I was joking with you.

My jokes must not be very obvious today…..

The Hawks dont know who they are going to go after hard. The muddled ownership situation is the only reason the current coach has kept his job for the last two seasons. I cant really figure that one out either becuase he has been doing a pretty decent job.

is that Spitino gets some street cred with the recruits.

“Crazy bi*#$es won’t leave me alone! Now you gonna sign this LOI or what?”

… seems that way, doesn’t it. :-)

I thought she was acting alone; apparently, I am mistaken (all allegedly, of course).

That’s a looooong time for an investigation. Glad you came out on the other side

They probably got told that their UL press credentials would be taken away if they reported it, just my opinion.

It is not the job of the news media to determine the veracity of claims presented to it. If that was the case, they would never report on the arrest of a suspect prior to the case being adjudicated and guilt or innocence established in a court of law. You can argue that there is a difference between crimes committed and alleged illicit personal actions, but keep in mind that Pitino drew first blood in this instance and his remains the only side to be aired to this point.

Well, I don’t think this is a particularly good example, but I take your point. It may be so that the WDRB staff is more interested in protecting their backside, but I would have concerns about posting a first-hand story about sexual misbehavior without some kind of corroborating evidence, but that’s just me. Pitino is a public figure, so any attempt to sue the station for defamation would be futile.

IF this woman was in any way victimized, then WDRB has repeated that victimization by refusing to air her grievances and given Pitino the opportunity to spin this entire thing in his favor from the beginning.

We have seen no evidence, or even a suggestion by WDRB, that the woman was victimized. If she was, I would expect her to go to another media outlet, perhaps one outside of Louisville, to get that part out if she feels like Pitino’s influence is a factor in getting the story heard. But it seems that the context of this affair is all about carrying out a threat. That appears to be the context of the reports that have surfaced from WDRB.

The FBI probably will not be investigating her claims, if she has any. Their jurisdiction would most likely fall to local law enforcement rather than the FBI. So far, I have not even heard the slightest suggestion that she has a claim. In fact, T. Clay explicitly said that the woman would not be filing any legal actions, so that makes me think that she has none to file.

That case on Blagoyevich was brewing for almost a year according to the newspaper reports from Chicago….they were going after him for other things when the Obama seat deal fell in their lap.

Clearly you have a great handle on what the show was about. Was it in the middle of the season? “The Wire” wasn’t an episodic show. You have to watch it from the beginning. It was designed that way. It’s not CSI Baltimore.

As far as the critics go…sorry, but you obviously don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. “The Wire” was a critic’s darling. They LOVED the show:

http://www.time.com/time/bestandworst/2002/tv.html

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1009257,00.html

http://cpgo.citypaper.com/film/story.asp?id=9538

http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2007/09/15/best_show/

http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/wireseason4?q=the%20wire

http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/wireseason5?q=the%20wire

Some excerpts if you’re too lazy to click the links:

Every single scene of The Wire is meticulously scripted and dramatically riveting.

To me, what allows "The Wire" to surpass "The Sopranos" in the pantheon of greatest American TV shows is its ambition and its anger.

This is TV as great modern literature, a shattering and heartbreaking urban epic about a city (Baltimore) rotting from within.

The fifth and final season of David Simon’s peerlessly acted, stunningly scripted, revolutionary drama of 1,000 moving parts kicks off Jan. 6.

“The best show… of the last twenty years is another HBO show—not as well known—called The Wire. The Wire is quite simply a stunning piece of work… it physically pains me to use this phrase, because anyone who uses it sounds like a tosser, but it is physically multilayered; it is just $%@#ing brilliant.

In the end, The Wire is extraordinary television. It has a richness, a depth and an intelligence that transcend the medium and makes it the kind of superb literature that A.O. Scott found lacking in the world of books.

On its surface The Wire is a cop show, the most stereotype-ridden of TV genres, yet nowhere in The Wire do stereotypes exist. There are no good guys and bad guys, merely men and women who work on opposites sides of the socially acceptable. The Wire treats both as people caught up in the same racial, class, and political tensions that afflict any American, and dramatizes them in manners that feel natural.

Yep, boring and overwrought seems to be the consensus there. I suppose I’ll stand alone with my crappy television tastes. Impugn away! Even the most critical reviews of the show are overwhelmingly positive:

Writing about the past four seasons of HBO’s The Wire has been one of the great pleasures of this job. But reviewing the fifth and final season, which begins next Sunday on the premium cable channel, is more of a mixed blessing.

It’s not that the series has suddenly taken a drastic turn away from its epic and compelling exploration of life in a downsized Millennial America. Steeped in a dense and seething urban sociology, the Baltimore-based series is still one of the most daring dramas in the history of the medium.

 And season 5 was the worst season. If metacritic was around for the first 3, the reviews would have been as equally enthusiastic as that of season 4. Please, tell me again how unimpressed critics were with “The Wire”. You’re clearly an expert…

And the show didn’t die. It ended, on it’s own accord, in it’s 5th season.

As for why the show was never a hit and never received any Emmy’s despite the overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics? Well, David Simon (the co-creator) has some thoughts on that:

1) Cast predominantly black. Predominantly white nation stereotypes it as “black show” and feels comfortable ignoring same.
2) Requires thought and commitment to watch and absorb complex plotlines and subtleties. Television in America is by an large a vegetative medium.
3) Filmed in Baltimore. Baltimore? What the #$@%?
4) Although supported by HBO and given creative license, first and second seasons had most episodes premiering at ten o’clock following Arliss or Sex in City — shows that had very different appeal and audiences, I think. Third season premiers at nine, but alas, this fall NFL football and Desperate Housewives have the cultural zeitgeist surrounded.
5) Not enough happy endings.
6) I can’t understand what the Negros are saying.
7) What the hell is a D.N.R.?
8) Not an Emmy nom to be found. Did I mention it was written and filmed and produced by people who don’t live in New York or Los Angeles?

Either all of the above or maybe we just aren’t worth watching. That could be it as well. I can’t blame HBO for anything, save, possibly, failing to get the DVDs out in advance of the third season and failing to get both seasons out there. That was, I think, an unfortunate mistake for a show as ornate as this one and I have said so to the folks involved. But as for scheduling, not everything can follow the Sopranos. They need to schedule year round, and frankly, something had to go up against the ESPN Sunday night game and Housewives. I will say, though, I don’t think any HBO show short of the Sopranos would have suffered in that timeslot. But the bottom line: HBO didn’t fight us to make our show more commercial, less smart or more lamely and weakly “accessible.” They didn’t ask us to whiten the show, or make it happier, or less angry or whatever. They have been brave. Moreso than any other network in the medium’s long, lugubrious history. Cut them slack.

Sorry, but “The Wire” is one of the greatest television shows ever produced and it’s renowned for being one of the most realistic portrayals of urban life and various instutitions such as the public school systems, police departments, and a newspaper newsroom, Emmy or not.

And critics don’t decide who gets nominated or chosen for Emmy’s. If they did, “The Wire” would have cleaned up year after year.

But what do critics know anyway?

The breadth and ambition of “The Wire” are unrivaled and that taken cumulatively over the course of a season — any season — it’s an astonishing display of writing, acting and storytelling that must be considered alongside the best literature and filmmaking in the modern era.

You’re right about it being depressing, though.

You just have to watch it from the beginning; preferably more than 2 episodes.

which is enough to keep them from running the story without doing more investigation.

But, in all fairness, you don’t know anything about the case. The only people who know what went on in the TV interview are Sypher and WDRB. And if the station has doubts as to the veracity of her claims, they MUST hold back on airing them, again, not out of fairness, but because if Pitino can prove the allegations are false (and we know someone has been recording phone calls) then Sypher AND WDRB could easily go down in a defamation suit, should the station choose to air the interview without eliminating their reasonable doubt.

From an above post,

Pitino is a public figure, so any attempt to sue the station for defamation would be futile.

and

WDRB could have run with this story at almost no peril.

I don’t know why you would say that. That’s not true at all. Actual malice might be difficult to prove, but it certainly isn’t a futile endeavor. If WDRB has doubts about her claims — which they obviously do — and they run her interview, and her allegations are false, and Pitino can prove it, then WDRB would lose a defamation case. Once again, they’re not being nice, they’re covering their ass.

WarDRoBe doesn’t want to be sued for airing any statements about a person that cannot be proven without a doubt. That’s why people “allegedly” do something until they are convicted by a court.

Also, they don’t want to go on the air with someone’s allegations, they turn out to be BS and next thing you know their credibility is crap and their competitors are running promos reminding people, “If you want the TRUTH about UofL sports…turn to (US)_______insert call sign!” Now they have a lawsuit against them from a pretty popular person/entitiy and advertisers are pulling ads faster than you can say whipsaw.

It’s another reason you don’t ever get the “whole story”. The stories behind what’s reported can be some CRAZY stuff, fictional you would think, but because it often comes from what someone heard or saw, it won’t get reported. unless it’s in some form of public record, police report, etc. it won’t make light of day. The photogs at the TV stations can tell you all kinds of crazy stuff from the stories they are sent to cover. Not every story has crazy tidbits but a lot do.

… with respect to “reckless disregard for the truth” does not include simple neglect in following the standards of fact checking. In fact:

t should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.

Many places would have relied on her story, and reported it simply as an allegation. That does not and, as a practical matter cannot, reach the standard of “actual malice.” You are technically correct, but as a practical matter, you are wrong. If the news outlet cannot find an obvious reason to disbelieve a single source in a case like this, they need not fear a successful suit for defamation.

maybe I was just joking now…..;-)

He is employed by UL which yes I know is state funded to some degree. It is in the best interests of UL and Jurich to keep this whole fiasco under the radar as far as anything concerning Pitino’s personal life and his problems. It could have happened at UK during his tenure and we all know that part of the story. He has stretched his limits with getting away with his many escapades. I don’t know of anyone in the BBN or the Cards supporters who could truthfully deny that. I know I cannot. It was just a Pandora’s Box waiting.