📡 Larry Scott thinks The Oregonian columnist John Canzano has a personal vendetta

[planomateo]

John it seems is the only person in the Pac-12 media who's doing his job and reporting about the reign of Larry Scott. I hope he keeps it up.

Larry has to know the end is near...

 

[TerryP]

The same guy offered an unedited, one on one interview with Scott. He refused.

 

[JoseyWalesTheOutlaw]

Scott is special...just ask the Harvard prick

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

The same guy offered an unedited, one on one interview with Scott. He refused.

This right here. Maybe he feels the questions would be stacked so there was no right answer for him but I am sure he could work that part out. This definitely smells like he just doesn't want to answer any questions, especially paired with him pushing everything off on a spokesman before.

 

[BamaFan334]

 

[TUSKtimes]

Scott shouldn't run from a fair fight if presented with one. Not having his comments unfairly edited out was offered. He really had no excuse to not speak his piece in rebuttal if he didn't like what this guy wrote.

On the other hand, I get why a lot of smart people only agree to do interviews that are live and uncut.

Years ago, like a lot of people, I used to rush home to catch the latest segments on 60 minutes. It was kind of fun watching the super sleuth network expose crooked folks, politicians, and cooperations. Then I happened to watch a segment on something I had a lot of personal info on and to watch the interviews and fancy editing going on was highly disappointing. The facts were almost totally obscured with timely cuts and counterarguments that washed over general information on the subject that was common knowledge. It came across as it was if you knew the subject, a mean spirited hit piece.

President Trump will come and go, like all the rest, but if there's one truth he left with this generation it's when he coined the phrase, "fake news." Beware.

 

[TerryP]

(In hindsight I should have linked it when I came across the article...)

A few weeks ago there was a piece written about Scott and how he'd simply refused to answer questions coming from people within the administration of schools within his own conference. At the time I didn't bother reading the entire article; simply skimmed some of the comments on Twitter from other writers.

Now, with this new bit, I'm of the impression it's not that he fears being misrepresented in an article but he feels he's above being questioned by those he considers his subordinates (or in this case, someone not directly tied to the inner-workings of the conference.)

SEC fans certainly have the ground to stand on if they choose to criticize decisions made by Kramer, Slive, and now Sankey. At least we can sit back somewhat comfortably knowing they haven't damaged the conference to the degree Scott has with the PAC.