Patrick Witt - Skips Rhodes Interview - why?

[SUHnami]

Does anyone have any insight on Witt's current saga, and his departure from Lincoln?  He is certainly getting beat up in the Dallas press, including his behavior in Lincoln.  I've always thought he would have stayed if he had been named #1 on depth chart.

He probably would've stayed if he was named the #1 QB.  Problem was he wasn't the best QB on the team.  Ganz was.  He was a tool IMO.

[Cdog923]

There are a lot of things that all add up to him being scum.  Five different high schools just to find one that passed enough and would let him start.  His drunken arrest at UNL trying to go into the women's dorm without an escort.  His veiled shots at UNL academics when he left.  The formal accusation of sexual assault by a fellow Yale student (not a stripper hired by his frat brothers.)  And the well thought out deceptive answers to the questions about his "skipping" the Rhodes interview.

SCUM

If trying to sneak into Sandoz without an escort makes one "scum", then me and about 90% of the male population of the university during my time there would fall under your little umbrella.

[BubbliciousRed]

There are a lot of things that all add up to him being scum.  Five different high schools just to find one that passed enough and would let him start.  His drunken arrest at UNL trying to go into the women's dorm without an escort.  His veiled shots at UNL academics when he left.  The formal accusation of sexual assault by a fellow Yale student (not a stripper hired by his frat brothers.)  And the well thought out deceptive answers to the questions about his "skipping" the Rhodes interview.

SCUM

If trying to sneak into Sandoz without an escort makes one "scum", then me and about 90% of the male population of the university during my time there would fall under your little umbrella.

So you're admitting to doing all those other things Wit has done, too?  Or maybe you missed my first sentence.

[bowz]

Witt’s accuser has not gone to the police, nor filed what Yale considers a formal complaint. The New York Times has not spoken with her and does not know her name.

Yea, the disappointing thing is that we know nothing about the accusation and neither does the New York Times.  Yet they chose to run with the article.  Fairly poor journalistic ethics, as far as I'm concerned.

Didn't know journalists had any ethics anymore

[Omaha_Phil]

There are a lot of things that all add up to him being scum.  Five different high schools just to find one that passed enough and would let him start.  His drunken arrest at UNL trying to go into the women's dorm without an escort.  His veiled shots at UNL academics when he left.  The formal accusation of sexual assault by a fellow Yale student (not a stripper hired by his frat brothers.)  And the well thought out deceptive answers to the questions about his "skipping" the Rhodes interview.

SCUM

If trying to sneak into Sandoz without an escort makes one "scum", then me and about 90% of the male population of the university during my time there would fall under your little umbrella.

So you're admitting to doing all those other things Wit has done, too?  Or maybe you missed my first sentence.

My favorite part about posters that change their names, you can always tell who they are very quickly. 

Can't wait for you to get banned again.

[Red Ghost]

Dirk has a link today to a follow-up article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/the-quarterbacks-tangled-saga.html?_r=2&src=rechp

It was written by the NYT Public Editor, which is equivalent to an ombusdman at other organizations.

The final two paragraphs read:

Maybe you just can’t publish this story, not with the facts known now. If those involved in the case are more forthcoming later, or if the allegations are investigated more fully, then perhaps. But for now, the timeline and whether Yale had declined to re-endorse Mr. Witt are murky and unresolved — by me and certainly by what was presented in the Times article. Even more unknown are the details of the accusation of sexual assault.

This was a compelling story, and The Times was motivated to publish it. But when something as serious as a person’s reputation is at stake, it’s not enough to rely on anonymous sourcing, effectively saying “trust us.”

I'm no Patrick Witt fan, but it sure sounds like he was unfairly smeared by the original NYT article.

[Red Ghost]

My favorite part about posters that change their names, you can always tell who they are very quickly. 

And I thought that I was the only person who noticed!   

[tfree32]

Dirk has a link today to a follow-up article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/the-quarterbacks-tangled-saga.html?_r=2&src=rechp

It was written by the NYT Public Editor, which is equivalent to an ombusdman at other organizations.

The final two paragraphs read:

Maybe you just can’t publish this story, not with the facts known now. If those involved in the case are more forthcoming later, or if the allegations are investigated more fully, then perhaps. But for now, the timeline and whether Yale had declined to re-endorse Mr. Witt are murky and unresolved — by me and certainly by what was presented in the Times article. Even more unknown are the details of the accusation of sexual assault.

This was a compelling story, and The Times was motivated to publish it. But when something as serious as a person’s reputation is at stake, it’s not enough to rely on anonymous sourcing, effectively saying “trust us.”

I'm no Patrick Witt fan, but it sure sounds like he was unfairly smeared by the original NYT article.

Yep. In ombudspeak, that's a direct shot at the writer of the piece and the editors who approved it. They're apologizing for what amounted to a poorly sourced hit piece. Would that those so taken in by it they characterized Witt as "scum" after reading it had the class and decency to do the same.