PDA

View Full Version : Feinstein & Van Pelt Differ On Media Being Fans



Newton_14
05-30-2010, 09:57 PM
This is actually an old item that happened the day after the Duke @ Maryland game in March, but there were like 3 different threads on Maryland after that game that were rather lengthy. I did not see this item come up, so I decided to save this one for the summer when things were slow.

The is the link to Feinstein's Blog where he comments but leaves out some of the key details. http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?categories=Scott Van Pelt


What happened is this: Scott Van Pelt sat a few rows behind the Maryland bench in that game and was very demonstrative in rooting for the terps including several instances of screaming at the refs. SVP is also an admitted Duke hater.

The next day on his radio show, John Feinstein blasted SVP for the way he acted at the game. John stated that as a member of the media, and as a media member who covers college basketball, it is simply inappropriate for SVP to attend a basketball game and act as he did that night.

Feinstein went on to say that if he and Jay Bilas were to attend the upcoming unc at Duke game that following Saturday, sit behind Duke's bench, openly pulling for Duke and screaming at the refs, that the media would crucify them both.

Feinstein as you will see via the link also wrote about it on his blog, and SVP called him up after reading it. In the end they agreed to disagree with SVP stating that he is a passionate terp fan and grad and should be allowed to do what he did.

A local retired WRAL Sports guy from the WRAL News Team (Tom Suiter) agreed wholeheartedly with Feinstein and said that SVP was way out of line with his actions.

I agree as well. If you are a media person in the type of positions that guys like Bilas and SVP are, you cannot be expected to be taken seriously in your job if you do not maintain a certain level of professionalism. To me SVP violated that. Can he really be taken seriously when writing on college hoops?

Here is one of the key quotes from Feinstein..


Yes. Look, I know TV guys are different than real journalists. They do commercials for one thing, which we don’t. Often they’re nothing more than teleprompter readers although the ESPN guys like to point out that they write their own stuff. (Stuart Scott once said this to me and I suggested he stick with the story that he was just reading what someone else wrote for him).

All that said, they are allegedly covering sports. Van Pelt has a radio show in which he interviews people and expresses opinions. Everyone knows he’s a Maryland grad, which is fine, we all went somewhere. He’s out-of-the-closet that he’s a rabid fan and that he hates Duke. If he wants to sit in the stands and berate the officials, that’s fine. Just don’t EVER talk about college basketball. As discussed here before, we ALL have opinions and we all have biases. But there needs to be a line you don’t cross if you are a public figure who is paid to express opinions and dispense news on sports.

DukeSean
05-30-2010, 10:11 PM
This is actually an old item that happened the day after the Duke @ Maryland game in March, but there were like 3 different threads on Maryland after that game that were rather lengthy. I did not see this item come up, so I decided to save this one for the summer when things were slow.

The is the link to Feinstein's Blog where he comments but leaves out some of the key details. http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?categories=Scott Van Pelt


What happened is this: Scott Van Pelt sat a few rows behind the Maryland bench in that game and was very demonstrative in rooting for the terps including several instances of screaming at the refs. SVP is also an admitted Duke hater.

The next day on his radio show, John Feinstein blasted SVP for the way he acted at the game. John stated that as a member of the media, and as a media member who covers college basketball, it is simply inappropriate for SVP to attend a basketball game and act as he did that night.

Feinstein went on to say that if he and Jay Bilas were to attend the upcoming unc at Duke game that following Saturday, sit behind Duke's bench, openly pulling for Duke and screaming at the refs, that the media would crucify them both.

Feinstein as you will see via the link also wrote about it on his blog, and SVP called him up after reading it. In the end they agreed to disagree with SVP stating that he is a passionate terp fan and grad and should be allowed to do what he did.

A local retired WRAL Sports guy from the WRAL News Team (Tom Suiter) agreed wholeheartedly with Feinstein and said that SVP was way out of line with his actions.

I agree as well. If you are a media person in the type of positions that guys like Bilas and SVP are, you cannot be expected to be taken seriously in your job if you do not maintain a certain level of professionalism. To me SVP violated that. Can he really be taken seriously when writing on college hoops?

Here is one of the key quotes from Feinstein..

Wait....we're expecting UMD grads to have standards? Isn't that asking too much?

roywhite
05-30-2010, 10:12 PM
I'll have to agree with Feinstein and Tom Suiter on this one. Not professional behavior by Van Pelt. I generally like Van Pelt's work, but evidently being a Terp fan overrides whatever sense he has.

This just reinforces my view (based on living in Maryland for a time, having good Duke buddies still in the area, and observing the behavior of Terp fans over the years) that there is an absolutely pathological hatred Maryland fans have toward Duke. Some brew of inferiority, jealousy, blind partisanship, and bad manners.

SCMatt33
05-30-2010, 10:41 PM
I think Feinstein goes a little too far in saying what's not ok. There is a big difference between SVP, who covers everything for ESPN and hosts a radio show where he is paid to give his personal opinions on all sports matters, much like a national version of many local sports radio shows. In fact, he got his start covering golf on the Golf Channel before taking on an expanded role at ESPN. He's never been ESPN's "college basketball guy" and has never called a college basketball game or regularly hosted a college basketball specific show.

That is completely different than Jay Bilas or Hubert Davis, who are hired as college basketball analysts. They are there to give their expert opinion on what is happening in the college basketball world and predict future events. Personal biases really have no place there. I think it should be a bigger deal if Bilas or Davis were to show up to Duke or UNC games and be as vocal as SVP was.

SVP also does anchor work, where neutrality is a bigger issue than his radio show. But as far as I know, SVP has never read a Duke highlight and been like, "Damn, how did these jack off's win that game." I can't remember a specific example of SVP reading a Duke highlight, however (which probably means I never saw anything too egregious, but doesn't mean it couldn't have happened). FWIW, I do remember Stuart Scott reading a Duke highlight during the year, and there was nothing that would make me think "that guy hates Duke" if I had been a neutral observer and not known his past.

He gives his opinions on his radio show, and there is a very clear disclaimer that he's not a college basketball expert like the analysts, and the perspective on his show is closer to a fan's perspective. What he does is sports entertainment, and he chooses to do it in a certain way that includes hating Duke.

On another note, Feinstein and SVP have other areas of disagreement that could affect their opinions of each other's work. Notably Tiger Woods. As I said before, Van Pelt is a golf guy, and has a very good business relationship with Woods, while Feinstein is very public about his dislike for Woods personally (which he claims was long before Wood's big scandal). The more I think about it, Feinstein's opinions on Wood's border on hypocrisy. He said that because SVP hate Duke and is vocal about it, he shouldn't cover college basketball, but Feinstein is public and vocal about his dislike of Woods, yet writes about golf regularly. This only border's on hypocrisy because I don't know of any video of Feinstein standing in the gallery heckling Woods, which would take it to another level.

Dev11
05-30-2010, 10:56 PM
I disagree with the opinions so far. I enjoy the SVP show from time to time, and during basketball season, I never found him spewing any really terrible anti-Duke stuff. I accepted a while ago that he is a UMD guy, so maybe I've let it slide without noticing, but on the whole he's pretty entertaining and doesn't seem like he takes himself too seriously (see: Bayless, Skip; Cowherd, Colin; and Rome, Jim, my least favorite ESPN dolts in no particular order), or at the very least he's always willing to hear other opinions and talk reasonably about the subjects that come up on the show.

As for rooting for his team, Feinstein may have a point about the potential outrage at him or Jay rooting for Duke excitedly in Cameron, but I think it's only really terrible if he's being paid to be there as a member of the media. If SVP wasn't sitting in the media section and wasn't wearing media credentials, sure he might talk about the game the next day on his show, but he's off-duty and isn't bound to his on-air personality 24/7.

Feinstein has shown over the years that he enjoys starting controversy because people disagree with the way he approaches things. Despite my general agreement with the opinions of Duke grads and my general disdain for Maryland grads (I'm also a Maryland native and know the fanbase all too well), I'm with Van Pelt here (Ugh, I feel dirty. NATIONAL CHAMPS 2010! OK, all better)

Newton_14
05-30-2010, 11:11 PM
Good points by all so far. I did not want this to be about Feinstein, but rather the subject of his opinion.

So whether it be SVP, Bilas, Davis, or whomever, what is acceptable here?

For me there is nothing wrong with a media member being a fan, however, I don't want to see it or really know about it. The local guy I referenced, (Tom Suiter), was a guy I watched do the sports on the 6 o'clock news every night for 30 years, and he is very passionate, but to this day I have no clue who his favorite team is. I am quite sure he has one, but he never let it show.

That is how it should be imo. I just think there is a line there that should not be crossed in public. The angle of journalist vs entertainer that Matt brought up is interesting as well. These days the line between the two blurs to the point where it is hard to tell the difference anymore.

I just feel if I am watching a sports show, or reading a sports article on what I deem is a "sports media outlet" such as ESPN or FOX, SI, etc, I want to be able to read or view the information and feel like I am getting unbiased information.

devildownunder
05-30-2010, 11:41 PM
I think Feinstein has a point (and I think SCMatt is right that he is being at least somewhat hypocritical about it). While all of espn's crew are as much entertainers as they are journalists, they are required, from time to time, to actually do some reporting and cover actual news. As such, they should be required to maintain an appearance of objectivity. As Feinstein said, everybody has an alma mater, so there's nothing to be done about that but showing up at games cheering rabidly for or against teams and commenting on your personal dislike for players eliminates any credibility you may have had in relation to those players or teams. I like Van Pelt but I'll never take anything he says about Duke seriously because he has stated and demonstrated repeatedly that he hates the program. That usually doesn't matter but what about during the lacrosse trial? Or what if, god forbid, some new scandal arises and he has to report on it as an anchor? How could anyone trust what he has to say about anything like that? I'm sure he'd say cheering and journalism are two different things but that's not how people's minds work. Allegiances color our opinions and he needs to keep his biases out of the public arena. At least he's up front about them but I think the degree of bias he has shown is unacceptable and he should not be allowed to do any serious reporting or anchor work on college basketball. Same goes for Feinstein with regards to Mr. Woods. He's used his patented "he's a bad guy" about Woods countless times, and long before any of the scandal broke, too.

-bdbd
05-30-2010, 11:44 PM
I think Feinstein goes a little too far in saying what's not ok. There is a big difference between SVP, who covers everything for ESPN and hosts a radio show where he is paid to give his personal opinions on all sports matters, much like a national version of many local sports radio shows. In fact, he got his start covering golf on the Golf Channel before taking on an expanded role at ESPN. He's never been ESPN's "college basketball guy" and has never called a college basketball game or regularly hosted a college basketball specific show.

That is completely different than Jay Bilas or Hubert Davis, who are hired as college basketball analysts. They are there to give their expert opinion on what is happening in the college basketball world and predict future events. Personal biases really have no place there. I think it should be a bigger deal if Bilas or Davis were to show up to Duke or UNC games and be as vocal as SVP was.

SVP also does anchor work, where neutrality is a bigger issue than his radio show. But as far as I know, SVP has never read a Duke highlight and been like, "Damn, how did these jack off's win that game." I can't remember a specific example of SVP reading a Duke highlight, however (which probably means I never saw anything too egregious, but doesn't mean it couldn't have happened). FWIW, I do remember Stuart Scott reading a Duke highlight during the year, and there was nothing that would make me think "that guy hates Duke" if I had been a neutral observer and not known his past.

He gives his opinions on his radio show, and there is a very clear disclaimer that he's not a college basketball expert like the analysts, and the perspective on his show is closer to a fan's perspective. What he does is sports entertainment, and he chooses to do it in a certain way that includes hating Duke...


Gotta disagree a bit Matt. One might easily argue exactly the opposite. Analysts are paid to express their OPINIONS, much like an op-ed writer in a newspaper. They are not reporters of the facts, per se. Nobody (hardly) ever asks "What is the basis of those opinions or their credentials for offering them?" However, SVP and Stu Scott are SC ANCHORS - i.e. REPORTERS of supposed facts. The public depends, and expects, that those FACTS are being disseminated to them in a relatively even, almost antiseptic fashion. I have no such expectation from a Greg Doyle, Doug Gottleib, Rush Limbaugh or other disseminators of OPINION. If Rush or Greg or Doug states something on the air that I disagree with, well then it is very easy to dismiss it as simply "his opinion, possibly based on his biases."

Reporters' credibility as impartial arbiters of the FACTS - well, that is their lifeblood. If a given reporter loses said credibility and becomes seen as biased or one-sided or whatever, then how can the public take what they are reporting as true or factual??

Actually I have generally found SVP to be good at disguising his distaste for Duke in the past, but I must say that I will now watch his reporting with more of a jaundiced view.

And since you bring up Stu Scott, I have long since dismissed anything that he reports relating to Duke or Carolina as founded in clear bias. Until a few years ago he openly and frequently professed his UNC-ness very frequently even while "reporting" on UNC-related games. In DC we used to joke that if Antawn Jamison and Brendan Hayward made one basket each in a NBA game for the Wizards, that those would be THE TWO plays that he would show as the game's highlights. When Jordan's "indiscretions" came to light, Stu was known to under-report those stories. But, his dispicable coverage and open cheering against the Duke LAX'ers in the Nifong scandal 4 years ago was nothing short of reprehensible and over-the-top one-sided. And need we again bring up his three-part series on "Duke gets all the calls" about five years ago - amusingly one of those episodes coming immediately after a Duke game vs FSU where we were upset while fouling out our entire starting line-up and being whistled for about 37 PF's - more than double that of FSU. Yet, in the wake of that game, he still found a single play to highlight as "evidence" of a pro-Duke officiating bias (and played it over and over, maybe a half-dozen times). With a track record like that, how can one take seriously ANYthing a "reporter" like that reports relating to Duke or UNC afterwards??! Most of us are simply surprised/impressed if he EVER says something balanced or even nice about a Duke player/team.

Conversely, when Hubert Davis expressed his OPINION in the work-up to this March's UNC game at Cameron, that UNC would beat Duke, well after chuckling a bit I (and the whole ESPN Gameday set) laughed it off as "earning him alumnus of the year" status at UNC. Nothing evil. Nothing wrong. Just a goofy, funny personal opinion.

BTW, if a Duke alum was ever so blatantly anti-UNC or pro-Duke in their reporting, then I'd really be very disappointed in them. It just is plain unprofessional. (Think G-man, J-Will, Bilas, Bender, Feinstein - no danger there (!) - or any others. Tell me, do you ever see them openly rooting for Duke vociferously?)

Ultimately, we as sports fans will vote with our feet. And I have done as much to some extent with ESPN/SportsCenter -- and that's how it eventually changes... hopefully.

SCMatt33
05-31-2010, 01:17 AM
BDBD,

I don't really see analyst's opinions being akin to those of op-eds. I actually think that what SVP says on the radio, and what Gregg Doyel writes online (in his current job, not his old ones) are more like op-eds. They give a personal opinion that is based on whatever they believe. I don't expect either of them to give me an opinion based in neutrality, just as I don't expect a neutral opinion on politics from MSNBC or Fox News. I do expect analysts like Bilas and Davis, however to give a neutral opinion. That doesn't mean they shouldn't take a side, but it does mean that I want to hear what they think based on their superior knowledge of college basketball, not based on their personal biases. I was very disappointed when Davis picked UNC this year because there's no way he actually thought that they would win. That's why Bob Knight called him out on it. It's the same thing when Digger Phelps always picks ND. Does that mean they have no credibility at all? I don't think so. I'd be very interested in their opinion of a UCLA-Cal game or a Kansas-Oklahoma game. I'm just not going to listen to Digger when he pick ND every time or Davis picks UNC. I must say that Davis does do a pretty good job of keeping his bias out other than the Duke-UNC game. He was pretty hard on Carolina at times this year, as they deserved, and did pick Duke to go to the Final Four (though losing to UK) when he could have picked us to lose to Baylor or Villanova like several of his colleagues.

I agree with Boozer about anchors. I shouldn't watch a Duke highlight and know that Stuart Scott or SVP (if he's on Sportscenter) is rooting against Duke. I haven't seen that from either one, though I never really paid attention before going to Duke, and I just graduated last year. Many of the guys at ESPN have more than one job, and I have different expectations for each. With Van Pelt, I expect something totally different on his radio show vs. anchoring Sportscenter vs. covering golf tournaments (he still covers the majors). The same goes for a guy like Doug Gottlieb. when he is on Sportscenter or College Basketball Final, I expect to hear his opinion as a former NCAA point guard. When he hosts his radio show, I expect to hear his opinion as Doug Gottlieb the person. To their credit, I think that both guys do a pretty good job of that. I don't care that Gottlieb had a negative opinion of Duke that turned out to be wrong, because I believe that it was founded in his experience on the court and what he saw on TV, which was Duke not looking that great vs. Arizona State. When I see SVP's radio show, which I do like, btw, I want to see the video of him falling on top of another Maryland fan after the double buzzer-beater. It's just fun. I don't want to hear him break down point guard match-ups or tell me which football team has the advantage in the trenches.

I don't get the idea that everyone covering sports nationally has to hide their biases. For certain guys in certain positions that is certainly the case, but not all of them and not all of the time.

brevity
05-31-2010, 10:16 AM
First, thanks to the OP for saving an interesting topic for a boring part of the year.

I think it's incredibly old fashioned to believe, prefer, or demand that anchors are automatons that should be incapable of expressing an opinion. It's like those ads for local TV news where they describe the anchor as a person you can trust. To do what? Read news aloud? I really don't care if they write what they say or not; the point is that they put up a false veil of impartiality about every topic, which makes me instantly suspicious of them. (Aside: this problem is more glaring on radio stations. No deejays, especially on top 40 stations, can possibly like every song they have to play.)

The same goes with sports coverage. I first knew Stuart Scott was a UNC homer (and at least contributes in preparing what he says in telecasts) because he went out of his way to tell me his allegiance. Okay, Stu, grain of salt, but I know where you stand, and know that you stand out. So many SportsCenter anchors are interchangeable these days that I can no longer tell you whose voice is recapping a game until I see their face, and even then I can't always identify them.

I didn't know Scott Van Pelt's name -- tall guy, bald or balding, kind of a human Big Bird -- from his ESPN commercials or anchor duties. He was part of a huge anchor mix of plainness, the preferred design of Corporate Bristol. I only became aware of him from the telecast of his radio show. And he was still fairly bland. This Maryland story is now the most interesting thing I know about him. So thank you, John Feinstein.

I often bring up and call out the alarmingly sensitive tendencies of DBR folk, so it feels redundant when I question why it's so important for everyone at ESPN to treat Duke fairly (or worse, specially). So we're not in the opening montage of champions. So a few alums from ACC opponents are allowed to recap our games. Big deal. Duke gets coverage on SportsCenter early and often, positive and negative, because ESPN makes plenty of money off college basketball with Duke as a point of reference.

These men and women on ESPN -- whether anchors, analysts, or other on-air personalities -- entered their field and rose to prominence not because they were neutral, but the opposite: they were, and are, fans of sports at some level. It logically follows that they have heroes and favorites. It's incredibly naive and unrealistic to expect otherwise. And it's time for a real shift: if the standard needs to go from impartiality to disclosed partiality (SVP owns up to his Maryland bias when talking ACC sports), so be it. But if you still have a problem with media members also being fans, then I submit the possibility that the problem is you.

devildeac
05-31-2010, 10:32 AM
I'll have to agree with Feinstein and Tom Suiter on this one. Not professional behavior by Van Pelt. I generally like Van Pelt's work, but evidently being a Terp fan overrides whatever sense he has.

This just reinforces my view (based on living in Maryland for a time, having good Duke buddies still in the area, and observing the behavior of Terp fans over the years) that there is an absolutely pathological hatred Maryland fans have toward Duke. Some brew of inferiority, jealousy, blind partisanship, and bad manners.

Blatant and inexcusable stupidity could also be added to your list that is unfortunately WAYYY too short;).

sagegrouse
05-31-2010, 11:51 AM
To call it "unprofessional" is a bit of a stretch, given his nebulous duties and occupation. But here comes old Scott, noshing for free at the pre-game buffet in the press room and talking with his buds in the media. Most of the guys I know who do this (and I don't know many) have a cynical detachment or at least a bemusedly detached view about sports and the participants. What the heck do they think about one of their own (a fellow freeloader, if you will) heading out to the stands and screaming his head off for his team? I'll bet they don't think it's very cool.

Moreover, he knows many of the players and all of the coaches and ADs. Most of the people in high-level sports seem to be good guys, or at least personable. So are the players, with a few exceptions (McInnis, McCants, etc.). So, what is this about "hating a team?" This is couch material for a shrink. And why do so in such a public fashion?

Yuck.

sagegrouse

jimsumner
05-31-2010, 03:58 PM
Seems like bad form to me.

BTW, a lot of those pre-game buffets have been reduced to a banana and a bag of potato chips.

cspan37421
05-31-2010, 04:44 PM
I think it's incredibly old fashioned to believe, prefer, or demand that anchors are automatons that should be incapable of expressing an opinion. ... But if you still have a problem with media members also being fans, then I submit the possibility that the problem is you.

brevity, IMO your otherwise well-reasoned post is guilty of indulging in a classic straw-man argument. No one on this thread - that I noticed - argued that anchors should be automatons ... incapable of expressing an opinion. So let's put that to bed right now.

The actual issue appears to be this: if you are a sports anchor, do you have a duty to act impartially when attending games on which you report? If not, do you have a duty to "tone it down" to any degree at all?

If impartiality is not a duty, is it viewed as more professional to act impartially? I think it does.

A good number of folks here at DBR are highly respected specifically because they willingly give credit when our boys are fairly bested on the court. They recognize great play when they see it, no matter whose name is on the jersey. That's one of the things that makes DBR special - if not unique, certainly all too rare. And these are posters whose day jobs we often don't even know.

When a TV sports anchor boasts of blind hatred of one team and unabashed homerism of another, well, they might not be breaking any rules, per se, but they earn a lot less respect from me than they would if they rose above such rivalries while they hold their position.

I have not noticed SVP's claimed hatreds and allegiances coloring his work at all. If he can really do his job well while acting like an unthinking partisan off the job, he's a rare breed indeed. I think some of us believe it is better to tone it down because most anchors (or "journalists") cannot successfully live such a two-faced life.

Duvall
05-31-2010, 06:37 PM
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, it's a little funny that only one of these guys has gotten in trouble for rooting against Duke during a broadcast, and it wasn't Van Pelt.

cspan37421
05-31-2010, 06:49 PM
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, it's a little funny that only one of these guys has gotten in trouble for rooting against Duke during a broadcast, and it wasn't Van Pelt.

Who was that? What irony it would be if it was Junior, but it seems more likely to have been Boo-yeah.

tallguy
05-31-2010, 06:51 PM
I honestly don't have a problem with it, b/c Van Pelt wasn't at the game in any official capacity, and he's done a remarkably good job over the years at disguising his anti-Duke tendencies.

I look at it like I look at Kirk Herbstreit...he's a professional when he's on the job, but when he's not, he's an OSU alum. If a sportscaster (not going to call them journalists, because they're not) keeps his two lives separate, then they're fulfilling their obligations. If biases become apparent (Stu Scott's pro-UNC bias for instance), then something needs to be done, be it public acknowledgment of the bias or recusal from any action that might bring about bias (Herbstreit not picking any game he's announcing).

On the whole, Van Pelt has done a very good job at keeping his alumni status from coloring his work, and as such, I have no problem with his actions at a Maryland home game.

Duvall
05-31-2010, 06:54 PM
Who was that? What irony it would be if it was Junior, but it seems more likely to have been Boo-yeah.

Junior (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2180747).

dukemsu
05-31-2010, 08:01 PM
I don't have a big problem with SVP being a proud alum and loving his team. What isn't professional, if the reports are correct, are him going nuclear on the officials. Someone in his position doing that in public feeds into the Duke Gets All The Calls nonsense, which is even funnier if the game is at Maryland.

dukemsu

WiJoe
05-31-2010, 10:31 PM
between the two, there's enough gas to blow up several hot air balloons.

SCMatt33
05-31-2010, 11:44 PM
Since it's kind of relevant to this, SVP read the lacrosse highlight on the 11:00 Sportscenter. He was very professional and neutral in reading the highlight, while still doing it in an exciting tone of voice. If I knew nothing about SVP, I would have had no idea that he hated Duke. He did throw in the Maryland women winning the women's title at the last second, but I can't really blame him for it since it probably wasn't ever mentioned before on air.

I think his Duke hate and antics gets overblown somewhat because ESPN feels compelled to put a camera on him at the games, and then he uses the clips during the his radio show (which is often simulcast on ESPN2). I really only remember him doing this once, though, when Maryland hit the buzzer beater (twice) against G-Tech, and he fell on top of someone celebrating, which was pretty funny.

jdj4duke
06-01-2010, 03:59 PM
SVP's Duke animosity always bubbles just beneath the surface. I noticed it first maybe 4 years or so ago when, after the Terps received a whipping in Cameron, SVP made a comment pretty close to "the fine gentlemen of Duke will receive a completely different reception during their upcoming trip to College Park next month".
I don't recall other anchors making similar comments regarding say UNC visiting Clemson.
He is just north of smarmy, and calling out a college game a month out just seemed silly (especially as I also recall the Terps went down in that one, too with no comment accordingly from Mr. van Pelt).
It was just another in a long line of stupid and gratuitous comments. Saying that, if he wants to paint his face red and get a tortoise shell tattooed on his belly to watch games on his own time, I couldn't care less. His radio show has his name on it, so he can blabber all he wants. When he is on Sports Center duty, he should keep his editorializing to himself (as for Stu Scott- well at least he also infuriated lots of the UNC faithful during his infamous commencement address a few years ago)

weezie
06-01-2010, 04:31 PM
All I know is, SVP has an alarmingly tiny, nay, freakishly small head.
Kind of like a walnut on top of his (yecchh) body.

calltheobvious
06-01-2010, 05:31 PM
SVP's Duke animosity always bubbles just beneath the surface. I noticed it first maybe 4 years or so ago when, after the Terps received a whipping in Cameron, SVP made a comment pretty close to "the fine gentlemen of Duke will receive a completely different reception during their upcoming trip to College Park next month".
I don't recall other anchors making similar comments regarding say UNC visiting Clemson.
He is just north of smarmy, and calling out a college game a month out just seemed silly (especially as I also recall the Terps went down in that one, too with no comment accordingly from Mr. van Pelt).
It was just another in a long line of stupid and gratuitous comments. Saying that, if he wants to paint his face red and get a tortoise shell tattooed on his belly to watch games on his own time, I couldn't care less. His radio show has his name on it, so he can blabber all he wants. When he is on Sports Center duty, he should keep his editorializing to himself (as for Stu Scott- well at least he also infuriated lots of the UNC faithful during his infamous commencement address a few years ago)

No threadjack intended, but in case I'm not the only one who had missed out on the literary gem that was Stuart Scott's aforementioned speech, then feast your eyes on this. Truly spectacular.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/scott/010521.html

Mal
06-01-2010, 06:33 PM
I'm with dukemsu. Of course he's a fan of certain sports teams, and entry into the world of sports "journalism" or sports yakking shouldn't preclude one from having rooting interests anymore. The particular display at issue here is the problem. I don't think Van Pelt's hopelessly biased or unable to put his rooting interest aside because of this behavior; I think he's immature, foolish, and not really worthy of my time because of this behavior. I'd certainly never devote time to listening to the radio show of a middle-aged public figure unable to control himself at a college basketball game when he knows everyone's watching him.

NovaScotian
06-01-2010, 08:07 PM
The angle of journalist vs entertainer that Matt brought up is interesting as well. These days the line between the two blurs to the point where it is hard to tell the difference anymore.

I just feel if I am watching a sports show, or reading a sports article on what I deem is a "sports media outlet" such as ESPN or FOX, SI, etc, I want to be able to read or view the information and feel like I am getting unbiased information.

here's the thing though - sports is not politics. reporter's biases just don't matter in sports. unbiased information is important when reading about government or world affairs, but with sports it should be expected, and really doesnt have any bearing on whether or not the information can be understood.

Newton_14
06-01-2010, 09:18 PM
here's the thing though - sports is not politics. reporter's biases just don't matter in sports. unbiased information is important when reading about government or world affairs, but with sports it should be expected, and really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the information can be understood.

I am going to have to politely disagree. For me it does matter. Look at G-Man and Bilas as examples. Both are very good at staying professional and not showing any kind of Duke or ACC bias. Heck, Bilas even gets railed on for going too far at times to avoid coming across as Pro Duke. I greatly respect both of these guys for that professionalism. If I moved here from Mars not knowing either guy, and watched them do their jobs, I would never know either of them played at Duke. To me, that is how it should be.

When Hubert Davis is the color analyst during a Duke game, I expect that analysis to be fair, whether he is speaking on how good the Duke team is or if speaking on a player, I expect a fair, unbiased take on the player. It is just simple professionalism.

I am not asking him to renounce his Tar heel legacy or anything like that. He is a heel for life as he should be. Proud of his program and I am sure he is a big fan. But in his job, he has to set the fandom to the side and be a professional. To keep the professionalism untainted, if he attends a unc game on his own time, it is not a real good idea to turn into Johnny Fan, jumping up and down and screaming at the refs. It just does not look right, and again to me, I lose respect and he loses credibility in my eyes. I simply would not be able to take him seriously after that. Just like I do not today take Stu Scott seriously.

Interesting topic and people view it differently which is fine. I respect the opinion of those who see it differently from me.

sagegrouse
06-01-2010, 09:36 PM
here's the thing though - sports is not politics. reporter's biases just don't matter in sports. unbiased information is important when reading about government or world affairs, but with sports it should be expected, and really doesnt have any bearing on whether or not the information can be understood.

Sports biases may not matter on political and news programs like Meet the Press or Face the Nation, but they do matter on the equally illustrious Duke Basketball Report. :rolleyes:

Reporters, announcers, color men and expert commentators are on air or in print to help the viewing public, not just show support for one team or another. In fact, the baseball announcers who are cheerleaders for the home team are really annoying, even when it's your team. And SVP is in the same club.

sagegrouse

RelativeWays
06-02-2010, 07:36 AM
At least SVP and Hubert Davis stick with their alma maters instead of chucking them under the bus the way Feinstein does. Feinstein usually won't touch the basketball team, K has too much power and can make his life miserable. His comments during the LAX scandel were laughable, wishy washy and embarrassing. He never held himself accountable for his earlier views when the truth came out, he just ignored them. Most of his Duke hate seems to be focused on the football team, since his pal Tom Mickle didn't get to play savior. His editorials and comments on the team are reprehensible. I hope Cut gets established enough to take Feinstein to task, I think he will. More than anything, I'd glady trade a 100-0 loss to Bama for big wins over Army and Navy. Feinstein would loathe that more than anything.

sagegrouse
06-02-2010, 08:10 AM
At least SVP and Hubert Davis stick with their alma maters instead of chucking them under the bus the way Feinstein does.

Far be it from me to stand between John Feinstein and an angry mob of Duke fans, but Hubert Davis is a real professional, who jokes about his UNC ties but doesn't let it color his reporting. Maybe 12 years in the NBA helped get rid of his boosterism. By comparison, the Scott brothers (Stuart and Van Pelt) are just a joke.

sagegrouse

AceDukie77
06-02-2010, 01:29 PM
I don't know if any of you saw this... but a year or two ago SVP closed a late night ESPN anchor slot with a summary of at least 4 or 5 Duke teams that had all lost that particular day. From what I remember he rattled off the Duke men's and women's lacrosse teams, the baseball team and a few others. He actually made an effort to research how many different Duke teams had lost that day and that is how he closed that late night broadcast! I couldn't believe it and I have hated his "work" ever since. I was really surprised that ESPN would have allowed this blatant anti Duke rant but I guess they didn't mind because it was late at night. I actually tried to contact ESPN corporate to complain but to no avail......

Billy Dat
06-02-2010, 01:57 PM
No threadjack intended, but in case I'm not the only one who had missed out on the literary gem that was Stuart Scott's aforementioned speech, then feast your eyes on this. Truly spectacular.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/scott/010521.html

I don't know...sounds like he was himself. I don't love Stu Scott, but what is so bad about that speech? I bet the students liked it, and who cares what anyone else thought about it? Judy Woodruff spoke at my Duke commencement...I'd have rather listened to Stu Scott...or Scott Van Pelt.

As for the topic at hand, I think, like a lot of things, this type of behavior either bothers you or it doesn't. I see SVP as a talking head. I don't consider him a journalist. I agree its bad form, but I really could care less. His Duke baiting always seems fairly innocuous. Aren't we supposed to act like Maryland doesn't exist, anyway?

As a senior, I worked on a TV show about the hoops team and we got 2 press passes to every home game which amounted to 2 coveted courtside seats. We were told, with no exception, that if we were seen visably rooting for Duke, we'd lose our passes. It was very tough.

allenmurray
06-02-2010, 02:00 PM
My son writes for his high school newpaper. Last sssaon he got permission (and press credentials) to cover a Duke football game from the press box. I wrote to the great Al Featherston and asked if he would be willing to give my son some advice. His first words were these:

First, once you step in the press box you are a journalist. There is no cheering in the press box.

Second, dress like a professional. The days of jackets and ties are over, but at least wear some khakis and a polo shirt.

He then went on to talk about things like wireless internet access, the schedule for post-game interviews, and other detail kinds of things. He was gracious and kind to a budding 15 year old journalist. But mainly, he was a true professional. Scott Van Pelt couldn't sharpen Al Featherston's pencils. He also doesn't understand what it means to be a journalist - which is far different from being a TV personality.

DukieInKansas
06-02-2010, 04:29 PM
If he was there as a fan, and not an ESPN employee, it doesn't bother me too much if he cheered for Maryland and looked like a jerk yelling at the refs.

If he had been there as a member of the press and cheered against a team - like the press room cheer that when up when we lost in the NCAA tournament a few years ago - that would bother me.

WiJoe
06-02-2010, 10:58 PM
My son writes for his high school newpaper. Last sssaon he got permission (and press credentials) to cover a Duke football game from the press box. I wrote to the great Al Featherston and asked if he would be willing to give my son some advice. His first words were these:

First, once you step in the press box you are a journalist. There is no cheering in the press box.

Second, dress like a professional. The days of jackets and ties are over, but at least wear some khakis and a polo shirt.

He then went on to talk about things like wireless internet access, the schedule for post-game interviews, and other detail kinds of things. He was gracious and kind to a budding 15 year old journalist. But mainly, he was a true professional. Scott Van Pelt couldn't sharpen Al Featherston's pencils. He also doesn't understand what it means to be a journalist - which is far different from being a TV personality.

Al is a pro's pro. Tremendous guy. Great advice. Some guys dress like tramps.

diablesseblu
06-02-2010, 11:24 PM
I don't know...sounds like he was himself. I don't love Stu Scott, but what is so bad about that speech? I bet the students liked it, and who cares what anyone else thought about it? Judy Woodruff spoke at my Duke commencement...I'd have rather listened to Stu Scott...or Scott Van Pelt.

As for the topic at hand, I think, like a lot of things, this type of behavior either bothers you or it doesn't. I see SVP as a talking head. I don't consider him a journalist. I agree its bad form, but I really could care less. His Duke baiting always seems fairly innocuous. Aren't we supposed to act like Maryland doesn't exist, anyway?

As a senior, I worked on a TV show about the hoops team and we got 2 press passes to every home game which amounted to 2 coveted courtside seats. We were told, with no exception, that if we were seen visably rooting for Duke, we'd lose our passes. It was very tough.


Even the Carolina faithful in my family were embarassed by Stu Scott's speech at the 2001 Commencement ceremonies. Has he ever been a true "journalist"? I think of him more as a groundbreaking ill informed "homer".

I will not watch any ESPN schedule that includes Mr. Scott. He is simply a caricature.

Billy Dat
06-03-2010, 11:09 AM
Even the Carolina faithful in my family were embarassed by Stu Scott's speech at the 2001 Commencement ceremonies. Has he ever been a true "journalist"? I think of him more as a groundbreaking ill informed "homer".

I will not watch any ESPN schedule that includes Mr. Scott. He is simply a caricature.

(Thread hijack alert, but I can't help it)

Sans sarcasm, I am very curious about what is at the core of the embarrassment. I have to think it fits into one of the following:

1. An institution of higher learning should set its sights higher than an ESPN Anchor as its commencement speaker?

2. The content of his speech was somehow inapropriate to the occasion - the rips of Duke, the allusions to student partying, the black cultural focus (e.g. his fraternity, Jill Scott, etc.)?

If it's #1, I guess everyone's got different sensitivities but I would think that the students would like him. Was that not the case? If it's #2, again, everyone has their ideas about propriety - as the numerous slams on this board regarding Kyle Singler's White House outfit can attest. On issues like this, I tend toward the more casual side of things, but I know that may not be the norm.

SilkyJ
06-03-2010, 01:36 PM
If it's #1, I guess everyone's got different sensitivities but I would think that the students would like him. Was that not the case? If it's #2, again, everyone has their ideas about propriety - as the numerous slams on this board regarding Kyle Singler's White House outfit can attest. On issues like this, I tend toward the more casual side of things, but I know that may not be the norm.

ok, not to hijack too much further but did folks really have that big a problem with his attire? jacket and tie wasn't good enough? Personally I would have worn a suit, but he had a jacket and tie so I'm not put off...

calltheobvious
06-03-2010, 01:50 PM
I don't know...sounds like he was himself. I don't love Stu Scott, but what is so bad about that speech? I bet the students liked it, and who cares what anyone else thought about it? Judy Woodruff spoke at my Duke commencement...I'd have rather listened to Stu Scott...or Scott Van Pelt.

As for the topic at hand, I think, like a lot of things, this type of behavior either bothers you or it doesn't. I see SVP as a talking head. I don't consider him a journalist. I agree its bad form, but I really could care less. His Duke baiting always seems fairly innocuous. Aren't we supposed to act like Maryland doesn't exist, anyway?

As a senior, I worked on a TV show about the hoops team and we got 2 press passes to every home game which amounted to 2 coveted courtside seats. We were told, with no exception, that if we were seen visably rooting for Duke, we'd lose our passes. It was very tough.


You mean aside from being incoherent, taking multiple paragraphs for gratuitous jabs at Shane Battier, telling the graduates early in the speech that he wasn't going to tell them what to do then several times telling them what to do? Nothing. I thought it was great.

tallguy
06-03-2010, 01:54 PM
ok, not to hijack too much further but did folks really have that big a problem with his attire? jacket and tie wasn't good enough? Personally I would have worn a suit, but he had a jacket and tie so I'm not put off...

More of a face palm moments, seeing one of the Duke players show up to the White House in khakis and boat shoes. It's the President of the United States, not a summer party at the beach.

SilkyJ
06-03-2010, 02:14 PM
More of a face palm moments, seeing one of the Duke players show up to the White House in khakis and boat shoes. It's the President of the United States, not a summer party at the beach.

west coast style, dude, just chill ;)

DukieInKansas
06-03-2010, 02:32 PM
More of a face palm moments, seeing one of the Duke players show up to the White House in khakis and boat shoes. It's the President of the United States, not a summer party at the beach.

Kyle wasn't the only one in a blue blazer and khakis (not that there's anything wrong with that):

http://dukeblueplanet.smugmug.com/2009-10/NCAA-Tournament/DC-Welcomes-the-Champs/DSC6895/881385312_cBcsY-M.jpg