has the potential to completely hull Ole Miss for even longer than the NCAA infractions to date. This is epic level stuff- short of the dead girl/live boy, not much worse can happen for a football coach/administration.
And I hate that ***** Nutt. Its like a golden goose shits eggs on his head.
Knowing Nutt, it'll be 50M, and it'll drag out until just before a set trial date, if OM can keep it as quiet as they can.
Realistically, he should open at about 30M, and settle for half.
This has the potential to completely hull Ole Miss for even longer than the NCAA infractions to date. This is epic level stuff- short of the dead girl/live boy, not much worse can happen for a football coach/administration.
And I hate that ***** Nutt. Its like a golden goose shits eggs on his head.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:31 pm to BoardReader
quote:
The question to me, is, what dollar figure does Houston go into the settlement meetings demanding
I'd hold out for that Bobby Bonilla settlement.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:32 pm to lsufball19
Not exactly true. A member of the press does not have to reveal information from a source, or the source's identity unless he has information regarding a clear and present threat. However, press privilege is not like spousal or doctor-patient privilege, in that it only protects the press and not the source. If the press member wants to reveal the source he can do so if his ethics allow it.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:33 pm to skirpnasty
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:51 pm to bamawriter
Their is also another rule among the media.
Protect sources but if the source burns you, then you can burn the source.
Protect sources but if the source burns you, then you can burn the source.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:53 pm to lsufball19
Ole Miss can't sign an NDA. State institution
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:56 pm to bamawriter
And if that journalist doesn't protect his source he burns all the bridges he has built.
This isn't a criminal case where he would be under a great deal of pressure.
This is just Nutt squeezing out a few more dollars.
This isn't a criminal case where he would be under a great deal of pressure.
This is just Nutt squeezing out a few more dollars.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:59 pm to Dave1999
quote:
And if that journalist doesn't protect his source he burns all the bridges he has built. This isn't a criminal case where he would be under a great deal of pressure. This is just Nutt squeezing out a few more dollars.
The source has already screwed the journalist, here, by putting it in a place where Nutt could either get wind of it, or get a record of the conversation.
At that point, the journalist is almost obligated to strike back, if only to keep his sources from screwing him in the future.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:09 pm to BoardReader
No. There won't be any sources for any future off the record conversations.
they weren't burned by their "source". They know every source puts the best spin
possible on information. Same as in politics. Current problems are always the cult of
the previous administration .
they weren't burned by their "source". They know every source puts the best spin
possible on information. Same as in politics. Current problems are always the cult of
the previous administration .
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:18 pm to Dave1999
What is the point of maintaining a relationship with a source who lied to you? A source that put your reputation at risk?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:22 pm to Dave1999
quote:
They know every source puts the best spin
possible on information.
There is a significant difference between spin and outright lying about what a document says in plain English.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:29 pm to bamawriter
If you feel your source purposely lied to you then you don't continue use his information
without verification. If you think other sources won't dry up because you sold your source
out, rightly or wrongly , your naive . The reason this stuff is off the record is because the source doesn't want to be named . Name them and nobody trusts you with off the record info.
without verification. If you think other sources won't dry up because you sold your source
out, rightly or wrongly , your naive . The reason this stuff is off the record is because the source doesn't want to be named . Name them and nobody trusts you with off the record info.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:34 pm to Dave1999
If you don't want to talk to me because I might talk under oath if you use my reputation to libel someone else, then I don't have any use for your info.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:39 pm to bamawriter
Exactly, Freeze/OM made many journalist look like fools because they fed them a false narrative to save the recruiting class. The NCAA saw what they were doing and went back in for the kill shot with the second investigation. The NCAA made damn sure that everyone knew without a doubt who wa the puppet master behind all those staffers orchestrating the Booster/recruit scheme in the Amended NOA.
The Nutt narrative was BS when the whole case is reviewed in its entirety.
The Nutt narrative was BS when the whole case is reviewed in its entirety.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:47 pm to RT1941
No. The academic fraud was under Nutt regime. That is the most serious infraction
because it goes to the heart of what a university should stand for. Hunting trips , money
for utility bills , and cash paid by a booster pale in comparison. You don't think
all schools and the NCAA don't use journalists to put a narrative out ? Of course they do
and journalists know it.
because it goes to the heart of what a university should stand for. Hunting trips , money
for utility bills , and cash paid by a booster pale in comparison. You don't think
all schools and the NCAA don't use journalists to put a narrative out ? Of course they do
and journalists know it.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:54 pm to Dave1999
quote:
You don't think
all schools and the NCAA don't use journalists to put a narrative out ? Of course they do
and journalists know it.
Again, "spin" or "a narrative" would be "We don't agree with the allegations, and we think we can successfully refute them."
A "lie" would be "most of the alleged violations occurred under the previous regime."
As a journalist, I'm okay with the former, even if you are realistically expecting to get creamed. I am not okay with the latter, because it is unadulterated bullshite.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News