By Mark La Monica
The story goes like this:
Jenni Carlson of The Oklahoman writes a column in the Saturday paper about how the attitude of OSU quarterback Bobby Reid helped lose his starting job.
Mike Gundy, head coach of Oklahoma State, goes off on the columnist in a wonderful tirade on Saturday night. Watch it below.
On Tuesday, Carlson fires back.
At all points between Saturday's column hitting newsstands and Web sites and Tuesday's published response, readers and fans post comments online.
Gundy contended that 75 percent of Carlson's initial column was incorrect. Of course, he never said which facts were wrong on Saturday. Nor did he do so on Monday when asked specifically about those facts by Carlson and two other reporters.
Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares (aside from Carlson, as she should)? We the outsiders get to sit back, read, watch and enjoy the show. Who needs free movie passes when we get free Internet access at work?
Comments (6)
Jenni Carlson wrote a ridiculously harsh column about a college player and then she and most of the media goes nuts when the coach defends his player.
I didn't realize the first amendment required people to say thank you when you verbally attack and embarrass a college-aged athelete.
Jenni Carlson is notorious for reporting what borders on fiction. But, even if half of what she said is true, why humiliate a STUDENT athlete? And why should Coach Gundy have to point out the, for want of a better word, lies when by doing so he may be telling things that may further hurt said student athlete? There may be things going on here that is so none of anyone else's business. I applaud Coach Gundy for standing up for what is right.
Oh brother...here we go again. The only reason he did this publically was because she's a woman. (See Michael Strahan's parallel move.)
Yes, the article was a little harsh, but these crybabies would never survive the media in Boston or New York.
The problem with so called journalists is they think it is our responsibility to prove them wrong instead of understanding that if you make up crap about someone and have the nerve to print it you have some eplaining to do. From my "observance" of Jenni Carlson, she is too lazy and unmotivated to write a proper article, instead she chooses to attack a child to sell papers. And since I just wrote this "Jenni" you are now in the position of proving me wrong.
There are many people out there: the press, singers and song writers, other entertainers, authors, etc., who are so focused on the fact that their right to free speech is protected by the best constitution in the world, that they are too blinded to see that what they have to say shouldn't be said at all. Way to go Mike!
I don't cotton to the idea that the situation had anything to do with the constitution, or rights to free speech. By all accounts she didn't get the intel from anyone inside the program. She coveted rumor, heard in a second hand fashion as fact. Poor Jenni. Obviously she meant to tick someone off. (How'd that work out for ya.) Otherwise why write a sports column as if it's meant to be read by Page 6 readers.