Was Kentucky Right To Disinvite The Kentucky Kernel For Violating Their Media Policy?

he got his hand smacked for breaking them…..no big deal.

He will remember the next time, and everyone else will remember as well.

We all know the rules when it comes to players. And DeWayne Peevy is doing his job by protecting access to them. Time for Aaron to put on his big boy underoos and move on.

“What, me worry? Bring on the football game!” got my vote.
But…how long has it been since we added two new walk-ons so early? Maybe so long ago that they thought only scholly players were off-limits pre-season? I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

Since he is a student reporter with the Kernel…I think a stern phone call and reminder of the rules would have been sufficient. Had he been a professional journalist, the “punishment” would have been appropriate.

And, I assume there are other Ky. Kernel sports reporters who could attend.

not a lawyer but I find it highly suspect that this could be considered a violation of the first amendment. It’s a private invitation event only. I don’t think freedom of the press comes into play at all.

Aside from that. The rules of the university are the rules of the university and for good reason. They don’t want the athletes getting bombarded with interview requests and prefer to have that go through media relations instead to shield the athletes from it.

I say everyone should shut up about it and move on. Matt Jones got in trouble for releasing some information 5 minutes early last year and no one defended him for breaking a UK rule. He got hammered by other media. Sounds like a bunch of hypocrites myself, although Jones is considered rogue.

This is just silly and could have been kept off the front page with a small deft move. It may cause others to do the same thing to get UK’s goat.

…was because there are several national writers who love nothing more than to find a reason to take shots at UK.

Kernel editors have not decided whether they will pursue legal action for violation of First Amendment rights.

Pick another battle, guys. This wouldn’t happen for free.

.

The kernel is claiming freedom of the press

Peevy is claiming right to privacy……

A civil case from a phone call to a walk-on at UK

It never ends…..lol

Everybody knows the rules, everybody. And with so many “media” types now able to get credentials to UK events and access to players (something Peevy and Barnhart are responsible for), everyone following the rules (which once again, everyone knows), is of the utmost importance.

When I first heard about this, my initial thought was that Smith, because the player he contacted is a walk-on, probably didn’t think the player contact rules applied. He was wrong, and now he knows it.

Is Peevy being tough, yes, but that’s his M.O. and his prerogative.

… from the late ‘70s. She happens to live with me. Her reaction: much ado about little. Peevy revoked an invitation, a privilege. (It is the unanimous opinion of the lawyers in this household that the Kentucky First Amendment lawyer is talking out of his Fleischaker.) The former editor’s biggest concern was whether the reporter, who was also the Managing Editor of the paper, knew the UK Media Relations policy and understood that he was violating it when he asked for an interview.

And a question that struck us both: How important can this policy possibly be if UK Media Relations hasn’t bothered to commit it to writing? If it were written down somewhere, Peevy would at least be able to waive it in the air while making his point. “See? It says so right here.” Unwritten policies aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. (Copyright 2011, Wheatgerm Industries)

My question: Would the reporter have been better served by asking the second question first? The sequence seems critical to Peevy’s position. Once the players confirmed they were walk-ons, kaboom, the reporter has notice, the policy kicks in, and the second question should never have been asked. But if all the reporter has is a tweet, with no word from the university or coach, his first question should have been whether the students would like to say a few words for the school paper. If they say no, fine. What can Peevy argue? That third-party tweets speak for the university? But if the students volunteer, and they confirm their status as walk-ons only after the investigation/interview has begun, the policy can no longer serve its purpose, namely, to prevent student-athletes from being “bombarded with interview requests constantly.” At that point, the horse is out of the barn. The bridge is crossed. The bell has rung. The toothpaste is out of the tube. (I had one more, but it escapes me.) Yes, I think that was the reporter’s tactical mistake.