There may be some tit for tat with Duarte, we would have to be in their internal communications and meetings to confirm.
But at a minimum and most likely, they are being extremely careful with their COVID information release. It is not an uncommon reaction under this scenario.
They got hit with a hit job that went across the sports world in the early days of COVID reopening. They felt the sting of that unfair article and as Granato pointed out very clearly there are different lenses to look through to judge the entire story far more objectively. Very few would say come and look inside my house freewheeling after that article and the impact it had on the university. Duarte needs to take accountability for that article also, he put the university in a defensive position and it doesnât appear theyâll be changing their position any time soon.
I think we should share info like other programs and struggle to understand why. The only things that make sense is we think everyone else is breaking the law or we have something to hide.
I guess it could also be us stubbornly digging in our heels because of what happened earlier Duarte earlier in the summer.
The program has nothing to hide. They have been extremely transparent to players and parents on Covid. They are tested every week and there have not been any positive cases since the last report in early July, only those that were recovering from the initial tests. I would imagine not every FBS program Is doling out all this info every time they are asked. If there was a serious outbreak among UH athletes, I guarantee that info would get out somehow or another.
With the exception of Jerry Wizig way back in the day, UH has always had its relationships sour with its beat writers. Michael Murphy and Sumlin and time some extent Penders, Steve Campbell with Sumlin. Wiz was half PR guy and half journalist. The latter 3 were journalists.
Part of the issue is that UH has not always allowed the SID to do his/her job and facilitate those relationships. If the coach or the reporter donât properly utilize the SID, a ton of miscommunication results. Generally speaking UH football programs have been treated like Fort Knox with the exception of the Dimel and Levine eras. Say what you will about those two gentlemen, they went out of their way to create positive relationships with the media. I still have the handwritten letter Dimel wrote me thanking me for the positive coverage of UH athletics after his 0-11 season. He might not be a great coach; but heâs a class individual. Levine was the same way. Sumlin, Briles, and Dana frankly donât care about that aspect of the job and that makes the reporterâs job more difficult.
I donât always agree with Duarte, but he is a professional journalist and I think he is fair and balanced. UH does nothing but hurt itself when it fails to maintain relationships with the only people giving you free coverage. I donât know if thatâs the case in this instance, but I do think UH needs the coverage more than Chron sports needs the column space.
The conferenceâs Board of Directors also said they are committed to âensuring the accountability of all athletic programs and affirmed their commitment to follow and actively monitor testing and safety protocols and accurately report testing results.â
They are not on that list because they have proven they cannot be trusted to use that information fairly. Probably time for UH and Duarte to go their separate ways.
We are accurately reporting information, too. We just donât break it out by sport.
Duarteâs June article was an attack on UH and not just Dana. He went a little too far in an area that is really new and not quite clear on what to do. This latest spat is more of the same with the commentary from a source about transparency. I think it is time for a new beat writer.
It serves all sports organizations whether at the professional, collegiate, or amateur to have good relationships and rapport with the press and especially with those that are closely covering their team. Your comments cover 2 decades which includes many head coaches and ADs and even 4 presidents.
Not sure what the issue is between Dana and Duarte, but it was obvious from very early on that Dana had issues with Duarte just watching the videos of their many Q&A sessions last season. I didnât see anything in his written reporting or even on Twitter that probably irriated Dana. The only thing that appeared irritating was Duarteâs longwinded questions that appeared on the surface to irritate Dana when asked.
This latest issue appears way above Danaâs head at this point with UHâs general counsel dealing with the requests. Sounds like Dana is totally out of it at this point in time.
Although Duarteâs latest article was professional and factually outlined events and the requests and included quotes from the Freedom of Information Foundation and so forth, his article in early June with the initial outbreak was not professional. It was a hatchet job up and down the university. UH was the first I believe to report COVID outbreaks which was a small amount compared to what was to follow at other programs. Other news organizations that reported on the story like USA Today factually reported on the UH story and did not pound into the university with a hardened opinion. All the other outbreaks that occurred, I have not found a critical opinion piece that came close to Duarteâs article on UHâs situation from OU, Clemson, LSU, and many others. Those types of articles may be out there, but I have not seen them.
UH does have a sound argument regarding protecting the identity of the student athletes with the stigma of getting the virus. Plus, the university is reporting numbers at the university level. There is no additional value to society in a middle of a pandemic with reporting numbers down to the individual sport where exposure of individual athletes can be determined.
We will see what the Texas AGâs office has to say about it in another 40 days or so. It appears this is the hand the university has decided to play at the highest levels and I doubt anything will change until the AG makes a ruling on the request and UHâs argument to protect their student athletes.
If you donât like Duarte donât read his articles. If you really donât Duarte donât subscribe to his newspaper or buy it at the newsstand if they still exist.
You can also write a letter to the editor if you are so inclined.
Writers are not supposed to be loyal to a coach or team or administration or ownership.
Hotel - you know you just painted the perfect world of unbiased journalism. It does not exist! If it did exist, it died off with the dinos.
This is closer to reality:
The standard practice is that beat writers or journalism professionals that cover a university team is going to show favoritism and be slightly biased to very biased towards covering that team. Check out Austin coverage of the Whorns, OK for the Sooners, LA for LSU, AL for the Crimson Tide, SC for Clemson, OH for the Buckeyes, even FW for TCU and check out John McClain with the Chronicle for the Texans and tell me that model doesnât exist.
It is highly unusual for a covering journalist to write a highly negative opinionated, pretty much incorrect, hit piece on the team they cover 24x7 for years along with providing haymakers to the AD and up and down the administration of that university.
The people that read and follow UH are typically followers and most likely supporters of the university. This is the market they make their money from with the content they produce on UH sports.
For a hometown paper, the Chronicle in general has never treated UH as the standard home town team around the country and receive the fluff and pro coverage that most university teams enjoy with their press coverage. Some believe that the coverage overall has leaned negative versus unbiased.
The situation that is occurring in Houston with UH is uncommon across most media markets.
You can guarantee that it is being viewed as serious at the university if the universityâs general counsel has the ball. This isnât one of Danaâs press conferences where he doesnât like Duarteâs longwinded questions. It is being treated far more serious.
That June article, from an emotional standpoint among UH AD and senior administrators as a terrorist like hit upon the university via electronic media.
i agree with you but it is in our best interest for the program and local journalism to have a good relationship, whatever that meansâŠthe worse it gets, the less information we are able to get from the program as Coog supportersâŠnot good for us, the school, or the local paperâŠmaybe Duarte and Dana should have a beer
I donât think he meant unbiased, I took the âresponsibility to the readershipâ to mean write what gets the most hits and makes readers happiest, which usually is bias towards the home team. Itâs clear there isnât a big enough readership from UH fans to make the Chronicle care about putting out positive biased coverage like most other home papers. By UH people unsubscribing, the coverage will just get worse.
I think the smarter strategy would be UH getting in good with the main beat writer and âusingâ him as free advertising for positive things going on. Anytime TCU is having a bad season here, the sports page is filled with feel good stories about players or about how the future is bright. You rarely see a negative article even if the team is 4-8/5-7/6-6. I told you guys as soon as the Patterson N word thing came out, the media would protect him and they did. Nothing but positive articles. Seems like that wont be happening for UH in the short term.
Lindsey Nelson, Bob Murphy and Ralph Kiner were approved by the Mets. When I was 11 years old, I expected 100% loyalty.
Despite what some here may thing I am not 11 anymore.
In all seriousness. If an organizationâs media relation department or lawyers donât like something there are ways to handle that. I am 100% for that. I have been personally victimized myself by bad journalist.
By the way. The UH lawyers work for UH not for Dana. I am sure he knows what I mean by that. I am sure every head coach knows what I mean by that.
