By Ron Borges
During Tony Dungy’s weekly conference call with visiting media this week he was not surprisingly asked about his statements following the exposure of Bill Belichick’s illegal videotaping operation designed to try and steal opposing team’s offensive and defensive signals.
At that time Dungy called it “a sad day for the NFL” and compared Belichick to steroid-stained Barry Bonds, because “when headsets go wrong [Belichick] is going to have to answer if it’s something that just happened or is this planned.” In other words, he would be suspect when something like what went on last Sunday on the Redskins’ sidelines as their communication system with their coaches in the boot went down.
Wednesday the local
Dungy replied, “No, I don’t think it was an advantage but it’s just disappointing to me whenever anything comes out and the public perception of the game gets hurt, whether it’s us doing it or anybody else. Not because it was the Patriots doing it…’’
Pressed on the matter Dungy was asked, “Do you in any way regret any of those comments you made? I think you evoked Barry Bonds’ name. Do you regret those at all?’’
Dungy replied, “No, I mean, that’s to me what it is. It was my opinion at the time and it’s what I believe. Again, I don’t think it takes away from anything they’ve done; it’s just disappointing that it wasn’t a good situation for the league or any of the players in the NFL.’’
Those comments were later misrepresented by one local blogger, Bruce Allen, who wrote in his media blog, “The Projo notebook has more on Dungy slightly backing away from his earlier comments.’’
When does “No’’ become “slightly backing away?’’ How does “It was my opinion at the time AND IT’S WHAT I BELIEVE’’ become “slightly backing away?’’
Just to clarify things further, I asked Dungy about it again Wednesday night and he said, “Who can say anything good about it? What was good about it?’’
Nothing, frankly.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Sike Mando // Nov 2, 2007 at 8:24 am
Mr. Borges–
I don’t know who “Bruce Allen” is–like you, I never read his site. But I followed your note, and I think you made a mistake. It wasn’t “Bruce Allen,” whoever he is, that made the “backing away” comment. Instead, Mr. Allen was quoting what the Providence paper said. The aritcle said, “In a conference call yesterday, Dungy said he didn’t regret his comments, but backed away from them a bit, saying that was his opinion “at the time.”
So, while you might be right to accuse “Bruce Allen” of, for example, plagiarism, for copying the work of the Providence paper, it appears that “Bruce Allen” isn’t the one who said Dungy was “backing away” from his earlier comments.
Since I know that a professional like yourself is a stickler for accuracy, I thought you’d want to set the record straight.
2 strazzerj // Nov 2, 2007 at 10:17 am
I’m pretty sure Mr. Borges knows that Bruce Allen writes on the http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/ web site.
And of course, Sike Mando, you are correct. Bruce Allen just posted a link to Shalize Manza Young’s comments that Dungy “backed away from them a bit”.
Seems that Mr. Borges misrepresented Mr. Allen’s comments - I’m sure unintentionally.
3 hieronymus // Nov 2, 2007 at 1:15 pm
It was ProJo itself who characterized Dungy as “backing off his comments,” however his caveat “at that time” is certainly open to interpretation. Dungy might have softened them a bit, but I wouldn’t at all say he backed off. And when Bruce tacitly agreed with ProJo’s characterization of those comments, he indeed made them his own.
Might be only semantics, but at any rate, as a fan of both Ron and Bruce, I am delighted to be present at what looks to be the first “shot across the bow.”
Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride. And I’m looking forward to every moment.
4 Sike Mando // Nov 5, 2007 at 9:22 am
I agree hieronymous, that Dungy’s comment is “open to interpretation.” But Mr. Borges’s statement that Bruce Allen “misrepresented” Dungy’s statement is simply false. It is not mis-represented, or “represented” in any way, shape or form. It is simply re-printed, verbatim. It also does not appear to be an “endorsement” either tacit or otherwise. Its a site apparently covering “Boston,” which includes Patriots’ coverage from nearby Providence RI. (The Patriots’ stadium is actually closer to Providence.)
I’m guessing that Mr. Borges has some issue either with this particular “local blogger.” If so, he should have picked a better fight. This one is like beating up a disabled eprson, then claiming self-defense. The blogger pointed out what a local paper was saying. Period.
5 bostonfan // Nov 5, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Thou dost protest too much Sike Mando!
6 Sike Mando // Nov 6, 2007 at 8:50 am
Eh. I was just curious why a nationally-known writer would go after some “local blogger” and not the newspaper that printed the comment that the blogger copied. Whatever.
7 hieronymus // Nov 6, 2007 at 8:59 am
Like bostonfan, I am suspect of your ignorance of past history.
That being said, the blog in question has a long track record of moralizing about “ethics in journalism” as well as pointing out frequently that blogging is the “new journalism” and that “old media” is dying.
Pretending you know nothing of the history, if you do some research you will discover that the blog in question has even actively worked towards getting specific journalists fired, based on their own squeaky-clean view of journalistic ethics.
Well, they can’t have it both ways. They are either “journalists” who need to be held to journalistic standards, or they are not. And it looks like someone is gonna start calling them out for failing to live up to their own lofty standards.
In the end, they will be better for it.
8 Sike Mando // Nov 6, 2007 at 10:12 am
Mr. Borges can call out whomever he likes, for wtahever reason he likes. And if he’s got a personal beef with the blogger, then it would seem he’s got all the more reason do do it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is Mr. Borges’s post here on this site which says that the “blogger misrepresented” Dungy’s statement, when, in fact, it appears that the Providence Journal did the apparent misrepresenting, and that the blogger accurately quoted the Providence Paper’s inaccuracy (?). If Mr. Borges wants to suggest that bloggers should be more careful in simply parroting the words of newspapers, that would be an excellent point. Just as it is irresponsible for print reporters to simply parrot the words of their sources if those words do not square with reality. But I don’t think that’s what Mr. Borges did here when he wrote that the “local blogger misrepresented” Dungy’s comments. I think he just made a mistake. It happens.
And if there is a past history, then his motives are clear. Perhaps he just used a bad example.
9 hieronymus // Nov 6, 2007 at 6:19 pm
I think perhaps certain subtleties are lost on you, Sike. Let’s take a look at the blogger’s quote, shall we?
“The Projo notebook has more on Dungy slightly backing away from his earlier comments.’’
Now, he could have said, “The Projo notebook today reports that Dungy slightly backed away from his earlier comments” and that would be fine. The readers could simply follow the link and make up their own minds.
But by phrasing it the way he did - and let’s look at it again, shall we? - “The Projo notebook has more on Dungy slightly backing away from his earlier comments’’ he is himself affirmatively reporting that Dungy backed away from his comments, not attributing this opinion to Projo.
Inadvertent though it may have been, the local blogger did indeed misrepresent Dungy’s comments, if only once removed.
10 bostonfan // Nov 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I agree with hieronymus, these bloggers can’t be bloggers only when it is convenient. They should be held with the same “journalistic” standards, if not higher, since they’ve appointed themselves to police the media.
I don’t know about Mr. Allen himself, but I do know other “bloggers” on the site he writes for is paid to write or appear on various TV shows. How ethical is it to be paid by the same people you are suppose to be critiquing????
11 Sike Mando // Nov 7, 2007 at 7:48 am
Hiernymus:
I see what you’re saying. I guess I just dont agree with your final conclusion:
“But by phrasing it the way he did - and let’s look at it again, shall we? - “The Projo notebook has more on Dungy slightly backing away from his earlier comments’’ he is himself affirmatively reporting that Dungy backed away from his comments, not attributing this opinion to Projo.”
Put another way, I just dont see any difference
between this:
“The Projo notebook has more on Dungy slightly backing away from his earlier comments.’’ (What was written)
and this: (what you suggest)
“The Projo notebook today reports that Dungy slightly backed away from his earlier comments”
At best (worst), I think the blogger’s descritpion may be a bit ambiguous–somewhere between “affirmatively reporting” and “repeating.” But even that, in my view, falls short of what Mr. Borges called “misprepresenting” Dungy’s comments.
As you said earlier, this is probably more semantics than anythign else. Throw in the fact that Mr. Borges or the other guy may have an axe to grind, and here we are.
12 hieronymus // Nov 7, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I suspect there will be lots of opportunities for you and I to continue this very discussion in the future, Sike! And I look forward to it.
Thanks for keeping it civil.
You must log in to post a comment.