Update on Wardle allegations

[GGGG]

In this day and age people are presumed guilty if Charged. . I thought the press was bound to corroborate their information or at least follow up with both sides. Don't see that much anymore

I guess you didn't bother to read the *fifth* paragraph of the article which said:

"The 33-year-old Wardle, who has a 47-49 record in three seasons as head coach, declined comment but issued a statement."

If you are going to make a complaint about the state of journalism today, and least READ the article in question.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Demovsky is a very good journalist.  He was simply telling the player's side of the story.  It wasn't meant to be a definitive report.

Problem is that since people often read only one thing, it becomes "valid" in the eyes of many.  I have no idea if the story is true or not, but if it isn't then the Gazette has damaged Wardle considerably with the story. 


And if that is the case, as is often the case with the media, a retraction (if they bother), would be on page A28....if the allegations aren't true.


There's a reason why a positive view of the media is below 40%

[ChicosBailBonds]

Where do you see that these stories haven't sought/obtained comment from Wardle and UWGB officials?

They have, but they also know full well that neither can comment because of legal reasons.  So one party is free to say what they want while the accused is stuck having to hold their tongue on any specifics, and must resort to general responses.

Again, no idea if what he is accused of is factual or not, but more than a few innocent folks have been tried in the press over the years.

[Pakuni]

Problem is that since people often read only one thing, it becomes "valid" in the eyes of many.  I have no idea if the story is true or not, but if it isn't then the Gazette has damaged Wardle considerably with the story.  

So, what do you suggest? Ignore serious, public allegations and an investigation of a key figure at one of the city's most important institutions? A publicly funded institution? Ignore the fact the university goes public with an investigation?
The Gazette hasn't damaged Wardle. The accusations, perhaps, but not the fact they were reported.
I find your complaint particularly ironic given that you were the guy all-too-happy to spread rumors of Buzz Williams and his "squirmy"-ness. At least the Gazette is quoting named sources and giving the accused every opportunity to respond.

And if that is the case, as is often the case with the media, a retraction (if they bother), would be on page A28....if the allegations aren't true.

What would be retracted?
If the kid's lying, that will be reported.
If Wardle is cleared, that will be reported.
Yeah, it sucks for Wardle that the allegations are made public. That's the price one pays for choosing a high profile, public profession. He's free to go work at Target if he doesn't like the fact his job (and therefore his behavior) is in the public eye.

[Pakuni]

They have, but they also know full well that neither can comment because of legal reasons.  So one party is free to say what they want while the accused is stuck having to hold their tongue on any specifics, and must resort to general responses.

What are you talking about? What legal reasons? No one's accused of anything criminal here, nor is there any pending litigation (though, admittedly, that could change). But even so, if there were a lawsuit, that would in no way prevent Wardle or anyone else from saying whatever they please.

Nobody is trying anyone here.

[MU82]

They have, but they also know full well that neither can comment because of legal reasons.  So one party is free to say what they want while the accused is stuck having to hold their tongue on any specifics, and must resort to general responses.

Yes, one party is free to say what they want. And yes, the accused has to hold his tongue. That sucks for Wardle, but it's life in the not-so-big city.

It is the media's job to report on relevant stories. The Press-Gazette did that here and did it quite well.

[Blackhat]

Bross's run and dump is cousin to the pump and dump.

https://www.youtube.com/v/fg3qj5I-28A

[willie warrior]

Bross's run and dump is cousin to the pump and dump.

https://www.youtube.com/v/fg3qj5I-28A

That sequence with Woody is classic. He should have received an Academy Award nomination for that scene alone. And this is basketball related as he starred in White Men Can't Jump. A poll question: Who is hotter, the land lady or Rosie Perez?

[swoopem]

Wardle was right, this kid is soft and a huge piece of sh!t. He should have just transferred and gone on with his life rather than try to ruin someones career and make a program take a step backwards. I think that he forgot he was a walk-on which is a job that requires you to be the whipping boy of the team. Then to bring your mom into the situation to fight your battles is beyond ridiculous.

[Blackhat]

College is the time you become independent and a man.  Kid should have left mom out and handled his business with Wardle/ media if he didn't appreciate the oops I crapped my pants moment.  

[GGGG]

Regardless, there are more to what is going on at UWGB than this guy.

[Blackhat]

I'm sure it's horrifying.  This could become the first post-Rice slippery meet slope case.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, what do you suggest? Ignore serious, public allegations and an investigation of a key figure at one of the city's most important institutions? A publicly funded institution? Ignore the fact the university goes public with an investigation?
The Gazette hasn't damaged Wardle. The accusations, perhaps, but not the fact they were reported.
I find your complaint particularly ironic given that you were the guy all-too-happy to spread rumors of Buzz Williams and his "squirmy"-ness. At least the Gazette is quoting named sources and giving the accused every opportunity to respond.

What would be retracted?
If the kid's lying, that will be reported.
If Wardle is cleared, that will be reported.
Yeah, it sucks for Wardle that the allegations are made public. That's the price one pays for choosing a high profile, public profession. He's free to go work at Target if he doesn't like the fact his job (and therefore his behavior) is in the public eye.

Wish I had an easy answer.  Part of it, however, is how things have changed with reporting. Let's not kid ourselves, there are stories that journalists have hid from the public to protect politicians, athletes, etc over the years...some very famous ones that eventually got out because someone came forward and we learned that writers were sitting on it for months or even a year to protect their guy.  I can tell you a few fun ones from Green Bay and the Packers over a beer sometime.

Let's also not forget that it used to be the practice of writers to be damn sure about things before they reported them, that has all been thrown out the window in the last decade plus as well.  So I don't have an easy answer to your question except for one thing, though its not enforceable.  When the media does these stories and they turn out wrong, there should be an attempt with equal vigor to report on the correction, even if it puts that news organization in a bad light.  It won't happen.  We all know the lead-up and drip drip drip of stories can be weeks or months.  The conclusion is often covered in a few days, with much less coverage.

Coach did this
Coach accused of this.
Mother of player says coach did this
Lawyer hired to investigate
More stories from player
ETc
etc
etc
wash
Repeat





Oops, coach exonerated....on to the next story


Not saying this will happen here, because for all we know Wardle did this.  Who knows.  Unfortunately, the rush to report the allegations never seems to match the reporting if the allegations are false.  Plenty of people burned mightily as a result.

[GGGG]

Let's also not forget that it used to be the practice of writers to be damn sure about things before they reported them, that has all been thrown out the window in the last decade plus as well. 

You have an awfully naive view of the history of journalism if you believe that this is new.

[mugrad99]

  When the media does these stories and they turn out wrong, there should be an attempt with equal vigor to report on the correction,

Cue Michael Irvin...

[Pakuni]

Wish I had an easy answer.  Part of it, however, is how things have changed with reporting. Let's not kid ourselves, there are stories that journalists have hid from the public to protect politicians, athletes, etc over the years...some very famous ones that eventually got out because someone came forward and we learned that writers were sitting on it for months or even a year to protect their guy.  I can tell you a few fun ones from Green Bay and the Packers over a beer sometime.

This still happens, trust me. That said, for what reason would any media outlet sit on this story? A public institution that spends millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars every year publicly states they're conducting this investigation into serious allegations against a high-profile employee... and you think they should sit on it?
I don't think that's ever happened in the history of journalism. It's one thing to hold back on a simple allegation - that happens a lot, you just don't know it because it never gets published - but when it's a public body that publicly states it? You run that 1,000 out of 1,000 times.

Let's also not forget that it used to be the practice of writers to be damn sure about things before they reported them, that has all been thrown out the window in the last decade plus as well.

Oh come now. We've had actual wars started over unverified media reports. This is hardly something new, and I'd suggest things are far, far better than they were decades ago. Go read some turn of the (20th) century newspapers. I think you might be surprised at how much journalistic standards have changed for the better.
That doesn't mean the modern media is above poor reporting and poor reporters, but I think you're pining for a day gone by that never actually existed.

But, speaking to this example in particular, what did the reporter possibly get wrong? I would think that the people of Green Bay and Wisconsin have a legitimate interest in knowing what wrongdoing a high-profile, highly paid state employee is accused of. And that's what was reported here .... the kid's accusations against Wardle. There's not judgment, or statement that this is fact. To the contrary, the story is laced with words and phrases like "allegations" and "according to Bross."

[4everwarriors]

Regardless, there are more to what is going on at UWGB than this guy.

Wardle is toast.

[Goose]

4ever

IMO that is understatement of the year. Surprised he is not out the door already.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What are you talking about? What legal reasons? No one's accused of anything criminal here, nor is there any pending litigation (though, admittedly, that could change). But even so, if there were a lawsuit, that would in no way prevent Wardle or anyone else from saying whatever they please.

Nobody is trying anyone here.

I believe for legal reasons Wardle, etc have been asked to not comment on the investigation, including the issue of Federal Privacy Laws.  I would assume those are for legal manners around his job, the school, etc, and any resolutions that may come of this.  I would imagine he is not comment on advice from counsel.


"I cannot comment on the specific allegations under federal privacy laws....."
-Brian Wardle, April 30, 2013 

[ChicosBailBonds]

You have an awfully naive view of the history of journalism if you believe that this is new.

Relatively new.  I think anyone taking a journalism class from an old timer can confirm.  Anyone who had a chance to talk with George Reedy at Marquette would probably share this view.  Other old time journalists who are appalled at today's journalistic standards.  Tom Brokaw, et al, have opined in the last few years on this topic.

There have been a few great lectures and papers on the changes in journalism since the 24/7 news cycle started and only further put on steroids with Twitter, blogging, etc.  Things have changed.  Sure, it's been around, but much more pronounced in the last 15 years, but I don't disagree that it didn't happen prior to that....not to the level it does today or the volume.

[GGGG]

Relatively new.  I think anyone taking a journalism class from an old timer can confirm.  Anyone who had a chance to talk with George Reedy at Marquette would probably share this view.  Other old time journalists who are appalled at today's journalistic standards.  Tom Brokaw, et al, have opined in the last few years on this topic.

There have been a few great lectures and papers on the changes in journalism since the 24/7 news cycle started and only further put on steroids with Twitter, blogging, etc.  Things have changed.  Sure, it's been around, but much more pronounced in the last 15 years, but I don't disagree that it didn't happen prior to that....not to the level it does today or the volume.

Old people opine on a lot on the grand old days that only really existed in their minds...when in reality things only changed both for better and for worse.

[Marqevans]

Jonathon Brandmeier was having a field day this morning on WGN radio talking about the kid who messed his pants.  He mentioned Wardle being the 7th all time leading scorer for Marquette.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This still happens, trust me. That said, for what reason would any media outlet sit on this story? A public institution that spends millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars every year publicly states they're conducting this investigation into serious allegations against a high-profile employee... and you think they should sit on it?
I don't think that's ever happened in the history of journalism. It's one thing to hold back on a simple allegation - that happens a lot, you just don't know it because it never gets published - but when it's a public body that publicly states it? You run that 1,000 out of 1,000 times.

Oh come now. We've had actual wars started over unverified media reports. This is hardly something new, and I'd suggest things are far, far better than they were decades ago. Go read some turn of the (20th) century newspapers. I think you might be surprised at how much journalistic standards have changed for the better.
That doesn't mean the modern media is above poor reporting and poor reporters, but I think you're pining for a day gone by that never actually existed.

But, speaking to this example in particular, what did the reporter possibly get wrong? I would think that the people of Green Bay and Wisconsin have a legitimate interest in knowing what wrongdoing a high-profile, highly paid state employee is accused of. And that's what was reported here .... the kid's accusations against Wardle. There's not judgment, or statement that this is fact. To the contrary, the story is laced with words and phrases like "allegations" and "according to Bross."

I don't think you sit on it, to your point it is in the public interest.  Where I think the writer failed (just my opinion), is properly painting a picture up front that this happened in a vacuum, no witnesses, etc.  It wasn't until several weeks later that other players opinions on Wardle acted or coached were brought into the picture.  So you end up tainting the pool a bit, IMO. 

In my view, this is a bit of human nature.  There is this guy accused of doing this thing so you run with it.  And, you might even find another player out there that also had a run in....equals a pattern, so you run with that.   What's missing is some context.  Did the player have an axe to grind?  Did the writer investigate that?  What did other players think?  If this is how he treated this one player, did he treat the team like this? 

I just keep thinking Duke Lacrosse case here...Dan Rather George Bush Vietnam war memo fax from Kinkos....Richard Jewell.....etc....people accused of something that was wildly wrong when the truth came out.  (Maybe Trayvon Martin next, who knows).

[RawdogDX]

Old people opine on a lot on the grand old days that only really existed in their minds...when in reality things only changed both for better and for worse.

+1

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

1st said by socrates and said by every generation since.

[Warriors10]

Surprised this wasn't posted but yesterday Novak tweeted

@uwgb As a former player of Brian Wardle I know his level of class, decency & professionalism exceeds the false allegations being reported.

It was later deleted, but still, why?  You have nothing to gain saying that, just negatives.