Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 3:56 p.m.

Great rant, Ted. This is the reason I have cancelled my Seattle Times subscription and gone with the PI. At least Jim Moore is funny - whereas the Times has always been about "bringing down" the UW (other than Steve Kelley).

Does the timing of that article being published surprise anybody? Does anybody believe anything that the Times now publishes or says to defend itself? That Q&A was a bunch of cover-our-rear material.

But, there will always be suckers out there who believe whatever is printed without considering the other side of the matter. Thank you for presenting both sides on the work you do.

Posted by rocketdawg at 2/4/08 4:54 p.m.

Ted,

My gripe about the story is that, unlike you, they made very little effort to interview those who were being blamed for the mess or whose who might have shed a different light on the people in the stories. I include the prosecutors, Ms. Hedges, Rick, Curtis Williams's brothers (since he obviously was not available)and the position coaches who worked most closely with the players. This made, what may have been a great series, appear to be very one sided, biased and sensationalistic.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 5:04 p.m.

Rocketdawg, you're wrong. They did interview David Williams and one of the main prosecutors involved, Mark Larson. And they made clear that they tried repeatedly to interview "Ms. Hedges and Rick," as you call them.

Posted by Wbing at 2/4/08 5:24 p.m.

Yeah, great rant, ted.

Very creative parsing of all your pharms puffery.

Police work clearly isn't your thing, dude. don't you have some other U-dub volleyball players to ogle?

Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 7:23 p.m.

wow, ted nice work.
that was a complete arse kicking of the the times. i'm trying to figure out their rebuttal. they'll just pretend this never happened.
wonder if anyone will get in trouble.
journalism 101, eh?

Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 7:45 p.m.

Ted - not sure if you can do this or not but can you get this written up as an article in the print version of the P-I? The Times has an agenda (big surprise) and some sort of rebuttal to their piece would be nice. Especially since Boardman went on KJR and mentioned something to the effect of 90% of the info in the articles being new.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 7:45 p.m.

Looks like times writer is lurking
Looks like this is a pi victory

Posted by bigAP at 2/4/08 8:51 p.m.

Boardman actually said "95 percent"! Think about this: if you can name 20 facts (I bet I can name 30 or 40) in the stories that had already been reported, he would have to name 380 facts that were previously un-reported to add up to 95 percent. (if you named 40 "old" fact, he'd need 760!!!). You might think he's only guilty of a bit of exaggeration, but I think editors of major papers shouldn't play so fast and loose with the facts.

Ted, thanks for this reply. For one, you're correct in that writers rarely refer to competing newspapers. Also, I think it's rare that journalists ever DON'T back other journalists (see Stewart Mandel's story about this series ... he could have used a little background and perspective). It's like the police. They always back one another up, no matter what wrongs they do.

Lastly, one of my numerous issues with the Times' series was that I honestly don't think it was at all balanced. Look at the Anthony Kelley story, which is one I'm sure you know well, Ted, as I'm sure you wrote about it extensively. While I'm sure there were some on the coaching staff, etc., who thought his football fire was dimming with his newfound interests in South Africa, I truly doubt that he had to fight against oppression just to follow his academic aspirations, as the Times story not only implies, but states (how 'bout that headline?). The Times also makes it out that football players look for easy classes (gasp!). Didn't most of us (95 percent, perhaps?) do the same in college? And their story states that 2 of 3 football players graduate, clearly implying that is a poor rate. They don't point out that it's better than the rest of the student population and is well above average for football teams.

And the CW story (I guess my "lastly" was premature. I guess they interviewed his brother David, since they quoted him. But based on David's reaction to the story afterwards, they didn't exactly fill him in on what Curt has done prior to his injury as it was all a surprise to him. And, they really could have spent more time on what happened to Curtis after he got hurt ... perhaps ask if he was ever repentant or reflective of his pre-injury life and lifestyle. They wrote about 100 paragraphs and then, post-injury, about six.

I could go on, but won't.

I enjoy this blog Ted. And not just because I agree with you on this one.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/4/08 9:40 p.m.

Ted,

I am not a real big fan or yours, but my respect is growing. I could not agree with you more regarding the Times' "investigative" mini-series.

After wasting four days "reporting" events which occurred some eight (or more) years ago, all the while tooting their own horn with "revelations" like an unsent letter, a cat fight in the stands of Husky Stadium between Jeremiah Pharms' wife and his girlfriend, and Jim Lambright's attempt to revoke Curtis Williams scholarship (which actually cuts against the thesis of the entire series) the Times offers us this for icing on the cake: a "defense" of the series amounting to nothing more than pre-mediated answers to self-selected questions. What a joke.

Posted by bigAP at 2/4/08 9:51 p.m.

I should add ... good of you, Ted, to call yourself out. I thought it was another of the many issues with the series that the Times named coaches, asst. coaches, administrators, prosecutors, etc., who supposedly screwed up, but none of the sportswriters they claimed did so.

Boardman kept pointing out that his paper also shared blame for glossing over things, but none of the paper's employees were called out by name.

That was the gist of one of the numerous questions I submitted to him that wasn't answered.

I wonder if anyone even looked at those submitted questions. He didn't answer anything that he didn't answer in his radio interviews.

Posted by Spickard at 2/4/08 10:35 p.m.

CATFIGHT!

Just joking. Anyway, I'm glad you decided to freakin'
SAY something.

I've written extensively on this subject on this site and more extensively on the News Tribune site. I did contribute to the idiot fest at the Times, but I'm sure it was drowned out amongst the voices of those who made sure to take their stupid pills that morning.

Ultimately, what the Times reporters didn't realize was that some of us recognized the irony that is produced when, in trying to expose the arrogance and hypocrisy of one big-time Seattle institution, the light-shiners fail to notice their own arrogance and hypocrisy at their own, big-time Seattle institution.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/5/08 11:01 a.m.

Thank you for you objectivity and journalistic integrity. These are qualities that are obviously lacking in many of today's journalists.

The Times' series was based on a legitimate premise of investigating whether integrity was sacrificed for success in athletics. However, the authors chose to selectively choose facts to support their argument and were not responsible in investigating any extenuating circumstances. In doing so, they sacrificed their own integrity for success in increased circulation.

-localmoco

Posted by huskystyle1 at 2/5/08 11:15 a.m.

Educated readers just want fair and balanced reporting. Neglecting obvious and important facts, and manipulating the facts - basically lying to sensationalize an article will simply turn off the intelligent people who read these papers and lead them to never buying a certain paper again...ahem...

Good job Steve. Stewart Mandel commended Armstrong and Perry for some of the best investigating he's ever read! Too bad a lot of their investigating wasn't actually done by themselves...but simply copied and embellished from others to sensationalize and smear. ST sports section is a joke. I'm also sure their editor will suddenly get quiet.

Except for the news about Jeremy Stevens going anal and stealing the girl's panties, very little of this "investigating" by the Times is new to me.

Posted by dawgfan22 at 2/5/08 3:47 p.m.

They wanted to sell newspapers. The truth and being fair and unbiased are apparently no longer part of being a journalist. Thank you Ted for shedding light on the "other side of the story". I'm sure there would have been even more contradictory information if they would have bothered digging for it. The thing is they "didn't want to". It would have made all of the people they were trying to vilify actually look like partially reasonable people.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/5/08 4:06 p.m.

Excellent rebuttal. I have a few questions. Why did Seattle Times feel compelled to send one of their editors around to local radio media (KIRO and KJR) to spin-doctor the series? Was it coincidence that the series was published the week of Todd Turner's last day of work following his resignation/firing? Was it also coincidence that it was published one week before the letter of intent deadline for 2008 football recruits? The Times claims to have begun researching the series several months prior, however, Todd Turner did not make his controversial statements until he announced his resignation/termination in late December, 2007. Sounds like they used that fortuitous opportunity to spin the series after the fact, if in fact that is when they started it. More like, disgruntled Turner contacted the Times with some inside leads and information on condition that he be kept out of it. Finally, why did Tacoma Tribune write two editorials about the UW on these topics in January, suggesting the KC Prosecutors were intimidated into not pursuing these football players because of political pressure that would be brought to bear by Husky boosters? Heck, we can't even convince the Legislature to contribute $150,000,000 to restore Husky Stadium!

Posted by unregistered user at 2/5/08 4:39 p.m.

Where did you get your JD degree, Ted?

Posted by unregistered user at 2/5/08 5:44 p.m.

Thank you for setting the record straight.

Posted by row Z at 2/5/08 8:33 p.m.

Thanks for making this effort Ted. After thinking about this for the last week or so, I can't help but conclude that the Times articles lacked balance. Seeing you break down the differences between the Times' articles and yours confirms things for me. Admitting your own reporting mistakes is also refreshing when contrasted with David Boardman's longwinded obfuscations. The intentions he ascribes to the Times' articles do not match what made it to print. Someone had an agenda with that project. I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out who or what, but I lost confidence in the paper I have read for 30 years. Fortunately, I have found several well-written and balanced articles on the PI by you and Greg Johns in the last month or so and will be back regularly to read your stuff.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/5/08 9:44 p.m.

Again, someone screwed up by taking on Ted Miller. I remember well when Neuheisel challenged Miller's reportage and was exposed as a result.
The Times lost a lot of credibility over their 8 year old rehash. The articles, their presentation, and their lame defense by a Times editor just don't pass the smell test, whereas Mr. Miller has added credibility to his newspaper.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/5/08 11:24 p.m.

You know, some of us remember when a reporter or a paper lies to us and also remember when we're told the truth. I remember a series 20 years ago where a local writer tried to run an expose of a federal office here in town. It was wrong, it smelled wrong, and that stench lasts. Now, on the other hand, Mr. Miller clearly is not one to mess with when facts are on the line.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/6/08 3:37 a.m.

"Will the Suns be a better team if they trade from Shaquille O'Neal?

Yes. The big man will be rejuvenated playing for a winning team.

No. Shaq can't play in an up-tempo offense."

Very Nice. Keep up the good work.

Posted by malamute at 2/6/08 6:38 a.m.

I think the Times' recent four-part series probably helps Coach Willingham and UW rather than hurts.
My main criticism of it is with the trashing of C-Dub's memory.

Also, I didn't like the cheap shots taken at you, Ted, and also AV. Your fans knew as to whom they were referring. (Why can't you end a sentence with a preposition? Less awkward sounding. Tell Bob it's spelled "preceded," not "preceeded," for that's as much as I know about English.)

You ably defended yourself; unfortunately, AV can't fight back since he's no longer with us. See the following for my, er ahem, opinion:

Surreal photo haunts C-Dub's pillorying

Posted by TheSeattleRealist at 2/11/08 6:13 p.m.

Though the series may not have been perfect, I still think it was relevant and well researched. It came out less than two months after a large contingent of the UW fan base was clamoring for Willingham's head because he's not winning.

The series basically said. "Hey, the team may not be going to Rose Bowls right now. But the most recent 'glory days' were not so glorious."

Just because you don't like what's in the stories does not mean it was a poor series. I hardly doubt the Seattle Times editors and writers were sitting around going "Hmm, what can we do to bring down the university?" Especially when most of them went to the UW!

It was more an indictment of our legal system and how athletes are treated, than how the athletic department at the UW was run.

It does make you glad for Willingham and his steady, law abiding ways. Though some more wins sure would be nice.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/28/08 1:07 a.m.

I'm a life long Cougar fan, and I learned and a lot from the series in question. I don't intend to condem anyone from my message. With the exception of Jeremy Stevens, I consider him the scum of the earth. I don't condem wife beating or the shooting and robbing of anyone, even a drug dealer. I admit many of our WAZZU athletes are not perfect. To many to things were allowed to go unpunished on that football team. I was upset when the UW hired Ty Willingham. Not because I thought he was a bad football coachh, but because I knew if he was given enough time he would ressurect the UW football progam on the field and off. As a Coug fan I know we have disadvantages because of location and he negates the positives. We love all the black eyes the U allows on there terf. Believe in Ty and he will take care of buisiness. The biggest sin is to forget the past sins. Go Cougs, but god bless the Huskies and Ty Willingham.