|
>he was playing with it before and then played with it again >when asking him to repeat the question. > he's nodding like he's processing the words both times if you look, he just didn't know where to go with an answer once it was his turn.
>>None of that is hardball stuff and at know point despite the >>unrelenting awkwardness did I feel he was being unfair or >>badgering in his questions to the kid. > >okay, well only a couple people agree with you. and i never >called it hardball stuff (cause it's sports), but it was clear >from the beginning he wasn't gonna get the answers he wanted. > it was clear from before the beginning that you aren't gonna get the questions you wanted, so either skip doing the interview or have a better gameplan in response that might could have put the kabosh on anything related to the trade topic a lot more efficiently.
>>there's a set amount of time you have scheduled for the >>segment and since even his non-answers left the gate open >for >>further prodding there was really nothing close to a >violation >>of any general rules of interviewing here. > >non-answers=move on. if non-answers meant "keep rephrasing it" >then no sports interview would ever end. > they were different questions or follow-ups on his own words, the only time he was flat out repeating himself was upon request.
>>In fact they weren't even rephrases of the same question >they >>were altogether different questions. > >nah, they were clever and subtle rephrases of the same idea: >"you're in a weird limbo, give us a quote." they were just >disguised as different topics. > asking if he spoke with Lebron and what he thinks of the NBA mandatory-month rule are different questions even if they spring from the same tree.
That tree is all we really care about at the moment with no real knowledge of who the kid is as a person, nothing interesting being uttered by him to divert from them and no tape of him playing in an NBA game yet.
>i mean, the fuck kinda question is "is there anything you'd >like to say to Lebron so you can stay on the team?" he's >asking him to beg for his job on national TV to a guy who >doesn't control that. that's completely indefensible, and >there's no way wiggins knew that was gonna be asked. > >and "do you think cleveland wants you?" is the worst bait. > bait that his 'I want you to want me' and 'I think so.....I hope so' prior replies engendered.
In him taking this interview and going for banal politeness (he is Canadian, so I guess that's at least on some level cultural) he unintentionally passed the reporter the tools for the pounding he took.
>>This isn't an episode of Inside Stuff, this is live on >>SportsCenter talking to one of their anchors > >okay, so the interviewer shouldn't have wasted everyone's time >on national TV when he wasn't getting the answers. > you don't cut out in the middle of a pre-promoted segment, he asked other questions, regardless once AW started flailing no matter the question he was gonna be dying on a vine until they ran out of time. >> >>ESPN is gonna get their pound of flesh on any story >>somehow/someway with or without a quote from Wiggins. > >that's fine, we can still criticize the interviewer's >technique. > sure, i didn't think it was David Frost either, mainly just find the groupthink condemning tone and some of the pseudo-journalist expert outcries on twitter or sports blogs in addition to in here to be missing the point.
They're feeding the beast they're railing against and the blame for this debacle belongs in several other camps (including the player's) before it falls at the feet of the reporter or SportsCenter producers. >> >>So it's up to the athlete to pick/choose when you are >actually >>required/advised to give them one, > >that's the team/his agent or PR person's job, as you've >stated. and i doubt any of them knew the interview would play >out like that or they wouldn't have okayed it. > if they thought he was gonna be not asked those types of questions, they are truly terrible at their job and he should fire them ASAP.
|