PDA

View Full Version : Laura Keeley (and panel) on being a young female journalist in SI



FerryFor50
02-24-2015, 10:46 AM
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2015/02/23/panel-women-sports-journalism-30-and-under

Interesting part about her toughest moment...


Keeley: This fall, there were Duke athletics employees who were upset about something I wrote, to the point where they requested a sit-down meeting with me, my direct editor and our sports editor (both are male). So the three of us went over to Duke to meet with the three of them (all men). And after a contentious meeting, one of men who works for Duke shakes both of my editors’ hands and then turns abruptly and leaves without shaking my hand. It was the most unprofessional behavior I have ever seen.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2015, 10:51 AM
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2015/02/23/panel-women-sports-journalism-30-and-under

Interesting part about her toughest moment...

Interesting. I wonder how much of that is being a "female reporter" and how much of that is whatever her statements were.**

I thought I recalled some teeth-gnashing over her on the boards last fall during football season. Don't recall the nature of it, but I'll bet it's referenced in the next three or four posts.

**to clarify, I'm not doubting her, I'm just honestly curious.

scottdude8
02-24-2015, 11:01 AM
Having worked closely with Laura back in our Chronicle days, I'm very excited and proud of how successful she's become in such a short period of time. If anyone isn't doing so already, I highly recommend her Duke Now blog, which often includes some really interesting tidbits that don't make it into larger pieces.

weezie
02-24-2015, 11:13 AM
Yeah, well, Sarah Kwak '07is pretty far up in the SI print constellation and she hasn't made any public statements (that I can find) about "unprofessional behavior" on the part of any male counterparts she has had dealings with.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course, it must happen everywhere on the planet, every single solitary day, on and on and on..... but what's Keeley's aim? Is she calling out the unnamed Duke contact or calling out her own experience of being called out or calling out attention to her blog participation?

I'm sensing another 6 page lob and volley here.

scottdude8
02-24-2015, 11:21 AM
Yeah, well, Sarah Kwak '07is pretty far up in the SI print constellation and she hasn't made any public statements (that I can find) about "unprofessional behavior" on the part of any male counterparts she has had dealings with.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course, it must happen everywhere on the planet, every single solitary day, on and on and on..... but what's Keeley's aim? Is she calling out the unnamed Duke contact or calling out her own experience of being called out or calling out attention to her blog participation?

I'm sensing another 6 page lob and volley here.

I'm guessing that her aim was to answer a direct question as honestly and thoughtfully as she could, especially given the context of the roundtable. To assume anything more seems inappropriate.

sagegrouse
02-24-2015, 11:25 AM
Interesting. I wonder how much of that is being a "female reporter" and how much of that is whatever her statements were.**

I thought I recalled some teeth-gnashing over her on the boards last fall during football season. Don't recall the nature of it, but I'll bet it's referenced in the next three or four posts.

**to clarify, I'm not doubting her, I'm just honestly curious.


Yeah, well, Sarah Kwak '07is pretty far up in the SI print constellation and she hasn't made any public statements (that I can find) about "unprofessional behavior" on the part of any male counterparts she has had dealings with.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course, it must happen everywhere on the planet, every single solitary day, on and on and on..... but what's Keeley's aim? Is she calling out the unnamed Duke contact or calling out her own experience of being called out or calling out attention to her blog participation?

I'm sensing another 6 page lob and volley here.

Geez, Duke! Laura is the Duke beat reporter from the N&O and the Charlotte Observer. Those cats buy ink by the barrel. Real or not -- patch things up. She had a good rep at Duke and on the Chronicle staff and has done well with the N&O. I have enjoyed her articles. This should not become a cause celebre!

dyedwab
02-24-2015, 11:27 AM
Yeah, well, Sarah Kwak '07is pretty far up in the SI print constellation and she hasn't made any public statements (that I can find) about "unprofessional behavior" on the part of any male counterparts she has had dealings with.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course, it must happen everywhere on the planet, every single solitary day, on and on and on..... but what's Keeley's aim? Is she calling out the unnamed Duke contact or calling out her own experience of being called out or calling out attention to her blog participation?

I'm sensing another 6 page lob and volley here.

You know what Laura Keeley's aim probably is? To argue that as a woman in a male dominated field she encounters sexism, and here's a specific example.

I also don't see the point of bringing up the experience of some other person who was not in the room who hasn't commented publicly on something that happened to someone else.

I read Laura Keeley's pieces all the time and I think she does some of the best coverage of Duke sports out there. She also asks some of the best and most interesting questions - and it's clear Coach K thinks so too, because we all have seen how he responds when he gets asked what he thinks is a stupid question. She rarely gets that treatment.

So, all in all, I take her at her word, find it unsurprising that this happened, think it isn't unique to the Duke experience, and would hope that not many people affiliated with Duke athletics would act that way,


I also

Dev11
02-24-2015, 11:31 AM
Interesting. I wonder how much of that is being a "female reporter" and how much of that is whatever her statements were.**

I thought I recalled some teeth-gnashing over her on the boards last fall during football season. Don't recall the nature of it, but I'll bet it's referenced in the next three or four posts.

**to clarify, I'm not doubting her, I'm just honestly curious.

She backed up a Adrian Wojnarowski assertion that Team USA basketball only benefits Coach K to the detriment of the players and the NBA at large.

I agree, some of the teeth-gnashing was about her opinion rather than her being a woman, but I can also envision how it would be more intimidating to be the only woman in the room, not to mention the youngest, when she and her bosses met with whatever Duke brass addressed the issue. On the bright side, if that's the toughest situation she's been in, it means she hasn't really had to deal with the nastiest stuff that people like Erin Andrews seems to run into a lot.

I think Keeley does a good job on the Duke beat and I enjoyed the interview. Dietsch does a good job keeping the pulse of issues like this in sports media.

nocilla
02-24-2015, 11:32 AM
Yeah, well, Sarah Kwak '07is pretty far up in the SI print constellation and she hasn't made any public statements (that I can find) about "unprofessional behavior" on the part of any male counterparts she has had dealings with.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course, it must happen everywhere on the planet, every single solitary day, on and on and on..... but what's Keeley's aim? Is she calling out the unnamed Duke contact or calling out her own experience of being called out or calling out attention to her blog participation?

I'm sensing another 6 page lob and volley here.

I think she was just answering the question presented to her. Her blog is about Duke athletics, so when asked about her toughest moment it would inevitably involve Duke. Her most enjoyable moment coincidently also involved Duke. (a story she did on Jabari Parker last year.)

She also made fun of the IC crowd because her co-worker Andrew Carter (who covers UNC in an equivocal role) wore a red sweater to a Syracuse-UNC game and they had a 7 page thread about it being orange.

Tom B.
02-24-2015, 12:56 PM
She backed up a Adrian Wojnarowski assertion that Team USA basketball only benefits Coach K to the detriment of the players and the NBA at large.




It was right after Paul George suffered that gruesome broken leg while playing in a nationally-televised intrasquad scrimmage for the USA basketball team as part of their World Cup preparations. Among other things, Wojnarowski claimed that someone from USA Basketball had snapped a picture of K hugging George in the hospital afterwards, then circulated it just to make K look good. Jim Boeheim went off on Wojnarowski and confirmed that it was George's parents, not a USA Basketball employee, who took the picture and allowed it to be made public. That's why folks were so mad at Keeley -- she gave what appeared to be an uncritical endorsement of Wojnarowski's "perspective" without taking the time to figure out and understand just how off-base his criticisms were.

Still, if what she described in the SI interview is true, that was indeed unprofessional behavior by someone at Duke.

dudog84
02-24-2015, 01:34 PM
Still, if what she described in the SI interview is true, that was indeed unprofessional behavior by someone at Duke.

Wonder if it was Coach P. Just kidding! Just kidding!

uh_no
02-24-2015, 01:42 PM
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2015/02/23/panel-women-sports-journalism-30-and-under

Interesting part about her toughest moment...

Treating anyone this way, whether they are male or female is unprofessional. If the motive behind it was sexist, that's unprofessional. If the motive behind it was disdain for the person in the room, it's still unprofessional. And even if it WASN'T sexist, it still doesn't invalidate how she felt by being treated that way.

It irks me that someone represented the university that way, regardless of how slanderous the article, the intent, or the sex of the writer.

conmanlhughes
02-24-2015, 01:57 PM
She backed up a Adrian Wojnarowski assertion that Team USA basketball only benefits Coach K to the detriment of the players and the NBA at large.

I agree, some of the teeth-gnashing was about her opinion rather than her being a woman, but I can also envision how it would be more intimidating to be the only woman in the room, not to mention the youngest, when she and her bosses met with whatever Duke brass addressed the issue. On the bright side, if that's the toughest situation she's been in, it means she hasn't really had to deal with the nastiest stuff that people like Erin Andrews seems to run into a lot.

I think Keeley does a good job on the Duke beat and I enjoyed the interview. Dietsch does a good job keeping the pulse of issues like this in sports media.

Generally I support her writing, but that article was atrocious. Obviously I have a disagreement with her in terms of opinions, but I thought it was ment to grab attention and nothing more. She is a much better writer than that article, in my opinion.

I agree though, most of her articles are some of the best about Duke that I read.

(By the way, I love that K takes slack for coaching USA basketball for recruiting reasons, but look at Calipari for the national Dominican team. He essentially just coached them to lamd Karl Anthony-Towns!)

arnie
02-24-2015, 01:59 PM
Treating anyone this way, whether they are male or female is unprofessional. If the motive behind it was sexist, that's unprofessional. If the motive behind it was disdain for the person in the room, it's still unprofessional. And even if it WASN'T sexist, it still doesn't invalidate how she felt by being treated that way.

It irks me that someone represented the university that way, regardless of how slanderous the article, the intent, or the sex of the writer.

You are assuming the way she represents the encounter/meeting is accurate - and maybe it is, we just don't know. I'm not a big fan of her backhanded shots at K or the university and personally don't think she's that talented as a writer. But I will agree, even if she was unprofessional in the meeting, the Duke official should not have turned his back on her.

weezie
02-24-2015, 02:05 PM
I wonder if her bosses at that meeting had her back or if she even brought the issue up with them. No way of knowing if they apologized to her or even recognized the insult. Was she hung out to dry by them and by Duke?

Dukehky
02-24-2015, 02:34 PM
I don't like the Duke Chronicle.

Keeley gets good access as a local beat writer and writes some good stuff. It feels to me that she goes all contrarian every now and again primarily to show range as a writer because she doesn't want to work for the N O much longer.

She obviously has an okay relationship with Coach K. I have no idea who called her in for that little interview. I know that Kevin White would never behave that way, and doubt K would either, but who knows.

I doubt it was a sexist sentiment and can guarantee that if Adrian Woj were in there, he would not have received a handshake. It seems, since this is what keeley said was the "low point" or whatever, that Duke doesn't normally behave this way, so, one time thing, not really worth getting all worked up over.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-24-2015, 02:40 PM
I don't like the Duke Chronicle.

Keeley gets good access as a local beat writer and writes some good stuff. It feels to me that she goes all contrarian every now and again primarily to show range as a writer because she doesn't want to work for the N O much longer.

She obviously has an okay relationship with Coach K. I have no idea who called her in for that little interview. I know that Kevin White would never behave that way, and doubt K would either, but who knows.

I doubt it was a sexist sentiment and can guarantee that if Adrian Woj were in there, he would not have received a handshake. It seems, since this is what keeley said was the "low point" or whatever, that Duke doesn't normally behave this way, so, one time thing, not really worth getting all worked up over.

I would posit that Keeley is the one who gets to decide if it is something to get worked up over.

Reisen
02-24-2015, 02:47 PM
Huh.... Keeley writes something Duke objects to, they call her and two of her editors in for a meeting to air their grievance, and the atmosphere (as Keeley herself puts it) is "contentious"...

If I worked in an industry that was in dire straits, and had upset an important business partner to the point where they called me and two of my superiors in for a meeting, I'd probably look for an out, too.

Editor1, post-meeting: "You know Laura, for the near future, you really need to make sure you are buttoned up when it comes to fact-checking and one of the highest profile programs in the country."

Keeley: "Wait, this isn't my fault! You saw them refrain from shaking my hand at the end of the meeting! They're clearly sexist!"

Duvall
02-24-2015, 02:51 PM
I doubt it was a sexist sentiment...

Why? I'm assuming you weren't one of the five other people there, so how would you know?

Duvall
02-24-2015, 02:55 PM
Huh.... Keeley writes something Duke objects to, they call her and two of her editors in for a meeting to air their grievance, and the atmosphere (as Keeley herself puts it) is "contentious"...

If I worked in an industry that was in dire straits, and had upset an important business partner to the point where they called me and two of my superiors in for a meeting, I'd probably look for an out, too.

Important business partner?


Editor1, post-meeting: "You know Laura, for the near future, you really need to make sure you are buttoned up when it comes to fact-checking and one of the highest profile programs in the country."

Keeley: "Wait, this isn't my fault! You saw them refrain from shaking my hand at the end of the meeting! They're clearly sexist!"

What the hell are you talking about? Fact-checking?

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2015, 02:59 PM
She backed up a Adrian Wojnarowski assertion that Team USA basketball only benefits Coach K to the detriment of the players and the NBA at large.

I agree, some of the teeth-gnashing was about her opinion rather than her being a woman, but I can also envision how it would be more intimidating to be the only woman in the room, not to mention the youngest, when she and her bosses met with whatever Duke brass addressed the issue. On the bright side, if that's the toughest situation she's been in, it means she hasn't really had to deal with the nastiest stuff that people like Erin Andrews seems to run into a lot.

I think Keeley does a good job on the Duke beat and I enjoyed the interview. Dietsch does a good job keeping the pulse of issues like this in sports media.

I agree with most of what's said here. But I think the fault, without question, goes to that Duke representative. That is a petty, immature, and stupid move. There is nothing to gain in that lack of an introduction. Power to Laura Keeley for bringing this story up and shame on that Duke representative.

If the lack of handshake is because she's a woman, disgusting. If it's because of what she wrote, also disgusting. If it's because they think she's a hack, also disgusting.

Troublemaker
02-24-2015, 03:10 PM
Without being present at the meeting, I can't condemn either side. Too many unknowns.

Maybe the Duke employee was in the wrong, but maybe Keeley behaved very poorly in the meeting and didn't deserve a handshake.

Does anyone here shake every hand offered to him/her without exception? I've rejected a couple hands in the course of my lifetime and believe it was the right thing to do on each occasion. I believe when Johnny Dawkins didn't shake Matt Doherty's hand, Johnny was in the right.

We just need to know more. I don't condemn Laura, and I don't condemn this anonymous Duke employee. Not when I know basically nothing about what transpired.

flyingdutchdevil
02-24-2015, 03:16 PM
Without being present at the meeting, I can't condemn either side. Too many unknowns.

Maybe the Duke employee was in the wrong, but maybe Keeley behaved very poorly in the meeting and didn't deserve a handshake.

Does anyone here shake every hand offered to him/her without exception? I've rejected a couple hands in the course of my lifetime and believe it was the right thing to do on each occasion. I believe when Johnny Dawkins didn't shake Matt Doherty's hand, Johnny was in the right.

We just need to know more. I don't condemn Laura, and I don't condemn this anonymous Duke employee. Not when I know basically nothing about what transpired.

What would Laura Keeley need to do to not deserve a handshake? It's a handshake! If anything, it's a sign of respect for the situation, not always the individual (although most of the time these go together).

I, for the life of me, can't see any realistic situation where Ms. Keeley does not deserve a handshake.

conmanlhughes
02-24-2015, 03:18 PM
To be fair, sexism seems to be a bit of a reach in this case. I read into it being about her support of AW's article. As posted above, we can't judge since one side doesn't have a voice. There is a lot more factoring in here than blatant sexism.

Obviously it was an uncomfortable and inappropriate situation, but until something comes out about the representative (history of being sexist, etc.) then I feel we can't judge.

Double DD
02-24-2015, 03:27 PM
The tonal difference between some of the responses to the same question in the roundtable was interesting. Deitsch did a good job of finding some dissimilar personalities for this piece.

scottdude8
02-24-2015, 03:33 PM
I think there's something very important that is getting lost in this discussion: making the assumption that the story is true (which, knowing Laura for 3 years, I have every reason to believe is the case), there is ZERO justification for treating ANYONE in that rude and disrespectful of a manner in a professional setting. At the worst it was an intentional slight at Laura, and at best it was an accidental oversight that at least should've have merited an apology.

I also strongly resent the implication from many that writing articles that may criticize Duke or Coach K somehow justified this treatment from the unnamed Duke representative. The fact is, good journalists can and SHOULD take a critical eye to their stories and subjects at all times. Laura is not employed by the Duke athletic department: she's employed by a third party that is meant to be an unbiased watchdog.

Think about it this way: imagine a writer for a website that supports your political views wrote an article that criticized a politician that did not. How much of a firestorm would ensue if the politician called the writer and his/her superiors into his/her office and acted this way? How offended would you be? Note that this is true regardless of any gender issues.

It's difficult for anyone to see into the intent of someone else's action, and nearly impossible to do so based upon a one paragraph description of what was probably a complicated situation. So whether or not the incident in question was motivated by sexual bias (that's something that we could legitimately debate given more solid information, and not rampant speculation), I think that most of us should agree that, again assuming the story was relayed somewhat accurately, this Duke representative did not act in a polite, courteous and professional manner, something I expect every representative of a University I love would do.

Also, I think it's imperative that we all note that in the article Laura NEVER explicitly states that she herself thinks that sexual bias was at play, it was simply her "toughest moment in the business." She may or may not think that, but we should all stop trying to put words into other people's mouths.

You can still love Duke and be a diehard fan while recognizing the institution's faults and working to improve them.

AIRFORCEDUKIE
02-24-2015, 03:34 PM
As a writer I would just like to say that I am very sexist when it comes to women. Wait no that's not right, ok really I am just hijacking this thread to test out my new signature. Also writer is a very loose term for what I am doing.

But to the subject always enjoyed her stuff what little of it I've read.

jacone21
02-24-2015, 03:39 PM
What would Laura Keeley need to do to not deserve a handshake? It's a handshake! If anything, it's a sign of respect for the situation, not always the individual (although most of the time these go together).

I, for the life of me, can't see any realistic situation where Ms. Keeley does not deserve a handshake.

What if she had just sneezed into her hand? Maybe an elbow tap would be more appropriate in that case. Since this whole thread is speculation, the hand sneeze explanation is just as reasonable as any other.

Troublemaker
02-24-2015, 03:50 PM
What would Laura Keeley need to do to not deserve a handshake? It's a handshake! If anything, it's a sign of respect for the situation, not always the individual (although most of the time these go together).

I, for the life of me, can't see any realistic situation where Ms. Keeley does not deserve a handshake.

I have decent experience with attending meetings whose purpose is to criticize someone's work, and I can tell you that the person being criticized can react extremely poorly. Is that what happened here? Maybe.

Again, having not been in the room, and having not heard the Duke employee's version of events, or frankly, even Laura's version in any great detail -- I don't see any reason to take sides.

weezie
02-24-2015, 04:04 PM
Ok, all good points. Perhaps I reacted in a similar manner to the way others here do when they feel Jay Bilas should always toe the Duke line in his game commentary.

Keeley could have made her point without naming the Duke athletic (or sports info, I don't know) department specifically but then, it wouldn't have been as much of an attention grabbing comment and the whole incident might not have had the same zing to it. After getting called on the carpet, she did continue to have access to sports stories, the Oak interview being some evidence of that.

I hope it's the worst thing she ever has to face.

peterjswift
02-24-2015, 04:04 PM
I have decent experience with attending meetings whose purpose is to criticize someone's work, and I can tell you that the person being criticized can react extremely poorly. Is that what happened here? Maybe.

Again, having not been in the room, and having not heard the Duke employee's version of events, or frankly, even Laura's version in any great detail -- I don't see any reason to take sides.


I have been on both sides of a meeting like this. I've been parts of meetings like this where both sides leave angrier than they started. Sometimes so angry there are no handshakes afterwards (though, many meetings just end without handshakes - that's not necessarily weird or unprofessional).

But I've never been part of a meeting where only one person doesn't get a handshake, and if I was ever part of a meeting where that happened, it would be obvious and an intentional slight against that person - or it would be an egregious oversight that would be apologized for as soon as it was recognized.

If Keeley is recognizing this correctly, as a slight against her specifically (whether it is resulting from something she did/wrote/said or because of her gender), I think she is justified in believing it to be unprofessional. To shake everyone else's hands but her, is definitely sending a message, and whoever responsible should have recognized the possibility it could be interpreted as gender bias in that situation. If this wasn't an intentional slight, it would still be a pretty egregious oversight.

Folks do things in the heat of the moment all the time. That's what apologies are for, and if Laura's story is accurate, I hope she either got one or will get one in the future.

My real question is: Did she get an apology? If she did, I would say it is also a fairly big oversight to leave that out...

FerryFor50
02-24-2015, 04:19 PM
I think there's something very important that is getting lost in this discussion: making the assumption that the story is true (which, knowing Laura for 3 years, I have every reason to believe is the case), there is ZERO justification for treating ANYONE in that rude and disrespectful of a manner in a professional setting. At the worst it was an intentional slight at Laura, and at best it was an accidental oversight that at least should've have merited an apology.

I also strongly resent the implication from many that writing articles that may criticize Duke or Coach K somehow justified this treatment from the unnamed Duke representative. The fact is, good journalists can and SHOULD take a critical eye to their stories and subjects at all times. Laura is not employed by the Duke athletic department: she's employed by a third party that is meant to be an unbiased watchdog.

Think about it this way: imagine a writer for a website that supports your political views wrote an article that criticized a politician that did not. How much of a firestorm would ensue if the politician called the writer and his/her superiors into his/her office and acted this way? How offended would you be? Note that this is true regardless of any gender issues.

It's difficult for anyone to see into the intent of someone else's action, and nearly impossible to do so based upon a one paragraph description of what was probably a complicated situation. So whether or not the incident in question was motivated by sexual bias (that's something that we could legitimately debate given more solid information, and not rampant speculation), I think that most of us should agree that, again assuming the story was relayed somewhat accurately, this Duke representative did not act in a polite, courteous and professional manner, something I expect every representative of a University I love would do.

Also, I think it's imperative that we all note that in the article Laura NEVER explicitly states that she herself thinks that sexual bias was at play, it was simply her "toughest moment in the business." She may or may not think that, but we should all stop trying to put words into other people's mouths.

You can still love Duke and be a diehard fan while recognizing the institution's faults and working to improve them.

If the meeting was about the Adrian Wojnarowski article, then I wouldn't call blindly backing him "journalism" nor would I call it a valid criticism of K or Duke as a program. It was lazy at best.

If so, she did deserve to get a bit of a tongue lashing about it and a stern warning that she should be more thorough in her reporting if she wants to maintain access to the program. However, she didn't deserve to get denied a handshake.

As for sexual bias, I think the fact that the article was about women in sports journalism and many of the questions were geared towards their experiences in journalism compared to their male peers is enough to draw at least a correlation, especially given the fact that she felt the need to distinguish the fact that everyone in the room was male except for her.

sagegrouse
02-24-2015, 04:30 PM
If the meeting was about the Adrian Wojnarowski article, then I wouldn't call blindly backing him "journalism" nor would I call it a valid criticism of K or Duke as a program. It was lazy at best.

If so, she did deserve to get a bit of a tongue lashing about it and a stern warning that she should be more thorough in her reporting if she wants to maintain access to the program. However, she didn't deserve to get denied a handshake.

As for sexual bias, I think the fact that the article was about women in sports journalism and many of the questions were geared towards their experiences in journalism compared to their male peers is enough to draw at least a correlation, especially given the fact that she felt the need to distinguish the fact that everyone in the room was male except for her.

Reporters turn out a ton of stuff. These days, it's not just articles but daily blogs that are less formal and more conversational.

Fan sites and a lot of fans will never forget a post or article they found biased or factually incorrect, even if it is buried by 200 subsequent articles that are apparently unflawed. Such is the tortured life we lead.

FerryFor50
02-24-2015, 04:34 PM
Reporters turn out a ton of stuff. These days, it's not just articles but daily blogs that are less formal and more conversational.

Fan sites and a lot of fans will never forget a post or article they found biased or factually incorrect, even if it is buried by 200 subsequent articles that are apparently unflawed. Such is the tortured life we lead.

Yea, I agree. But the AW article was pretty controversial. I'd have steered *far* away from it and vetted it first rather than just agreeing with it.

There's a level of responsibility for public figures that seems to get ignored in the information age. Too easy to tweet or blog whatever is on top of your mind.

Wander
02-24-2015, 04:44 PM
The AW article sucked. Laura's write up of it sucked. I find her generally great, but that particular one sucked.

The idea that someone in the Duke athletic department felt it warranted a contentious sit down meeting with her two bosses (if that's what happened) is pathetic.

MCFinARL
02-24-2015, 05:00 PM
Also, I think it's imperative that we all note that in the article Laura NEVER explicitly states that she herself thinks that sexual bias was at play, it was simply her "toughest moment in the business." She may or may not think that, but we should all stop trying to put words into other people's mouths.



Thank you for this. In our zealous Duke love we DBR folks sometimes get worked up about things that have been misunderstood by being taken out of context--and in any media interview, the question that is being answered is a really important part of the context. There is a clear strain in this thread of indignation because Laura Keeley accused Duke athletics officials of sexism--but there is zero evidence that she did that. Instead, she described a situation as she saw it, one factor in which was that she was the only woman in the room, which may have made her feel the slight more keenly.

Billy Dat
02-24-2015, 05:25 PM
I thought Laura Keeley said mostly positive things about sexism and her job as a journalist. In fact, I felt pretty good that the majority of the comments by the journalists were that things seem to better than they ever have been in terms of them feeling there were glass ceilings, that they were the targets of sexist comments and actions, etc.

As for her meeting at Duke, are we sure it was about the Woj article?

At the time, I remember that the Woj article came out and she retweeted the link saying something like, "Woj is probably the most respected NBA journalist out there so it's hard to ignore this piece". I don't think she even wrote a piece about it, she did write one when K had his "reaction to the piece" news conference.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/18/5183882/coach-k-responds-to-critical-yahoo.html#.VOz4GPnF-So

I think we all agree that the Woj piece was a piece of [insert word].

As to the behavior in the meeting in question, adults in the room are free to act the way they want to act and react the way they want to react. Keeley thought it was childish behavior. If she decided to put that story out in the national press via this SI roundtable so many months later, it must have really mad her mad and she'll have to live with the consequences. But, she's got a powerful voice about Duke sports so she's got the ability to blast Duke if she feels the need to.

luburch
02-24-2015, 05:49 PM
Huh.... Keeley writes something Duke objects to, they call her and two of her editors in for a meeting to air their grievance, and the atmosphere (as Keeley herself puts it) is "contentious"...

If I worked in an industry that was in dire straits, and had upset an important business partner to the point where they called me and two of my superiors in for a meeting, I'd probably look for an out, too.

Editor1, post-meeting: "You know Laura, for the near future, you really need to make sure you are buttoned up when it comes to fact-checking and one of the highest profile programs in the country."

Keeley: "Wait, this isn't my fault! You saw them refrain from shaking my hand at the end of the meeting! They're clearly sexist!"

Seriously? Were you in the meeting? Didn't think so. Quit jumping to conclusions.

conmanlhughes
02-24-2015, 06:17 PM
Seriously? Were you in the meeting? Didn't think so. Quit jumping to conclusions.

I believe Keeley is the one jumping to conclusions in this case. Rude if true? Definitely. There is no proof of sexism, just rudeness. Heck, we don't even really know what happened since we haven't heard the other side.

If someone didn't shake your hand while he did your colleagues, would you automatically jump to the fact its because of your race, gender, etc.? People in this world can just be rude, no matter their intellect, accomplishments, or what university they work for. What interests me is how the situation automatically jumped to sexism, besides being the only women in the room.

freshmanjs
02-24-2015, 06:24 PM
I believe Keeley is the one jumping to conclusions in this case. Rude if true? Definitely. There is no proof of sexism, just rudeness. Heck, we don't even really know what happened since we haven't heard the other side.

If someone didn't shake your hand while he did your colleagues, would you automatically jump to the fact its because of your race, gender, etc.? People in this world can just be rude, no matter their intellect, accomplishments, or what university they work for. What interests me is how the situation automatically jumped to sexism, besides being the only women in the room.

umm...did you read the article? she doesn't mention sexism. she does allude to it by calling out that the other 2 are men, but she does not claim it was sexism. just unprofessional.

Dukehky
02-24-2015, 07:00 PM
I would posit that Keeley is the one who gets to decide if it is something to get worked up over.

I meant that I am not going to get super worked up over the incident and declare that these individuals or the Duke hierarchy are inherently chauvinistic, based on this being the most uncomfortable that Laura Keeley has been. If that were the case and this was habitual in nature, I would be more concerned and also am sure that it would have been revealed.

conmanlhughes
02-24-2015, 08:01 PM
umm...did you read the article? she doesn't mention sexism. she does allude to it by calling out that the other 2 are men, but she does not claim it was sexism. just unprofessional.

Woops, starting blending peoples comments I was reading with the article. Its that sorta day. ;) i guess looking back at it, it was a joint response to previous things being said and her article. Basically I was saying in general it was jumping to conclusions to immediately call it sexism.

-jk
02-24-2015, 08:36 PM
I'd love to have Laura toss her (few) cents in...

Gotta be hard...

-jk

Reisen
02-24-2015, 08:55 PM
Important business partner?

Sure. Both the N&O and Duke benefit from the relationship. Duke provides Keeley access, and gets coverage that leads to a growing fan base as a result. Situations where college programs / coaches, including Duke / K, have reduced or cut off access to journalists have been highly publicized in the past. This partnership is likely very important to the N&O, given that they are competing with national writers for stories / insider insight into K / Duke.


What the hell are you talking about? Fact-checking?


It was right after Paul George suffered that gruesome broken leg while playing in a nationally-televised intrasquad scrimmage for the USA basketball team as part of their World Cup preparations. Among other things, Wojnarowski claimed that someone from USA Basketball had snapped a picture of K hugging George in the hospital afterwards, then circulated it just to make K look good. Jim Boeheim went off on Wojnarowski and confirmed that it was George's parents, not a USA Basketball employee, who took the picture and allowed it to be made public. That's why folks were so mad at Keeley -- she gave what appeared to be an uncritical endorsement of Wojnarowski's "perspective" without taking the time to figure out and understand just how off-base his criticisms were.

Still, if what she described in the SI interview is true, that was indeed unprofessional behavior by someone at Duke.

Reisen
02-24-2015, 09:01 PM
Seriously? Were you in the meeting? Didn't think so. Quit jumping to conclusions.

Speculation??? On an internet message board??? Say it isn't so!

Newton_14
02-24-2015, 09:03 PM
I'd love to have Laura toss her (few) cents in...

Gotta be hard...

-jk

Yeah agree. I read the whole article which gives you a much better context. She isn't blindly screaming sexism, she simply shared her toughest moment in the business in response to several roundtable questions for her and the others participating. I have no reason to believe the meeting didn't go down exactly as she shared. If so, then the person was extremely rude and unprofessional. I have to deal with tough people in meetings everyday and I have never not shaken everyone's hand no matter how upset I was. You just don't do that for any reason. The guy should have shaken every hand in the room or none at all. Just how I see this one.

She made a mistake backing the USA Team article, but overall I think she does a good job. I think she will learn from her experiences and mistakes as she grows older and get better and better. I will say she was one of the handful of local writers (along with Al and Jim) to recognize the resurgence of the Football team before it showed up in the Win/Loss Column.

Reisen
02-24-2015, 09:40 PM
Yeah agree. I read the whole article which gives you a much better context. She isn't blindly screaming sexism, she simply shared her toughest moment in the business in response to several roundtable questions for her and the others participating. I have no reason to believe the meeting didn't go down exactly as she shared. If so, then the person was extremely rude and unprofessional. I have to deal with tough people in meetings everyday and I have never not shaken everyone's hand no matter how upset I was. You just don't do that for any reason. The guy should have shaken every hand in the room or none at all. Just how I see this one.

She made a mistake backing the USA Team article, but overall I think she does a good job. I think she will learn from her experiences and mistakes as she grows older and get better and better. I will say she was one of the handful of local writers (along with Al and Jim) to recognize the resurgence of the Football team before it showed up in the Win/Loss Column.

I have no problem with Keeley, and like her work. But let's not pretend for a second there isn't the strongest possible implication of sexism in Keeley's story. As other posters have mentioned, many of the questions were obviously designed to stir up stories of unfair treatment based on the panelists being women. Specifically:

- Which roles in the sports media still feel largely closed to young women trying to make their way up the ladder?
- How are you treated by your male colleagues in the sports media?
- What's the breakdown of Twitter responses/mentions you get talking about your work versus your appearance/how you sound?
- How much pressure do you feel about your appearance on a daily basis and why?
- Do you believe your salary and compensation is equal to a man with your similar age and experience, and why?
- For those in TV or who do video as part of their job, how much of a double standard do you see in the way potential employers value your male colleagues' looks versus yours?

Here's the thing: I think it's a great article. I have no doubt women in sports journalism put up with a metric ton of crap that they shouldn't have to deal with. I'm 1000% for highlighting it, and getting rid of it.

Keeley's story was obviously implying blatant sexism. Why else would she parenthetically mention not once, but twice that everyone else was a dude? Here, try this experiment:

"I was driving down I-40 one day in my Duke Blue Tahoe with my #1WOJOFAN license plate, when a cop pulled me and two other vehicles over (both vehicles had UNC stickers on the back). The cop proceeded to give the other two vehicles verbal warnings, then send them on their way (with a "Go Heels" for good measure). He then wrote me a ticket. It was the most unprofessional thing I've seen in my life."

What's the point of my story there? What if the story is part of a panel discussion on being a Duke fan living in the triangle area? If it's anything other than to claim persecution, why add the parentheticals?

Keeley may well be right, just as that cop might have used the opportunity to stick it to a Duke fan. However, she's hardly an unbiased witness, and nothing she's described goes as far as even a questionably sexist remark. Similarly, the cop might not have even noticed my license plate, and instead was reacting to my aggressive demeanor. Or the 3 written warnings in the past month on my driving record.

Justified or not, there are a lot of other things besides her gender that could have led to those Duke reps choosing not to shake hands with her.

uh_no
02-24-2015, 10:16 PM
"I was driving down I-40 one day in my Duke Blue Tahoe with my #1WOJOFAN license plate, when a cop pulled me and two other vehicles over (both vehicles had UNC stickers on the back). As he got out, I realized it was a cop whose car I had egged last week. The cop proceeded to give the other two vehicles verbal warnings, then send them on their way (with a "Go Heels" for good measure). He then wrote me a ticket. It was the most unprofessional thing I've seen in my life."


Now it's a good analogy.

dyedwab
02-24-2015, 10:25 PM
Sure. Both the N&O and Duke benefit from the relationship. Duke provides Keeley access, and gets coverage that leads to a growing fan base as a result. Situations where college programs / coaches, including Duke / K, have reduced or cut off access to journalists have been highly publicized in the past. This partnership is likely very important to the N&O, given that they are competing with national writers for stories / insider insight into K / Duke.

The level at which this idea is antithetical to the very idea of journalism is....startling. And the idea that Duke is right to complain and get its way if it doesn't like one of her stories? Absurd.

Reisen
02-24-2015, 10:37 PM
The level at which this idea is antithetical to the very idea of journalism is....startling. And the idea that Duke is right to complain and get its way if it doesn't like one of her stories? Absurd.

First, we're talking about sports journalism here. Absent a scandal (which I'm not aware of at the moment), the big scoop is recruiting, when K is retiring, how players are developing, etc. Keeley is hardly an Ida Tarbell or Upton Sinclair.

Also, there's a difference between not liking a story and feeling it contains inaccurate information.

uh_no
02-24-2015, 11:03 PM
The level at which this idea is antithetical to the very idea of journalism is....startling. And the idea that Duke is right to complain and get its way if it doesn't like one of her stories? Absurd.

Was Duke right to threaten a lawsuit against ESPN after the slanderous "you're ruining my program" story?

Duke gives reporters a great deal of privilege by granting them credentials to games, and in turn they expect accurate reporting and the benefit of the doubt. They got neither in this case. It's similar to agreeing to be interviewed. If Reporter R did an interview with Person P, and then R did an article which ripped P to shreds, do you think P would do an interview with R again? Of course not! Access to a program is the same way.

Newton_14
02-24-2015, 11:11 PM
Was Duke right to threaten a lawsuit against ESPN after the slanderous "you're ruining my program" story?

Duke gives reporters a great deal of privilege by granting them credentials to games, and in turn they expect accurate reporting and the benefit of the doubt. They got neither in this case. It's similar to agreeing to be interviewed. If Reporter R did an interview with Person P, and then R did an article which ripped P to shreds, do you think P would do an interview with R again? Of course not! Access to a program is the same way.

We're still assuming the meeting had something to do with that Wojo article on the USA team though, no? We don't know why the meeting was called at this point. Absent that info, I just think it fair not to assume.

I do agree with what you wrote above concerning accuracy, and credentials. It is fair to demand accurate stories from any reporter and fair to pull their game credentials (looking at you Shane) if they don't. That said, I agree with the OP that you can't hammer a reporter just because they write something unflattering. Non Duke example: It would be more than fair for a reporter to write an article criticizing Roy Williams for being critical of the fans or for not using Timeouts effectively. I would see both as fair game and UNC would be wrong to get into a huff if an article on either item were penned.

My two cents..

jv001
02-25-2015, 08:23 AM
We're still assuming the meeting had something to do with that Wojo article on the USA team though, no? We don't know why the meeting was called at this point. Absent that info, I just think it fair not to assume.

I do agree with what you wrote above concerning accuracy, and credentials. It is fair to demand accurate stories from any reporter and fair to pull their game credentials (looking at you Shane) if they don't. That said, I agree with the OP that you can't hammer a reporter just because they write something unflattering. Non Duke example: It would be more than fair for a reporter to write an article criticizing Roy Williams for being critical of the fans or for not using Timeouts effectively. I would see both as fair game and UNC would be wrong to get into a huff if an article on either item were penned.

My two cents..

Your two cents usually, make sense. We don't know what the meeting was referencing. Was it the Wojo article or entirely something else? Until that question is answered, we're beating a dead horse. GoDuke!

sagegrouse
02-25-2015, 09:08 AM
We're still assuming the meeting had something to do with that Wojo article on the USA team though, no? We don't know why the meeting was called at this point. Absent that info, I just think it fair not to assume.

I do agree with what you wrote above concerning accuracy, and credentials. It is fair to demand accurate stories from any reporter and fair to pull their game credentials (looking at you Shane) if they don't. That said, I agree with the OP that you can't hammer a reporter just because they write something unflattering. Non Duke example: It would be more than fair for a reporter to write an article criticizing Roy Williams for being critical of the fans or for not using Timeouts effectively. I would see both as fair game and UNC would be wrong to get into a huff if an article on either item were penned.

My two cents..


Your two cents usually, make sense. We don't know what the meeting was referencing. Was it the Wojo article or entirely something else? Until that question is answered, we're beating a dead horse. GoDuke!

Part I -- Subject of Meeting. Uh, Newton, we don't know what the meeting was about and who attended it, but it doesn't seem to be K's style. The coach of the U.S. National Team and owner of the most wins of any college coach is miles and miles above concerns with the reportage of the N&O. Piffle. He would never deign to attend such a meeting (nor should he), although perhaps he would have sent Capel. Or, maybe, just maybe, the Duke football program is unhappy about coverage, believing that the "best team in the Triangle" should get accurate reporting and the same breadth of coverage as State and Carolina.

Part II -- Rudeness and Insult. It is impolite not to shake hands, even after a tough meeting, but much worse to shake hands with only two of three persons coming to Duke to attend a meeting with Duke athletic officials. But, if the person treated rudely is "different" from the other two, everyone in the meeting is gonna associate the behavior with the difference -- perhaps not feeling it was intentional, but believing that the appearance created was just dreadful.

peterjswift
02-25-2015, 09:47 AM
Part II -- Rudeness and Insult. It is impolite not to shake hands, even after a tough meeting, but much worse to shake hands with only two of three persons coming to Duke to attend a meeting with Duke athletic officials. But, if the person treated rudely is "different" from the other two, everyone in the meeting is gonna associate the behavior with the difference -- perhaps not feeling it was intentional, but believing that the appearance created was just dreadful.

I completely agree. Even if the slight was unintentional or accidental, it is a serious oversight that creates a really terrible appearance, and it warrants, in my opinion, an apology.

I read the whole article, and I thought all of the responses were really interesting - and it sounds like overall Laura's experience suggest that she works with some great people that treat her well, and that she engages in the challenges facing women in the field with great diplomacy and professionalism. I echo what someone else stated earlier upthread - I'm glad this is her toughest business experience, and I hope her response to this question doesn't change in the future. I almost always enjoy her writing and analysis, and her participation in this round-table is on-par with the rest of her articles. If she's reading this thread....keep up the good work!

Mike Corey
02-25-2015, 09:59 AM
I have spoken with the person Laura Keeley's accused of not shaking her hand.

Last year, Duke was nonplussed due to what it saw as lazy reporting for what amounted to an unfair story--yes, the USA basketball piece--and it wanted to discuss its objections with Laura and her editors. Specifically, there was displeasure that the newspaper had not spoken with Coach K before publishing the piece, or anyone in the NBA or USA hoops. The newspaper stood its ground in that they had attempted contacting Coach K prior to publication; he was returning from Spain at the time.

I have never met Laura--our time at the Chronicle did not overlap--and I know nothing of her other than that which she tweets and publishes with her paper. I won't offer an opinion on the specific situation or allegations accordingly, or what I think was handled well or not well on that day--or since.

But I will offer this, since I was not in the room: The person she's discussed with Sports Illustrated is someone I've known, respected, worked with and worked for since 2002. I hold him in a very high regard. And while at The Chronicle, and since, I have seen him work with journalists of all ages, persuasions, and outlets. When he's felt it was his job to go to bat for the program, he has done so firmly and fairly, and when he's felt it was his job to have tough conversations with journalists for unfair (or other) reporting, he's done so. The latter is not a common occurrence, but it's happened, and the reporter's gender has never been of consequence. He's been an equal opportunity stickler in my experience, both with me personally and with others I know. He's also been an equal opportunity person to bring praise when warranted. I mention all of this to offer that whatever happened in the room on the day in question, I would have a difficult time believing the reporter's gender had anything to do with his actions.

I'll cite a specific example: When I served as sports editor of The Chronicle, a male sportswriter compared Luol Deng's arms to those of an orangutan. After the article's publication, I had several tough conversations with the person in question from Duke. The situation was surely different, but the point I'm trying to get across is that this is not an individual that I'd have ever accused of being likely to target someone for criticism or mistreatment due to her gender.

I hope all of this can be cleared up soon, for the reporter's sake, the paper's sake, and for Duke's. I might suggest that another private conversation would be a good place to start.

DarkstarWahoo
02-25-2015, 10:02 AM
First, we're talking about sports journalism here. Absent a scandal (which I'm not aware of at the moment), the big scoop is recruiting, when K is retiring, how players are developing, etc. Keeley is hardly an Ida Tarbell or Upton Sinclair.


You're right, but sports isn't the only aspect of Duke that falls under the N&O's coverage umbrella. If - and all of this is a complete hypothetical - the university tried to stonewall Keeley on a hoops article, it's not that much of a stretch to picture them doing the same thing on a non-sports issue. The press's role doesn't go away just because it's sports.

Full disclosure: I used to be a full-time sportswriter and editor and still freelance. I know you didn't mean any insult, and I'm not taking it that way, but your post echoes the "toy department" comments I'm used to hearing. I'm sure Laura Keeley takes her job as seriously as any investigative journalist.

Billy Dat
02-25-2015, 10:12 AM
I have spoken with the person Laura Keeley's accused of not shaking her hand.

Great intel, thanks for sharing.

Wander
02-25-2015, 10:14 AM
Last year, Duke was nonplussed due to what it saw as lazy reporting for what amounted to an unfair story--yes, the USA basketball piece--and it wanted to discuss its objections with Laura and her editors. Specifically, there was displeasure that the newspaper had not spoken with Coach K before publishing the piece, or anyone in the NBA or USA hoops. The newspaper stood its ground in that they had attempted contacting Coach K prior to publication; he was returning from Spain at the time.

Well, I'm disappointed in Duke then. Laura's article sucked but was little more than a link to AW's article - it's the exact type of thing to just ignore unless it becomes really commonplace and popular on the part of the writer. Coach K responded to the original article in a good way with that one press conference. I don't know why Duke felt this weird secret meeting would be productive.

Thanks for the info.

Reisen
02-25-2015, 10:34 AM
I have spoken with the person Laura Keeley's accused of not shaking her hand.

Thanks for the info, Mike.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, I'm not in the slightest making fun of or belittling feminism. As I previously mentioned, women in sports (whether players, coaches, or journalists) deal with a ton of sexist behavior, from the skimpy outfits they are given to wear ("But it helps our ratings!") to being judged on their looks rather than their skill, to being forced out prematurely as they age (Pam Oliver anyone?), to outright sexual harassment (Suzy Kolber).

But I think Keeley's in the wrong here. As I wrote earlier, she just strongly insinuated sexist behavior by multiple Duke SID officials in a national article. Sure, she didn't name them, but you can bet anyone affiliated with the university, from Coach K, to Kevin White, to the Provost, to their friends and family, knows who they are.

Just as we stick up for Coach K when he is unfairly disparaged by a journalist, I think it's fair to do so for the athletic staff that work hard to support the program we love. There are a million reasons to explain what happened, from the benign (Duke guys running late to another meeting), to the not so benign (Keeley trying to deflect heat from her boss). Yes, sexism is one of them, but absent any kind of remarks from the staff (even a veiled one) before or after the meeting, I think it's really unfair to insinuate that as a motive.

If I'm the Duke official Mike Corey is referring to, I don't appreciate having this story made public and my integrity questioned.

Des Esseintes
02-25-2015, 10:38 AM
Part I -- Subject of Meeting. Uh, Newton, we don't know what the meeting was about and who attended it, but it doesn't seem to be K's style. The coach of the U.S. National Team and owner of the most wins of any college coach is miles and miles above concerns with the reportage of the N&O. Piffle. He would never deign to attend such a meeting (nor should he), although perhaps he would have sent Capel. Or, maybe, just maybe, the Duke football program is unhappy about coverage, believing that the "best team in the Triangle" should get accurate reporting and the same breadth of coverage as State and Carolina.
I agree with you that K is unlikely to have ordered this meeting. However, to say K has *never* done such a thing is slightly misleading. He had a celebrated encounter with the Chronicle staff back in the early Nineties, and the general feeling within even the Duke community is that his behavior toward those student journalists was not his finest hour. Which is A-OK, actually. Everyone is human, none of us gets to have finest hours all the time, and K has shown tremendous savvy and restraint on matters of this kind the vast, vast majority of the time. He was also surely at a different point in his career and life back then. I mention it, not to suggest K was involved, but to remind everyone that sometimes people do inexplicable things, things we would not at all have ascribed to their characters. People are surprising, sometimes.

Des Esseintes
02-25-2015, 10:44 AM
Thanks for the info, Mike.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, I'm not in the slightest making fun of or belittling feminism. As I previously mentioned, women in sports (whether players, coaches, or journalists) deal with a ton of sexist behavior, from the skimpy outfits they are given to wear ("But it helps our ratings!") to being judged on their looks rather than their skill, to being forced out prematurely as they age (Pam Oliver anyone?), to outright sexual harassment (Suzy Kolber).

But I think Keeley's in the wrong here. As I wrote earlier, she just strongly insinuated sexist behavior by multiple Duke SID officials in a national article. Sure, she didn't name them, but you can bet anyone affiliated with the university, from Coach K, to Kevin White, to the Provost, to their friends and family, knows who they are.

Just as we stick up for Coach K when he is unfairly disparaged by a journalist, I think it's fair to do so for the athletic staff that work hard to support the program we love. There are a million reasons to explain what happened, from the benign (Duke guys running late to another meeting), to the not so benign (Keeley trying to deflect heat from her boss). Yes, sexism is one of them, but absent any kind of remarks from the staff (even a veiled one) before or after the meeting, I think it's really unfair to insinuate that as a motive.

If I'm the Duke official Mike Corey is referring to, I don't appreciate having this story made public and my integrity questioned.
Totally. The only way sexism is ever expressed is through "remarks." If there aren't "remarks," then no sexism happened, and the woman is obviously lying. Moreover, so sacrosanct are random Duke employees that even if one is criticized obliquely and namelessly, his besmirched honor calls out for vengeance.

Owen Meany
02-25-2015, 11:10 AM
Although we don't know why Duke officials were upset with Keeley, I would be surprised if it wasn't because of her rehash of the Woj article. The Woj article was a hack job. Woj willfully ignored Coach K's 35 years of USA/International basketball service so he could claim he was simply using USA basketball for his own ends. He even went so far as to state, as fact, that Coach K used Paul George's terrible injury for a photo-op. Since this proved to be untrue, Woj obviously made this up out of whole cloth. The entire article seemed to be a hit piece on Coach K on behalf of John Calipari and certain NBA owners who were angry they weren't profiting from USA basketball. He even states "It (USA basketball) has outlived its usefulness for the NBA". Since when has USA basketball supposed to have been about the NBA? Woj's article was mean, vindictive, intentionally misleading, and (with the photo op bit) verifiably false. His intent to inflame was clear with the language he used:

"There is a USA Basketball storefront selling patriotism and duty with a backroom reality that peddles the Blue Devils and Nike swooshes."

“People call Calipari the greatest self-promoting coach of his time, but Krzyzewski doesn't get nearly the credit due him."


In the end, the article was so biased that it seemed to backfire on Woj, rather than have the intended effect of placing Coach K on the defensive. Even rivals seemed to dismiss it. A Kentucky newspaper, of all places, ran a large picture of Calipari's head (crying) on a baby's body. Calipari moved quickly to distance himself from the article.

So what does Keeley, the Duke beat writer, chose to do? She writes her own column regurgitating much of Woj's article. Is it common place to write articles on other writer's articles, lifting entire paragraph's the way she did? If you have not read her article it is here

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/15/4153773_duke-now-yahoo-column-criticizes.html?sp=/99/103/119/269/&rh=1

She praises Woj effusively - "might be the best sports reporter, period" "an outright savant" "such an esteemed and well-connected reporter"

She vouches for him - "this is no hack job"

She then urges readers to read Woj's article - "First, read the column in its entirety. No, really, read it. Below are some excerpts, but this isn’t intended to be a replacement for reading the original."

She then regurgitates much of his screed, quoting entire paragraphs (including the 2 inflammatory sentences above).

Keeley chose to promote the article to an extent I don't recall seeing other writers do in other situations. It seemed more like a message board post than a sports reporters column. Add in the fact that the article was a clear attack on Duke's coach and the article is even more perplexing. This was her choice (a poor one in my opinion). But she needs to own it. She surely should not be surprised if she got called out on it.

I disagree with those who think Duke shouldn't voice their displeasure at the article. It was a weird choice. She chose to promote a hack job. Does Duke have to sit back and not respond. Should Coach K have ripped into her at his next news conference? Should they have cut off access to her? I'm sure none of these options would have went over well. But just because Keeley is a reporter doesn't mean she has free reign to print whatever she wants.

As far as the handshake goes - we don't know the specifics. It was after a contentious meeting. What was said during the meeting? Did the person in question feel it would be hypocritical to shake hands (like Johnny Dawkins did to Doherty), given his displeasure at Keeley. Had he shaken her hand before the meeting? Were one of the other 5 people in the room interacting with him or Keeley at the time? Was he on a far side of a table, etc. Who knows? Maybe he was angry and left. Or maybe it didn't happen exactly as Keeley described. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe it had anything to do with Keeley being a female and every reason to believe it was due to whatever had them so upset they requested a meeting in the first place. And yes, Keeley clearly implies that sexism was involved when describing this anecdote.

If the person didn't shake hands after a contentious meeting it really isn't that big of a deal. I wouldn't have made that choice. But if I was in Keeley's shoes I also wouldn't have made the choice to comment on it in the SI article. And I definitely would not have implied a sexist motive.

Perhaps not shaking hands was rude. But if that is the most unprofessional thing Keeley has ever seen I urge her to look back at her uncritical, unquestioning praise of Woj's hack job. And this didn't take place in a private meeting room, but was sent on on the internet for thousands of people to read.

flyingdutchdevil
02-25-2015, 11:19 AM
...is how people are criticizing Laura Keeley over her take on getting mistreated. I'm assuming that 90% of the posters in this thread are male (myself included). And some are questioning how Laura Keeley should / should not feel.

My question is 1) should we be putting in our input to whether or not Laura Keeley experienced sexism or 2) take her word for it? Because if it's 1), I think Laura Keeley is proving her point for us. I assume that all of the men on this forum haven't experienced the level of sexism that Laura Keeley has (we may have experienced different forms of prejudice, but not sexism).

Reisen
02-25-2015, 11:20 AM
Totally. The only way sexism is ever expressed is through "remarks." If there aren't "remarks," then no sexism happened, and the woman is obviously lying. Moreover, so sacrosanct are random Duke employees that even if one is criticized obliquely and namelessly, his besmirched honor calls out for vengeance.

Ok, have it your way. We should all go through life assuming that any perceived slight is due not to a misunderstanding or logical reason, but due to our height/accent/weight/appearance/nationality/sex/sexual orientation/skin color. To hell with assuming good intentions until proven otherwise, reflection on how our own actions might have contributed to a misunderstanding, or that our fellow humans are rational people who might just have a logical, or at least non-discriminatory motive for their actions.

Let's see how far that gets us. Further, while we're tilting at windmills, let's highlight these stories in the national media and see how quickly we can obscure and drown out clear cases of discrimination with the noise from a million examples of highly ambiguous situations where we always assume someone is out to get us. If good people get wrongly accused, that's ok as long as we thinly veil our accusations and give enough detail to make it obvious who we are accusing but refrain from outright naming them directly.

Reisen
02-25-2015, 11:38 AM
My question is 1) should we be putting in our input to whether or not Laura Keeley experienced sexism or 2) take her word for it? Because if it's 1), I think Laura Keeley is proving her point for us. I assume that all of the men on this forum haven't experienced the level of sexism that Laura Keeley has (we may have experienced different forms of prejudice, but not sexism).

I suspect every single person on this forum has experienced what they perceived as superficially biased treatment at some point. Whether it's due to weight, age, height, sex, skin color, hair style, clothing choice, tattoos, piercings, disability, accent, you name it.

Is one worse than the other? I don't know. But I suspect everyone can identify with the feeling of being "different" and of being judged. The obese guy at the gym surrounded by fit people. The 45 year old finishing his degree in classes full of 21 year olds. The summer associate from Macon, GA in a NYC law office worried that people will judge his accent. The investment banker on his first day at the office who is wearing a Macy's suit.

I'm not saying that people don't unfairly judge or treat others, because certainly they do. But we owe it to our fellow humans to assume they will treat us fairly, and not instantly rush to judgement about their character in ambiguous situations.

Duvall
02-25-2015, 11:44 AM
I suspect every single person on this forum has experienced what they perceived as superficially biased treatment at some point. Whether it's due to weight, age, height, sex, skin color, hair style, clothing choice, tattoos, piercings, disability, accent, you name it.

Is one worse than the other? I don't know.

Yeah. That's your problem.

Reisen
02-25-2015, 11:54 AM
Yeah. That's your problem.

I'd love for you to enlighten me. Care to rank order judging someone on: where they grew up, their skin color, their weight, a disability, their gender?

The only logic I can see is that historically some forms of discrimination were more acceptable than others, and that some factors can be conformed to what society tells us we should look and sound like. I don't find either of those particularly compelling.

Duvall
02-25-2015, 12:17 PM
Sure. Both the N&O and Duke benefit from the relationship. Duke provides Keeley access, and gets coverage that leads to a growing fan base as a result. Situations where college programs / coaches, including Duke / K, have reduced or cut off access to journalists have been highly publicized in the past. This partnership is likely very important to the N&O, given that they are competing with national writers for stories / insider insight into K / Duke.

This is nonsense. The News & Observer is responsible for covering Duke, not partnering with them. It's not their job to collaborate to produce media content. And it's a damned good thing too - if the N&O approached the schools it covers with the same kind of amoral and insipid synergistic approach you suggest, they would have buried the UNC academic scandal instead of exposing it.

Reisen
02-25-2015, 12:37 PM
You're right, but sports isn't the only aspect of Duke that falls under the N&O's coverage umbrella. If - and all of this is a complete hypothetical - the university tried to stonewall Keeley on a hoops article, it's not that much of a stretch to picture them doing the same thing on a non-sports issue. The press's role doesn't go away just because it's sports.

Full disclosure: I used to be a full-time sportswriter and editor and still freelance. I know you didn't mean any insult, and I'm not taking it that way, but your post echoes the "toy department" comments I'm used to hearing. I'm sure Laura Keeley takes her job as seriously as any investigative journalist.

Absolutely, and you're right that I didn't mean any insult to sportswriters. The University shouldn't be stonewalling any reporters, including Keeley. On the flip side, it appears there was a difference of opinion on her due diligence here, and whether or not some think summoning her and two of her editors for a contentious sit-down was over the top, I'd argue that part of the SID's job is to ensure Coach K is being accurately portrayed in the media.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but knowing some people in the newspaper business, I'd venture to posit that sports coverage is important to the N&O. If they can uncover a big scandal as they've done with UNC, more power to them. If, heaven forbid, there's any whiff of that at Duke, the SID should absolutely behave better than their peers down the road.

But, absent that, exclusives and insider insight into the program have to be highly desirable for Keeley and her editors, and would translate into real dollars for the paper. Whatever you think of the tactic, K, and many other high profile sports figures, have a choice in who they give that access and insight to. That doesn't mean Keeley should only write glowing things about the program, but if her editors felt she dropped the ball on due diligence with regards to a highly contentious story, they might have reason to be upset with her.

Reisen
02-25-2015, 01:01 PM
This is nonsense. The News & Observer is responsible for covering Duke, not partnering with them. It's not their job to collaborate to produce media content.

Are you really trying to claim both sides don't get something out of the relationship? Newspapers are for-profit enterprises with owners and shareholders just like other companies. They are in the business of selling papers and advertising. The N&O covers Duke not to provide a public service, but to drive their business results. You can bet Keeley and her editors would jump at a Coach K exclusive for no other reason than because it would generate revenue.

Similarly, Duke, the ACC, and the NCAA partner with the media for a reason. There is a reason they issue press credentials and give writers choice seats instead of making them watch games from the stands and pay for tickets. There would be a line out the door of people willing to pay great money for those seats. You don't think K would sometimes rather go home and spend time with his family than do a post-game interview? He's not up there out of the goodness of his heart. He, and all the other NCAA coaches, are fulfilling their end of the bargain. They're generating the content that the sportswriters package and polish and the papers then monetize. That builds the Duke basketball brand and creates a virtuous cycle involving all kinds of good stuff like TV contracts, alumni donations, and recruiting advantages.

DarkstarWahoo
02-25-2015, 01:52 PM
Absolutely, and you're right that I didn't mean any insult to sportswriters. The University shouldn't be stonewalling any reporters, including Keeley. On the flip side, it appears there was a difference of opinion on her due diligence here, and whether or not some think summoning her and two of her editors for a contentious sit-down was over the top, I'd argue that part of the SID's job is to ensure Coach K is being accurately portrayed in the media.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but knowing some people in the newspaper business, I'd venture to posit that sports coverage is important to the N&O. If they can uncover a big scandal as they've done with UNC, more power to them. If, heaven forbid, there's any whiff of that at Duke, the SID should absolutely behave better than their peers down the road.

But, absent that, exclusives and insider insight into the program have to be highly desirable for Keeley and her editors, and would translate into real dollars for the paper. Whatever you think of the tactic, K, and many other high profile sports figures, have a choice in who they give that access and insight to. That doesn't mean Keeley should only write glowing things about the program, but if her editors felt she dropped the ball on due diligence with regards to a highly contentious story, they might have reason to be upset with her.

It's true that sports coverage is a big deal in a university town. I know I used to chafe about the homer-ness with which my former employer covered the local college, but they were the biggest draw for us. Obviously, every market has its own subtleties.

I also want to add, in case it wasn't obvious, that I was only tangentially discussing the Keeley no-handshake meeting. I know very little about any of the particulars there. It was more a general comment on how those relationships can go bad.

Tom B.
02-25-2015, 04:31 PM
I agree with you that K is unlikely to have ordered this meeting. However, to say K has *never* done such a thing is slightly misleading. He had a celebrated encounter with the Chronicle staff back in the early Nineties, and the general feeling within even the Duke community is that his behavior toward those student journalists was not his finest hour. Which is A-OK, actually. Everyone is human, none of us gets to have finest hours all the time, and K has shown tremendous savvy and restraint on matters of this kind the vast, vast majority of the time. He was also surely at a different point in his career and life back then. I mention it, not to suggest K was involved, but to remind everyone that sometimes people do inexplicable things, things we would not at all have ascribed to their characters. People are surprising, sometimes.

I think K's infamous meeting with the Chronicle staff was in 1990, maybe 1989. But the rest of your post is well-taken, and I think its lessons actually can be applied to Keeley here.

The more I think about it, the more I'm just baffled as to why she would offer such an uncritical endorsement of the Woj column. I mean, we're all fans here, so we don't come at this from an unbiased perspective, but still -- the Woj column just screamed "hit piece." Someone as familiar with Coach K and the Duke program as Keeley is should have known that some due diligence was in order before pumping the Woj column like she did. I'm not saying she needed to check her journalistic skepticism and objectivity -- rather, I'm saying that she should've used it more. There were some pretty inflammatory assertions in the Woj column, so she should've recognized the need to be sure they were on solid ground before giving the column her seal of approval. For whatever reason, though, she didn't. Then Boeheim and Coach K made it abundantly clear that not only was Woj's theme bogus, but several of his key assertions of fact were just flat out wrong. So Woj ends up with egg on his face (as he should've, for such a poorly thought out piece) -- and by extension, so does Keeley.

Does that make her a bad person or a bad reporter? No. As others have pointed out, she's done plenty of good work, and that work doesn't just get swept away. What it makes her is young (I think she's only 26 or 27), and young people sometimes overreach and make errors in judgment. (Hell, I'm a supposedly respectable professional in my 40s with kids and a mortgage, and I still overreach and make errors in judgment sometimes.) But based on the rest of her work, she's probably got a bright future in the business ahead of her -- so much like the infamous Chronicle episode was a formative learning experience for K that likely made him better in the long run, this can be one for Keeley.

sagegrouse
02-25-2015, 06:59 PM
I think K's infamous meeting with the Chronicle staff was in 1990, maybe 1989. But the rest of your post is well-taken, and I think its lessons actually can be applied to Keeley here.

The more I think about it, the more I'm just baffled as to why she would offer such an uncritical endorsement of the Woj column. I mean, we're all fans here, so we don't come at this from an unbiased perspective, but still -- the Woj column just screamed "hit piece." Someone as familiar with Coach K and the Duke program as Keeley is should have known that some due diligence was in order before pumping the Woj column like she did. I'm not saying she needed to check her journalistic skepticism and objectivity -- rather, I'm saying that she should've used it more. There were some pretty inflammatory assertions in the Woj column, so she should've recognized the need to be sure they were on solid ground before giving the column her seal of approval. For whatever reason, though, she didn't. Then Boeheim and Coach K made it abundantly clear that not only was Woj's theme bogus, but several of his key assertions of fact were just flat out wrong. So Woj ends up with egg on his face (as he should've, for such a poorly thought out piece) -- and by extension, so does Keeley.

Does that make her a bad person or a bad reporter? No. As others have pointed out, she's done plenty of good work, and that work doesn't just get swept away. What it makes her is young (I think she's only 26 or 27), and young people sometimes overreach and make errors in judgment. (Hell, I'm a supposedly respectable professional in my 40s with kids and a mortgage, and I still overreach and make errors in judgment sometimes.) But based on the rest of her work, she's probably got a bright future in the business ahead of her -- so much like the infamous Chronicle episode was a formative learning experience for K that likely made him better in the long run, this can be one for Keeley.

No, it was a bad mistake by Laura -- and stuff happens when you write for the paper every day, plus do blogs. Unhappily, K will remember it for a long time, although the only real villain is Woj.

SoCalDukeFan
02-25-2015, 07:32 PM
First of all I read much of Laura Keeley's stuff and think she does an excellent job. I am glad I can follow her on Twitter and get her view as to what is going on. However she is human and is not going to do a great job every day.

We don't really know the circumstances but are guessing it is the article about USA basketball and Coach K. Now if I were a Duke official (or Coach K) and a newspaper writer basically reprinted an inaccurate hack job article about Coach K then I would not want to shake their hand either, if they male, female, young, old, black or white etc.

SoCal

-jk
02-25-2015, 07:35 PM
First of all I read much of Laura Keeley's stuff and think she does an excellent job. I am glad I can follow her on Twitter and get her view as to what is going on. However she is human and is not going to do a great job every day.

We don't really know the circumstances but are guessing it is the article about USA basketball and Coach K. Now if I were a Duke official (or Coach K) and a newspaper writer basically reprinted an inaccurate hack job article about Coach K then I would not want to shake their hand either, if they male, female, young, old, black or white etc.

SoCal

Mike Corey, who is solid, posted clearly on the issue (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?35376-Laura-Keeley-%28and-panel%29-on-being-a-young-female-journalist-in-SI&p=783437#post783437) up-thread.

-jk