Update on Wardle allegations

[Skitch]

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.

I think that human nature is that you initially want to reach out to help when you see someone you care about in trouble.  Whether Wardle is a friend, mentor or just former coach to Steve.  At some point after you think about it more you get your last sentence, that there is nothing to gain just negatives by putting yourself out there which leads to deleting the comment.  Just what would be going through my mind at least, I can't speak for Steve.

[TheTulsaWarrior]

There are people who runaway from a car wreck and those who run toward it.  Maybe his agent said you don't want to be in the middle of this one -- there's no percentage for you.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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).

A reporter is not a jury. While investigative journalism involves research and corroboration, there is also nothing wrong with reporting a fact (an allegation has been made) and running with that.

If a news organization starts withholding that kind of stuff, where do they draw the line. "Well, this girl alleges she was raped, but let's not report it. We don't really know what happened."

Report the facts (an allegation has been made, that's a fact) and let the public decide.

If the public is too fat, dumb and lazy to decipher allegations from actually truths or convictions, then that's on the fat, dumb and stupid.

[TheTulsaWarrior]

There seems to be four kinds of posters on the various message boards commenting on this investigation.  Bross and Cougill who have put their names out and made specific allegations – a number of past and present players who have put their name out in support of Wardle (Novak, LeSage, Barkley, Brown, Sykes, etc.)  – A lynch mob either for or against Bross and Cougill – the final group are a couple posters who claim to be "former division one players."   These "anonymous" athletes say those who question Bross and Cougill don't know anything about how division one sports really works.  That is a fair criticism but it would carry more weight if they put their name with the comment.

As a life time journalist I would ask myself why is someone leaking information and why are they unwilling to put their name with the information?  What do they hope to gain by telling me a story?  Are they playing me?

This investigation is serious stuff.  Lives could be changed forever.  We all need to be damn sure we're not part of a lynch mob, for either side.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Older people are wiser than people give them credit for. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

A reporter is not a jury. While investigative journalism involves research and corroboration, there is also nothing wrong with reporting a fact (an allegation has been made) and running with that.

If a news organization starts withholding that kind of stuff, where do they draw the line. "Well, this girl alleges she was raped, but let's not report it. We don't really know what happened."

Report the facts (an allegation has been made, that's a fact) and let the public decide.

If the public is too fat, dumb and lazy to decipher allegations from actually truths or convictions, then that's on the fat, dumb and stupid.

When facts are withheld, how is the public able to decide?  How are they fat, dumb and stupid if the writer decides to withhold key pieces of information, even if unintentional?  One can only consume the facts are given.

Case in point.

Brian Wardle called a player a p^ssy and f^%%ot.


Or, Brian Wardle called a player a p^ssy and f^%%ot but there were no witnesses to this event.


Both are statements of fact....which one is more clear and MORE factual and gives the reader more information to make up their mind so they aren't fat, dumb and stupid?

[GGGG]

Older people are wiser than people give them credit for. 

Did I say otherwise?

[Pakuni]

When facts are withheld, how is the public able to decide?  How are they fat, dumb and stupid if the writer decides to withhold key pieces of information, even if unintentional?  One can only consume the facts are given.

Case in point.

Brian Wardle called a player a p^ssy and f^%%ot.


Or, Brian Wardle called a player a p^ssy and f^%%ot but there were no witnesses to this event.

Both are statements of fact....which one is more clear and MORE factual and gives the reader more information to make up their mind so they aren't fat, dumb and stupid?

I'm not sure whether either is fact or not, or that anything is being withheld.
But regardless, the story doesn't present Wardle calling the player these names as fact. It presents it as Bross' claim, i.e. this is what Bross says happened to him.
As G n' A says, if some readers are too dumb to distinguish the difference, that's on them.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

When facts are withheld, how is the public able to decide?  How are they fat, dumb and stupid if the writer decides to withhold key pieces of information, even if unintentional?  One can only consume the facts are given.

Case in point.

Brian Wardle called a player a p^ssy and f^%%ot.


Or, Brian Wardle called a player a p^ssy and f^%%ot but there were no witnesses to this event.


Both are statements of fact....which one is more clear and MORE factual and gives the reader more information to make up their mind so they aren't fat, dumb and stupid?

They are reporting what the actual allegation is. That is a fact. Here. Is. The. Allegation. Fact. Boom. Print.

They asked Wardle for comment. He couldn't/wouldn't.

If new details come to light, then so be it. Not every story is an investigative piece. The police blotter gets printed without additional facts or consideration.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure whether either is fact or not, or that anything is being withheld.
But regardless, the story doesn't present Wardle calling the player these names as fact. It presents it as Bross' claim, i.e. this is what Bross says happened to him.
As G n' A says, if some readers are too dumb to distinguish the difference, that's on them.

Fair point, not statements of fact.

The example still holds, however,...is it more complete information for the writer to say this happened with no witnesses or to leave that information out and let the reader guess?  How is the reader supposed to know if this happened in practice with 10 other guys or off to the side where no one heard it unless the writer tells the reader?  I think there is a lot of painting of people being stupid, fat, dumb, whatever but the people can only go with the facts that are presented.  

How many times on this board alone do people say "you left this little tidbit of information out" or "you failed to mention X, Y, Z".  Same concept.

BTW, do you still think there is no legal issue on why Wardle cannot respond?

[ChicosBailBonds]

They are reporting what the actual allegation is. That is a fact. Here. Is. The. Allegation. Fact. Boom. Print.

They asked Wardle for comment. He couldn't/wouldn't.

If new details come to light, then so be it. Not every story is an investigative piece. The police blotter gets printed without additional facts or consideration.

Disagree.  When asking the player what the allegation was, a simple follow-up.  "Did anyone else hear Wardle say this?  Were there any witnesses?  Those are serious allegations Mr. Player, was anyone else around to hear them?"

Boom.  Print the complete event.  This isn't hard, and a journalist should do his utmost to present the complete picture. Part of the journalists responsibility is to pull out those details by asking questions....basic questions.  We're not talking about a 60 Minutes investigative piece, just basic questions.   

[ATWizJr]

They are reporting what the actual allegation is. That is a fact. Here. Is. The. Allegation. Fact. Boom. Print.

They asked Wardle for comment. He couldn't/wouldn't.

If new details come to light, then so be it. Not every story is an investigative piece. The police blotter gets printed without additional facts or consideration.

so, fact is, this is the allegation, however, the allegation has not been proven to be fact, right?

[Pakuni]

Fair point, not statements of fact.

The example still holds, however,...is it more complete information for the writer to say this happened with no witnesses or to leave that information out and let the reader guess?  How is the reader supposed to know if this happened in practice with 10 other guys or off to the side where no one heard it unless the writer tells the reader?  I think there is a lot of painting of people being stupid, fat, dumb, whatever but the people can only go with the facts that are presented.

Maybe I've missed it, but where is the undisputed fact that there were no witnesses? And if that fact has been withheld by the media, then how do you know about it?

BTW, do you still think there is no legal issue on why Wardle cannot respond?

Yes, there is no legal issue preventing Wardle from responding. It's potentially smart legal strategy - you don't want to get tied into one story now and be forced to tell another in court if it gets that far - but there's no legal issue here. There's no gag order. It's not medical information protected by HIPPA. It's not an educational record as protected by FERPA. I cannot think of a single federal law that would prevent Wardle from saying "these things did not occur as they've been alleged."
Just because someone cites "federal privacy laws" as an excuse not to answer a question doesn't mean that such a law exists. Here's a summary of existing federal privacy laws. Which one applies?

https://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php#ferpa

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

so, fact is, this is the allegation, however, the allegation has not been proven to be fact, right?

The allegation may or may not be fact, but an allegation has been made, that is a fact.

I'm fine with a newspaper reporting that there is an allegation, and what the allegation is.

Brian will either be cleared, or not.

Unfortunately, that's the way things work for people in the public eye.

[Lennys Tap]

Older people are wiser than people give them credit for. 

I'm asking my kids/grandkids for a framed copy of your post for Father's Day.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm asking my kids/grandkids for a framed copy of your post for Father's Day.

Good luck with that....by the time they realize it, you're likely gone and buried.       Just like we all saw our parents shaking their heads at times when we were teenagers, now we get to do the same thing with ours and we remember fondly..."now I understand what mom and dad were trying to tell me".  LOL

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe I've missed it, but where is the undisputed fact that there were no witnesses? And if that fact has been withheld by the media, then how do you know about it?

Yes, there is no legal issue preventing Wardle from responding. It's potentially smart legal strategy - you don't want to get tied into one story now and be forced to tell another in court if it gets that far - but there's no legal issue here. There's no gag order. It's not medical information protected by HIPPA. It's not an educational record as protected by FERPA. I cannot think of a single federal law that would prevent Wardle from saying "these things did not occur as they've been alleged."
Just because someone cites "federal privacy laws" as an excuse not to answer a question doesn't mean that such a law exists. Here's a summary of existing federal privacy laws. Which one applies?

https://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php#ferpa

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I believe on two separate occasions he has cited the inability to respond due to Federal Privacy laws.  I suspect university lawyers, or his own, instructed him to respond in that fashion.  That's what I'm basing it on.....I'm certainly not a lawyer even if I do have to work with them several hours each day.   

On the eye witness stuff, I think this article at least attempts to get some information from the other side, including the concerns of Wardle about the writer's lack of interviews of eye-witnesses.

http://wearegreenbay.com/1fulltext-sports-brewersmlb?nxd_id=193592


The GB writer may have this dead to nuts right, I guess we'll find out soon enough.  I'm hesitant, however, after Duke Lacrosse, Richard Jewell, Bush fax memo, etc, etc where the media sometimes looks for a conclusion (IMO) and follows the leads to get to the conclusion without looking at other criteria.  Is that happening here? I don't know, but I do think it would have been fairer and more proper reporting to paint a more complete picture.  A man is accused of some serious stuff here, the media needs to be careful in how they report.

[slack00]

It is clear the article is trying to influence an on-going investigation. Character assassination of Brian Wardle's impeccable reputation cannot be tolerated. We are reviewing all of Brian Wardle's legal options."

Maybe I'm missing something, but can someone explain to me how Wardle's attorney is making this conclusion?  The last Press Gazette article only refreshed the background story, then explained what the contents of the letter and details of the accusations.  At no point did I see any commentary that would lead me to think the writer is swayed one way or the other.

[brandx]

As a life time journalist I would ask myself why is someone leaking information and why are they unwilling to put their name with the information?  What do they hope to gain by telling me a story?  Are they playing me?

As a journalist that would absolutely be the proper thing to ask.

But hopefully you also know why it is necessary to be anonymous at times.

[TheTulsaWarrior]

Yep

[Stretchdeltsig]

Agree that Wardle is toast.  Let's move on.  He should.

[keefe]

A reporter is not a jury. While investigative journalism involves research and corroboration, there is also nothing wrong with reporting a fact (an allegation has been made) and running with that.

If a news organization starts withholding that kind of stuff, where do they draw the line. "Well, this girl alleges she was raped, but let's not report it. We don't really know what happened."

Report the facts (an allegation has been made, that's a fact) and let the public decide.

If the public is too fat, dumb and lazy to decipher allegations from actually truths or convictions, then that's on the fat, dumb and stupid.

Do you really believe what you just wrote?

[Blackhat]

Looks like that lawyer is still taking his sweet time.  Thankfully no lawyers had to investigate the Boston bombing.

[robertoc]

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?

Come on- that's not even a question.  Rosie was pretty hot- until she started talking....

[Pakuni]

Looks like that lawyer is still taking his sweet time.  Thankfully no lawyers had to investigate the Boston bombing.

Yes, because this is exactly like a terrorist attack with its perpetrators on the loose.
Fantastic comparison.