If an SC grad reported on Clemson players inaccurately

[umdterpcock]

In the Greenville news, what would happen? Clemson rednecks would be marching the streets demanding something change.

We can't let this rest.

If I were Skai's family I'd take this as far as legally possible. Is there anything that can be done?

Hopefully this is something that will motivate the team, galvanize them, and get them more determined than ever. Muschamp should use this and create a chip on our teams shoulder to carry us into the season.

 

[lawcalcock]

The Greenville news would never hire a USC grad to report on Clemons...Plus their editors would kill any hit pieces before it got to press...For some reason our top brass thinks being the major University in the state, means we should tolerate this kind of crap..I feel the opposite is true..I have always believed USC should buy that awful rag and give it to the School of Journalism as a teaching project

 

[lx3]

In the Greenville news, what would happen? Clemson rednecks would be marching the streets demanding something change.

We can't let this rest.

If I were Skai's family I'd take this as far as legally possible. Is there anything that can be done?

Hopefully this is something that will motivate the team, galvanize them, and get them more determined than ever. Muschamp should use this and create a chip on our teams shoulder to carry us into the season.

If the Clemson PD asked the State newspaper not to print something in reference to a couple Clemson football players...Not sure there would be marching in the streets but it would certainly make this board interesting reading for a couple weeks...

If the inaccuracy came from the police report, I think the apology should come from someone other than the reporter...

 

[pluffmud]

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

 

[67gamecock]

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

B.S. It is the responsibility of the newspaper reporter and his/her editor to make sure that the documentation is valid. State paper needs to 'burn' for this, and they will likely spontaneously do so when the lawyer of the one reportedly former football player gets a good 'Full Nelson on 'em. This one could get interesting.

 

[gcock5]

PD was doubtful of the witness testimony from the beginning, warning the rag of this, but facts don't matter to the rag when they have the opportunity to slander USC.

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

 

[CockerStaniel]

B.S. It is the responsibility of the newspaper reporter and his/her editor to make sure that the documentation is valid. State paper needs to 'burn' for this, and they will likely spontaneously do so when the lawyer of the one reportedly former football player gets a good 'Full Nelson on 'em. This one could get interesting.

No. That is not and has never been how it works. A police report is a police report. It's reportable news.

 

[Art__Vandelay]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking there could be a difference between a "police report" and an "incident report," which is what the story was based on. My understanding is that an incident report could just be complaint made by someone while a police report comes after some investigation has be done. Could be way off base here.

If this is true and the story was based on an incident report, before any investigation had been done, and the police even advised them not to run the story until more information was gathered... It's irresponsible journalism. At the very least there should be a retraction and an apology.

 

[lx3]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking there could be a difference between a "police report" and an "incident report," which is what the story was based on. My understanding is that an incident report could just be complaint made by someone while a police report comes after some investigation has be done. Could be way off base here.

If this is true and the story was based on an incident report, before any investigation had been done, and the police even advised them not to run the story until more information was gathered... It's irresponsible journalism. At the very least there should be a retraction and an apology.

If the reporter had access to multiple reports, with differing accounts, and only reported on the one that held the players in a bad light...I agree. There should be action taken.

 

[lawcalcock]

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

You got it wrong..The Police asked the state not to publish the story because the investigation was far from complete and the witness stories were not supported by evidence nor the reported victim

 

[lawcalcock]

there you go...that's exactly why the Police warned the State about rushing the story to press...The State was told the investigation in early stage

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking there could be a difference between a "police report" and an "incident report," which is what the story was based on. My understanding is that an incident report could just be complaint made by someone while a police report comes after some investigation has be done. Could be way off base here.

If this is true and the story was based on an incident report, before any investigation had been done, and the police even advised them not to run the story until more information was gathered... It's irresponsible journalism. At the very least there should be a retraction and an apology.

 

[FORKCOCK]

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

10 posts. I smell tater.

 

[wentzel25]

PD was doubtful of the witness testimony from the beginning, warning the rag of this, but facts don't matter to the rag when they have the opportunity to slander USC.

Can you back up the first half of that statement with a link?

 

[section907]

Do they still have journalism as a major? Who in the heck would pay for their kids to get a Journalism degree today? its pretty obvious that tater tech isn't teaching it correctly anyway. Why would anyone go to Pickens and think they could get a degree in anything besides engineering and farming.

 

[CockerStaniel]

You got it wrong..The Police asked the state not to publish the story because the investigation was far from complete and the witness stories were not supported by evidence nor the reported victim

Did the police actually ask The State (or anybody else) to not publish the story? Or is that just message board chatter and presumption? I haven't seen that substantiated anywhere, just curious how much truth there is to it.

 

[Art__Vandelay]

If the reporter had access to multiple reports, with differing accounts, and only reported on the one that held the players in a bad light...I agree. There should be action taken.

I'm not even saying there were multiple reports. I'm just saying it seems like risky business to write a story based on an initial incident report, especially one coming from drunken bar patrons at 3 AM.

Theoretically, I could call the police here in Atlanta and tell them I just had my ass beat by someone and it looked like Will Muschamp. Wouldn't they at least have to document my account of it? Sure it's an outrageous claim that can quickly be proven false, but I think it would at least be stated in the incident report. Seems like a slippery slope for media outlets to jump on any and all claims made by folks before any investigation is done to prove their validity

 

[radcock]

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

It was an incident report from a witness who misidentified the players. It was opposite of what other reports said. It was either irresponsible or malicious reporting. A guy who does not even cover the gamecocks and has clemson pictures all over his twitter account reports a bogus story while the multiple usc beat writers report nothing? Coincidence I am sure.

 

[lawcalcock]

Can you back up the first half of that statement with a link?

No link needed, it's been widely reported the Police warned the State all they had was unsubstantiated and conflicting statements from sketchy witnesses...The State was eager to slander the players and hurt USC...Word is the same reporter fed the story to ESPN to get it on their crawl asap...This was an intentional hit job...The State didn't give a hoot about slandering student athletes for their anti USC agenda

 

[Art__Vandelay]

Did the police actually ask The State (or anybody else) to not publish the story? Or is that just message board chatter and presumption? I haven't seen that substantiated anywhere, just curious how much truth there is to it.

Muschamp says as much in his interview. Fast forward to around the 1:15 mark. "You don't need to run this, this is the account of 1 person in the bar."

 

[pluffmud]

No. That is not and has never been how it works. A police report is a police report. It's reportable news.

Exactly. It sucks in this case, but all newspapers do it. Probably why they wouldn't retract.

 

[wentzel25]

No link needed, it's been widely reported the Police warned the State all they had was unsubstantiated and conflicting statements from sketchy witnesses...The State was eager to slander the players and hurt USC...Word is the same reporter fed the story to ESPN to get it on their crawl asap...This was an intentional hit job...The State didn't give a hoot about slandering student athletes for their anti USC agenda

It was also widely reported initially that Skai and Deebo were involved, and that was wrong. It's a little hypocritical to lower the burden of proof when it fits a certain agenda. If that's substantiated, great. I've just seen it written on this board a lot, with nothing backing it.
I was hoping the police had made a statement saying they told the state not to run with the story.

 

[76gintcock]

Did the police actually ask The State (or anybody else) to not publish the story? Or is that just message board chatter and presumption? I haven't seen that substantiated anywhere, just curious how much truth there is to it.

That is what Muschamp said that the police told him. So It's not exactly "message board chatter."

 

[76gintcock]

It was also widely reported initially that Skai and Deebo were involved, and that was wrong.

What? The initial "wide reports" all came from one source--the writer at the State. The fact that this was repeated by others does not make it any more true or accurate.

In defamation law, there's a doctrine called "republication." Leaving aside the whole "public figure" mess, every "news" outlet that rushed that story onto its website would be equally as liable for libel as the State and the State's reporter.

 

[coxman]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking there could be a difference between a "police report" and an "incident report," which is what the story was based on. My understanding is that an incident report could just be complaint made by someone while a police report comes after some investigation has be done. Could be way off base here.

If this is true and the story was based on an incident report, before any investigation had been done, and the police even advised them not to run the story until more information was gathered... It's irresponsible journalism. At the very least there should be a retraction and an apology.

I think you are exactly right. This incident report is merely the "victim's" statement of what happened.

 

[67gamecock]

10 posts. I smell tater.

The perverted bastards are all over this Board.

 

[coxman]

Did the police actually ask The State (or anybody else) to not publish the story? Or is that just message board chatter and presumption? I haven't seen that substantiated anywhere, just curious how much truth there is to it.

Muschamp said it in response to a media question. It is unlikely that he made it up.

 

[sclawman77]

As most know, the upstate press has a history going way back of trying to conceal or just not covering a negative story regarding a Clemson athlete and protecting Clemson's image. I think the most glaring one was Jamie Cumbie in 2010 almost beating the former Clemson president's grandson to death in a fight. Greenville News ran a story like three weeks later after the incident in the back of the sports section. If that had been a Carolina player, The State would have dedicated the entire front page to the incident as soon as the news broke and would cover it for weeks.

 

[rogue cock]

No fan of that rag, but I'm pretty sure it was the police report that got it wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if that isn't the case.

It is...but don't you ever wonder why in the newspaper police blogs they seldom if ever quote names. There is a reason.

 

[rogue cock]

Did the police actually ask The State (or anybody else) to not publish the story? Or is that just message board chatter and presumption? I haven't seen that substantiated anywhere, just curious how much truth there is to it.

It wouldn't be unusual...and any reporter worth his salt would know why and not to anyway.

 

[photontorpedotube]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking there could be a difference between a "police report" and an "incident report," which is what the story was based on. My understanding is that an incident report could just be complaint made by someone while a police report comes after some investigation has be done. Could be way off base here.

If this is true and the story was based on an incident report, before any investigation had been done, and the police even advised them not to run the story until more information was gathered... It's irresponsible journalism. At the very least there should be a retraction and an apology.

An incident report is a police report. There are a lot of different kinds of police reports and that is just one kind. The irresponsibility comes from the Clemson reporter ignoring the police officer's warning that the witness account wasn't credible or confirmed, but Teddy still rushed to print the piece. I wonder if he informed his editor of the police warning.

 

[lawcalcock]

That is what Muschamp said that the police told him. So It's not exactly "message board chatter."

Thank you you beat me to it...I swear some of our fans can come across all the info they want except the info that matters and explains how low the State sunk to go forward with that mess of an article

 

[lawcalcock]

An incident report is a police report. There are a lot of different kinds of police reports and that is just one kind. The irresponsibility comes from the Clemson reporter ignoring the police officer's warning that the witness account wasn't credible or confirmed, but Teddy still rushed to print the piece. I wonder if he informed his editor of the police warning.

Even though it's public info, it's not news if the Police tell you up front it's incomplete and questionable to begin with...The State knows full well it jeopardized the reputation of student athletes based on unsubstantiated and an incomplete report...

 

[uscusc1987]

Did the police actually ask The State (or anybody else) to not publish the story? Or is that just message board chatter and presumption? I haven't seen that substantiated anywhere, just curious how much truth there is to it.

Yes, unless you believe Muschamp is a liar. Listen to his press conference yesterday. Muschamp says he contacted the head of the Columbia PD who told him they advised the state this was an incident report based on the story of this 22 year old x marine who gave his account what happened only and he told the State they should wait to publish anything until the investigation was complete.

 

[uscusc1987]

Think of it this way. I can call the Greenville police department right now and tell them I was just assaulted by Deon Caine and the clemson QB in a parking garage in downtown Greenville late last night. They fill out my account and incident report. You think the Greenville News will run the story in the morning?

 

[CockerStaniel]

There's this:

Coach Will Muschamp said Monday that USC athletics spokesman Steve Fink had told him that Columbia police warned The State newspaper not to run with the story.

“He had heard from a police spokesman from the Columbia Police Department that said you really don’t need to run this because this was the account of one person in the bar that night, one person’s opinion of what happened — it was totally incorrect,” Muschamp said during a three-minute rant against the paper during a press availability Monday.

Columbia police spokeswoman Jennifer Timmons told Free Times that Muschamp’s account is inaccurate.

“I mentioned to The State reporter that we had to verify whether the listed ‘suspects’ were actual ‘suspects,’” she says. “I spoke with [the] USC [spokesperson] and provided him with the same information. I did not ask The State not to run the story.”

 

[rogue cock]

There's this:

Coach Will Muschamp said Monday that USC athletics spokesman Steve Fink had told him that Columbia police warned The State newspaper not to run with the story.

“He had heard from a police spokesman from the Columbia Police Department that said you really don’t need to run this because this was the account of one person in the bar that night, one person’s opinion of what happened — it was totally incorrect,” Muschamp said during a three-minute rant against the paper during a press availability Monday.

Columbia police spokeswoman Jennifer Timmons told Free Times that Muschamp’s account is inaccurate.

“I mentioned to The State reporter that we had to verify whether the listed ‘suspects’ were actual ‘suspects,’” she says. “I spoke with [the] USC [spokesperson] and provided him with the same information. I did not ask The State not to run the story.”

So....you just established lack of journalistic integrity. What was this guy an English major at Clemson who couldn't pass the State boards.

 

[CockerStaniel]

So....you just established lack of journalistic integrity. What was this guy an English major at Clemson who couldn't pass the State boards.

I mean...whatever. Do with it what you will. It would appear that Muschamp had some bad info though.

 

[rogue cock]

I mean...whatever. Do with it what you will. It would appear that Muschamp had some bad info though.

No, he chose to write an article using people's names who he didn't know were actual suspects and was informed of that fact by the police. That, at any decent paper, would get a person fired.

 

[CockerStaniel]

No, he chose to write an article using people's names who he didn't know were actual suspects and was informed of that fact by the police. That, at any decent paper, would get a person fired.

Fine. Do we agree that the writer was NOT instructed by the police to not publish the police report?

 

[rogue cock]

Fine. Do we agree that the writer was NOT instructed by the police to not publish the police report?

That should have been a tacit understanding once the police told him that they hadn't verified that the players were actual suspects. You simply do NOT do that....regardless of who it is.

Basically, the guy is a hack writer who doesn't know shit from shinola.