Name, Image, Likeness

arnie said:
Very true, but when the author uses “in the shadows” and other secretive terms he seems to be dissing our methods.
Click to expand...
Not sure he's dissing Duke's methods more than he's fishing for clicks. The use of "dark money" in the hed and "who is paying for it remains a mystery" in the dek are clearly intentional to get clicks, but the contents of the article itself are more complimentary of the approach Duke has taken as being more patient and intentional, with the collective having a limited number of quiet contributors who defer to Scheyer, Baker and company to make decisions regarding personnel and NIL without any pressure, direction or strings attached. This is in contrast to a number of other programs (e.g. Miami, UNC, etc.) where contributors have reportedly made demands on how money is allocated, tried to influence hiring processes or recruitment decisions, bloviated publicly about how much money is being thrown at which incoming recruits/transfers, etc. (and we're not just talking about basketball collectives here—there have been a number of foot-in-mouth situations relating to football that provided some pretty clear lessons to the caretakers of Duke basketball regarding what not to do in re: NIL). I found the article overall to be more along the lines of @Billy Dat's interpretation—in this new NIL world, Duke basketball is once again forging ahead intelligently.
 
Billy Dat said:
I think all of our DBR posts should be required to have an inflammatory headline....fishing for LIKES
Click to expand...
I'd rather be fishing for crabs or whatnot on the bay with our Chesapeake colleague... besides, I'm not sure this board allows for headlines beyond the initial post in a thread, whether they be laudatory or inflammatory.
 
Papa John said:
Not sure he's dissing Duke's methods more than he's fishing for clicks. The use of "dark money" in the hed and "who is paying for it remains a mystery" in the dek are clearly intentional to get clicks, but the contents of the article itself are more complimentary of the approach Duke has taken as being more patient and intentional, with the collective having a limited number of quiet contributors who defer to Scheyer, Baker and company to make decisions regarding personnel and NIL without any pressure, direction or strings attached. This is in contrast to a number of other programs (e.g. Miami, UNC, etc.) where contributors have reportedly made demands on how money is allocated, tried to influence hiring processes or recruitment decisions, bloviated publicly about how much money is being thrown at which incoming recruits/transfers, etc. (and we're not just talking about basketball collectives here—there have been a number of foot-in-mouth situations relating to football that provided some pretty clear lessons to the caretakers of Duke basketball regarding what not to do in re: NIL). I found the article overall to be more along the lines of @Billy Dat's interpretation—in this new NIL world, Duke basketball is once again forging ahead intelligently.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a fair and intelligent takeaway, but I don't so easily excuse the clickbait terminology, which was in the text as well. Most people don't read news reports that critically, but they will remember, "Duke," "mystery," "dark," and "shadowy."
 
Billy Dat said:
I think all of our DBR posts should be required to have an inflammatory headline....fishing for LIKES
Click to expand...

Mike Petrik said:
Yes, that is a fair and intelligent takeaway, but I don't so easily excuse the clickbait terminology, which was in the text as well. Most people don't read news reports that critically, but they will remember, "Duke," "mystery," "dark," and "shadowy."
Click to expand...
So what? I enjoy the hand wringing of the great unwashed. Tip of the hat to Laettner, Dennard, Grayson, Hurley, Heyman and many other alleged unsavories.
 
King of Defense said:
Reporters typically don’t write their own headlines.

I know Andrew, and to be frank, I think people here are reading sinister intent where there is none. I don’t see a value judgment here. It’s simply a story of how things work now.
Click to expand...
My guess is that the sinister intent came from the editor. The headline is clickbaity, and just one or two word choices in the text (easily done by the editor) detract from what I think is a matter-of-fact report that makes me proud of the way our program and its most cash-flush supporters operate.
 
knicknut said:
My guess is that the sinister intent came from the editor. The headline is clickbaity, and just one or two word choices in the text (easily done by the editor) detract from what I think is a matter-of-fact report that makes me proud of the way our program and its most cash-flush supporters operate.
Click to expand...
It's definitely clickbaity, which ... well ...

I don't mean to *defend* such choices per se. But I'll say it's absolutely understandable why clickbait headlines exist. The media landscape is extremely competitive, and like it or not, clickbait headlines tend to work.

People tend to forget that the #1 bias of news organizations, unless they're funded by a mission-driven nonprofit or lone madman, is financial. Especially now. If you were writing headlines for the only newspaper in town in the 1980s, your headline choice would be a lot different than it would be if you have 0.5 seconds to grab the attention of a reader skimming quickly through Reddit.

So my educated guess would be that the editor has no particular axe to grind against Duke. They just wanted the story to be read.

And ... well ... we're all paying attention to it, right?
 
King of Defense said:
Reporters typically don’t write their own headlines.

I know Andrew, and to be frank, I think people here are reading sinister intent where there is none. I don’t see a value judgment here. It’s simply a story of how things work now.
Click to expand...
I don't know Andrew, but I can read and emphatically disagree. The headline notwithstanding, the tenor of the article was consistent with its text -- dark, shadowy, mystery, buried, secretive, and my personal favorite, "even though what they're doing is perfectly legal." The method Duke has chosen is discreet, protective of players, deferential to the administration, and admirably devoid of cheesy braggadocio, but a story on that would lack the obligatory MSM "angle." UNC should give Andrew an honorary degree. They've awarded more for less.
 
Mike Petrik said:
I don't know Andrew, but I can read and emphatically disagree. The headline notwithstanding, the tenor of the article was consistent with its text -- dark, shadowy, mystery, buried, secretive, and my personal favorite, "even though what they're doing is perfectly legal." The method Duke has chosen is discreet, protective of players, deferential to the administration, and admirably devoid of cheesy braggadocio, but a story on that would lack the obligatory MSM "angle." UNC should give Andrew an honorary degree. They've awarded more for less.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't see "mystery" or "secretive" as an insult, and I think "perfectly legal" is important. Respectfully, I think you're reading too much into it.

Also, as someone who has worked with a lot of UNC journalists and even married one, I'd personally be quite happy if UNC offered me an honorary degree.

And the notion that there's some sort of anti-Duke bias at the Wall Street Journal is pretty much refuted by the fact that they keep hiring Chronicle people, all of whom put down roots there and tend not to leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top