Week Four

I'm just thinking about the Cowboys article we got in class Wednesday, and there were a few thoughts I had...

1) The media is always going to attempt to produce a story that may bring in more publicity and therefore money

Locker room scuffle in NFL spring training locker room=Something different from business as normal=A story=The juicier the better=Media trying to squeeze or fabricate or maximize to the highest degree possible

We talked about how whether or not the Cowboys organization was ethical, but what about the journalists?

Journalists automatically go on the defensive, and like you said in the handout:
If it was accidental by-product of horseplay, why not tell details? If not, why not identify guilty parties as a part of punishment?

But how about this...
If it was accidental by-product of horseplay, why tell details? If not, why identify guilty parties as a part of punishment?

Why can't it work the latter way?

Who is to say that a come-clean strategy would have been better? It's something the world will never know for sure. What I do know is, each party (Cowboys and media) had something to gain by taking opposite approaches. I think what the Cowboys organization did was the "right" thing to do in order to minimize the after effects. I think what they did was the "wrong" thing to do in relation to treating everyone equally and bringing complete justice to McIver.

The weird thing is is that if this were to happen in a business building between co-workers, there would've been such a different outlook and strategy to the situation. The fact that Michael Irvin has the God-given talent to catch a football and run fast changed the whole strategy.

It may be pathetic or sad or unfair, but true.