ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

[jackmd]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

I can't disagree with those who think he should have been dismissed by the team. I am one of them. However, I will not comment on the decision until I know more. People who continue to discuss it need to find better things to occupy their time.

[Rabbit_FB_Alum]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Rabbit FB Alum
I hope you didn't construe any of my posts to think that i thought Stig should be fired. If so, I didn't mean that. I think Robinson should be off the team, but the more important part is that this LOOKS so bad for SDSU. The PR should have been handled much better.

I wasn't referring to you. I thought that idea was mentioned earlier in this thread. I also agree that Robinson should be off the team, but I don't know all the facts like Stig. does and since Stig. is a stand up guy I trust his decision. I think the majority of this falls on how poorly the University is handling it. We should also remember that Robinson's personal life is none of our business other than the fact he broke the law with drugs. Other than that, the details of his personal life is none of our business, therefore I am not sure what else we need to know about the situation.

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Some real stand up and clarifying posts since yesterday. Nice meeting some of you guys, and re-aquainting with others. Thanks!

filbert: I prefer the saying from "Bull Durham":..."with fear and ignorance...". And nice reference to Art Bell. I think he just has his brain erased by the aliens each night.

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

By the way, filbert, be prepared to come up with a list of those "multiple sources" that are talking about SDSU. I think 89 will need documentation from here on out!

[SDSUFAN]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

A quote from the Argus Editorial:
"Several days after pleading guilty to two felonies - distribution of marijuana - Robinson still was on the team. And head coach Stiegelmeier wasn't talking about it. "

I think our win over Southern and a near win of Cal Poly  Sat evening is being greatly overshadowed by this topic and all the pro USD HOT AIR COMING OUT OF SIOUX FALLS MEDIA.  Else where I willing to bet people have forgotten who Mr. Robinson is and really dont care whether he is practicing or not.

Mr. Robinson is going to prison.  You know that, I know that,  and the Argus Leader knows that.  Why waste editorial space on this subject?  Has the Argus sent a beat reporter or any representative to Brookings to actually verify that Mr. Robinson is still practicing?.  The fact that coach Stigelemeir offered no comment does not verifiy that Mr. Robinson is still on the team and practicing.

I spoke with a very reliable source On Friday that said Mr Robinson was offically off the team the day he went to court and plead quility.  The code of conduct that was posted by Catch em all would suggest this would be the case. Why would SDSU have to comment on that action and put spin on it?  The policy or code of conduct is in place and is being followed. Why would any comment or a press release be made?  Why not zero on the positive things at SDSU and forget the Robinson matter? Its over ARGUS, MOVE ON.

I really question the Argus's attempt to give SDSU more publicty when they keep zeroing in on the negatives that by and large have no impact on the HPER at SDSU. Why is this so important?

USD had a football player a few years back from Omaha literally beat another persons face in and required hours of surgery. Plus if I recall correctly, this same individual was part of some trouble in Vermillion. He was dismissed from the team, because he committed a felony and was convicted. This matter should have been given equal coverage but was not.

There was more publicty in the Omaha paper than in the Argus. I wonder why.

Some peoples ideas of the SDSU-USD rivilary is to throw dead rabbits on the basketball court and apparently to the Argus, the idea of a rivalry is to give SDSU a black eye, every chance they can.

Now Mike H do you have  a "HATE STATE" sweater shirt that you wear on certain occasions, like in Vermillion?

Bottom line, SDSU choses to go D1, and some people and entities such as the Argus can not deal with that decision, so every negative is big news at the Argus.

[OK_Jackrabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

It might surprise some to learn that the Argus Leader staff is loaded with SDSU graduates. There are a few USD grads and a bunch of people with no connection to either university. But there is certainly no institutional bias against SDSU. I suppose it is possible that SDSU graduates on the Argus staff subliminally hold SDSU to a higher standard of propriety because they do care about the university, but there's no conspiracy to publish only good news about USD and bad news about SDSU.

I would suggest that the Argus editorialized on this subject because it does appear to be improper for a convicted felon to be a part of a relatively high-profile college sports team (and in the absence of any clarification by the university, there are no facts to contradict that). I would suggest that it speaks to the high quality of SDSU's student athletes that this sort of thing doesn't happen much, which also makes it a topic worthy of news and commentary. And don't forget that SDSU has invited additional scrutiny of its programs with its move to DI. With more coverage comes more scrutiny. It's a good bargain when you have clean programs like SDSU does.

If it is true that the player in question was actually dismissed from the team, or that there are extenuating circumstances, it is incumbent upon SDSU officials to clarify the university's position. In the absence of any clarification from the university, can anyone argue that the Argus editorial is not a legitimate commentary? And it is commentary. Anyone wishing to respond publicly can write a letter or opinion column and submit it. That sort of public clarification would be extremely helpful in this case. I hope somebody does just that.

I don't see this situation as a failure of SDSU's athletic programs, or as any sort of indicator of a decline in the quality of Jackrabbit student athletes. Unfortunately, these sorts of things happen in any population of a few hundred undergraduate students.

What it does suggest to me is that the SDSU administration doesn't fully grasp the importance of good public relations. It may be easier to stick your head in the sand and hope a problem goes away. And it may be good legal strategy, but it's lousy public relations. Of course there are legal restrictions on what they can say, but there are ways to make a university's position clear without violating anyone's right to privacy.

So I think it's unfair to criticize the Argus for a situation that the SDSU administration exacerbated by its failure to respond publicly. Newspapers report news and comment on newsworthy situations. You have to take the good with the bad. The Argus has reported far more good news about SDSU over the years, and particularly on its sports pages this fall, than bad news.

Full disclosure: I am a former Argus Leader reporter (early 1990s) and am now a journalism professor at the University of Oklahoma. I'm also an SDSU graduate and a lifelong Jackrabbit fan.

[SDSUFAN]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Fine, but I think the Argus has jumped to conclusions here and has not verified their facts. Did they actually see Robinson practicing after he went to court?
I say again SDSU has a student conduct code that is operating and if my source is correct in saying he was off the team offically on this date, then why are we even discussing this matter.  The Argus has gotten miles off print off this one incident and its sure is red meat for USD people to read.  Add to that, the Argus article on Friday about the USD foundation raising 73 million. It was a very vague article with no details about where the money came from. It was a good way to pump it up on Dakota Days and somehow I guess that is not bias in appearence.

I dont care how many SDSU grads are on the staff. You know as well as anyone, OkJack, that the Editor and managing editor, dictate what is put on the editorial page. If anyone needs to make an explanation its the Argus editorial board who wasted ink on this matter, especially if they are factually wrong, which I believe they are.

Why would SDSU try to defend itself agains this hogwash when any comment offered no matter how well spun, would be give more miles and print to the Argus? The right approach is to say nothing since SDSU has operated appropriately. Mr. Robinson was the one that committed the crime NOT SDSU.

[OK_Jackrabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Yes, Mr. Robinson and not SDSU committed the crime, but that was not the story and that was not what the Argus Leader was commenting on. Chris Solari’s September 25 article on the case was pretty clear. The story said that Robinson pleaded guilty and remained on the team as he awaited sentencing. If that was not true, or if it is not as simple as that, there were two opportunities to correct or contextualize the story. The first opportunity was when Solari called for comment. Then, if Solari got the story wrong the administration had the opportunity to ask for a correction the next day to clear the record. They did not dispute the facts when Solari spoke to them. And they did not ask for a correction. In the news business, that means the story was correct. As a result, the story was picked up by The Associated Press and ran in dozens of newspapers across the country.

In the absence of any comment from SDSU to suggest that the story was false, or even more nuanced than it appeared, it was left to stand. The editorial board, operating from the facts in the public sphere, was well within its rights to make its commentary based on those publicly undisputed facts. Several possible alternative versions of the facts have been posted on this discussion board. Apparently the SDSU administration was comfortable with the public record as it stood since they have said nothing at all to alter that set of understandings. A simple statement about how the student code works and a statement that the university takes situations like this seriously would probably have solved this problem. They chose silence.

As was his ethical responsibility, Solari provided SDSU with an opportunity to comment on the case. They chose not to and did not then dispute the facts. Yet you ask the Argus to verify its facts and you absolve the SDSU administration from any responsibility for the accuracy of those facts. Ownership of those facts belongs to SDSU, not to Chris Solari. They oversee the athletics policies. He called to get the facts from SDSU and was given nothing.

Then, given the facts on the record, Argus Leader editors commented via an editorial. If those facts were wrong, it is SDSU’s fault for allowing a false story to stand without clarifying it. So I’m not sure how you blame the Argus on this one. They did what they’re supposed to do, checking facts and giving interested parties an opportunity to comment. (If you just don't like the fact that they wrote an editorial, that is different from suggesting they failed in their journalistic duty to seek the truth or are operating under some conspiracy against SDSU.)

I disagree with your assertion that silence is the best approach for an organization in a public relations crisis, however minor. I teach public relations and could get into the scholarly literature and myriad case studies, all of which support my case, but I won’t bore you with that. Simply put, the public equates silence with subterfuge. The public is very forgiving if you treat them with respect. And they are very understanding when situations are more complex than they appear to be at first glance. They may not always agree with an organization’s remedy for a given situation, but they appreciate being leveled with. Repeated instances where an organization chooses silence and ignores the public relations consequences can lead to serious problems with organizational credibility.

Here's what they might have said:

"SDSU takes situations like this one very seriously. Mr. Robinson's case falls under the student conduct code and we are unable to comment on it specifically. Generally speaking, the student conduct code (and/or athletic department policy) provides for..."

The editorial may have appeared anyway. But then again, there might have been enough nuance to the case that it wouldn't seem so clearcut. And by commenting in some way (the editorial alludes to a less than forthcoming response by Stig) maybe some of that mystery that suggests subterfuge would have been drained away.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

I think OK nailed this one. Because SDSU let the story run without response, it cannot now complain that people are commenting on the story. What it can do is make the type of statment that OK indicated but add a some type of statement that this information should have been provided earlier.

SDSUFan, if the admin had handled this properly, it would not have been taking away attention from the FB team's efforts. I again have been asked at work if SDSU has finally stepped up to the plate and did what it was supposed to. That perception is out there, and it needs to be addressed.

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

1stRow: Please provide a list of affidavits of your co-workers so that we may verify the fact they actually exist, have opinions, and no doubt graduated from USD.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Now, now, lets play nice. ;D

[89rabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Mike,

I am offically appointing you the board representative for the disenfranchised SDSU supporters, all USD and Augie fans, Dana Alums, and any other State Hater group out there.  As their offical representative you will have the responsibility to wallow in anything negative that happens to SDSU.  Please do your best to ignore anything positive that may happen at State.  I have faith in you and I think you are up to the task.  Please use your power wisely.  Good luck with your new position  

89rabbit

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Funny you bring that up. There is a positive editorial in the Argus today, but I guess some of you were too blasted by the "PRO USD HOT AIR COMING OUT OF SIOUX FALLS MEDIA" to notice. I'm sure you can provide the link. It has nothing to do with sports, but as everyone has been saying, the move has been about a lot more than sports.

Great game Saturday night! The season has been going much better than even a lot of the supporters on here thought.

[Mike_H]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Two other notes: Rick Weber joins us this afternoon. He is the winner of the Ralph Ginn award that will be given out this weekend. Also, no "Jackrabbit Report" this week. It is due to the MLB playoffs. I'm sure SDSUFAN will find a conspiracy in there somewhere.

[89rabbit]

Re: ARGUS EDITORAL-TODAY

Funny you bring that up. There is a positive editorial in the Argus today, but I guess some of you were too blasted by the "PRO USD HOT AIR COMING OUT OF SIOUX FALLS MEDIA" to notice. I'm sure you can provide the link. It has nothing to do with sports, but as everyone has been saying, the move has been about a lot more than sports.

Great game Saturday night! The season has been going much better than even a lot of the supporters on here thought.

Mike,

You started off so well.  You found a positve story in the Argus, but didn't post it.  This is good you were ignoring the positive.  Your first post of the day was a dig at me still doing fine.  Then all heck breaks loose.  You tell everyone on the board that their is something positive, and say good things about Saturdays football game.  Your USD friends won't be very pleased with your representation of them  (by the way how was the Dome this weekend?).   Are you trying to get an extra Bison Burger out of me?  

89rabbit

P.S. Congrats on 100 posts.  Pretty impressive for such a short stint on the board. Today you are a Sopomore.