I will never forget the Jerry Reinsdorf interview with Silvy and Carmen a few years back, on MLB's opening day. The interview started with baseball, and slowly drifted to Bulls and Phil Jackson, which angered Reinsdorf and him claiming he would never go on their show again.

A few years later, and I guess I'm a bit shocked that Reinsdorf has agreed to appear on the Lunch with a Legend with Waddle and Silvy. It's been a few years now, I realize, and it's a different show. I remember hearing Silvy say about a year after the interview with Reinsdorf that they were all good, but about six months ago when Carmen was filling in for Dan McNeil, it was mentioned that Jerry doesn't like Carm. I remember Carm saying that it didn't bother him. It didn't seem like they were joking.

Anyone know anything about that? Why would Jerry hate Carm, yet still do the event with Waddle and Silvy? If Jerry does still not like Carm, it's a shame, because not long before that interview, Carm filled in for DJ on the Sox telecast during a preseason game, and I remember him actually being somewhat good.

I have noidea about your questions but your avatar is very disturbing....

_________________
SideshowBob311: "Sadly enough, I think we're the "intelligent" portion of the sports radio fanbase".
"I make fun of whoever sucks, including me"- Harry 11/30/07

You're right. The "Billary" one was disturbing. I hope this one is more appealing.

I am craving breakfast food and I don't know why....

_________________
SideshowBob311: "Sadly enough, I think we're the "intelligent" portion of the sports radio fanbase".
"I make fun of whoever sucks, including me"- Harry 11/30/07

Here's a picture of Reinsdorf after Silvy was done with him:



...and here's Carmine:

_________________
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are not suitable for work or home viewing.

The name's Rockmore. Beef Rockmore

Carm says everything is fine betwixt he and the Chairman. He says the reason he hasn't interviewed him is that because he hasn't been on a show that has requested an interview with him. He however has spoken with Jer many times off the air and everything is cool betwixt them.

I heard that too, Colonel. I did find it interesting though that Carmen said that if they had known the Chairman had conditions on the original interview (only talk baseball, not hoops), they never would have done the interview in the first place. He also said that if Reinsdorf puts future conditions on interviews, he won't do them. I've heard Mac say that kind of thing too...that they don't do interviews with conditions.

That's interesting that the sports guys think they are so special and so different from other kinds of reporters that they don't do interviews with conditions. News reporters often have to do interviews with conditions when interviewing corporate CEOs and others. In such situations, they know in advance that if they ask certain questions they will get "no comment" for what could be a multitude of reasons. They regard the value of the interview as being worth the conditions. What is it about the sports guys that they have to convince us they are different from their journalism brethren and would pass an interview entirely rather than be held to conditions? I thought "old school journalism" was dead? Seems this is one relic of the old school the sports boys at WMVP are trying to keep around...

I can see why they think that Coast, cant you? Isnt an interview with JR or any big name with a bunch of stipulations a waste of air space? He is just going to throw out a bunch of "talking without saying anything" and cliche responses. I can definitely understand why they would want no part of what is sure to be a very boring, cookie-cutter interview.

You might be right in assuming the reason they feel that way is some sort of "Im-better-than-you" attitude but I really doubt thats the reason. I think they just dont want the wasted air time.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

A good reporter never does interviews with conditions. I, for one, never did an interview with conditions. Only the trolls on TV will coddle their subjects for "a scoop" aka ratings. A reporter should not be an extension of the subjects PR department, so nothing should be off limits. If the subject doesn't want to talk about something, that person has every right not to answer any questions that he/she does not see fit. However, a reporter has every right to ask any question they seem fit.

Maybe we're arguing semantics here Colonel. You are correct in everything you say and your last two sentences capture the essence of the issue. But asking a question that you know in advance will get "no comment" is in essence doing an interview with conditions. You say no questions are ever off limits for reporters, but there actually are many questions that could be off limits for answers. For example, I have seen reporters ask CEOs questions that would have been a violation of SEC law had the CEO answered them. Print reporters, particularly business reporters, know this drill and do this all the time. They know that if they ask these certain questions, they will get non responsive answers. It doesn't prevent them from asking the questions, but they know in advance they will get no comment as the answer. If you know a subject will not answer a certain question for whatever reason and you do the interview, isn't that a condition? Many very good journalists do this. They have to do it to do their jobs properly.

I think you misunderstood me, FF. I'm not suggesting the sports guys think they are better than other journalists, just that they seem to have slightly different rules. I just wonder how many good interviews are lost because of it...

Coast I feel like you know the SEC example really means nothing in this context. I really doubt anyone is asking JR a question that would violate a law if he answered it. Im pretty sure any question he doesnt want asked or refuses to answer is based solely on the fact he doesnt want to look bad or doesnt want to answert tough questions. Possibly it could be a case of not wanting to speculate on something his GM does without as much first hand knowledge, but Im guessing most questions fall under the former classifications I stated.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I would think those two things are pretty similar, but in any case I dont think many good interviews are lost if JR gets to cherry pick the questions he is allowed to answer.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I like that they take that stand. "No interviews with conditions". To the contrary Coast. That means they are true journalists. Not that Mac considers himself a journalist. He has said that. Still, it's a good policy to have as a talk show host.

I don't want to hear Reinsdorf only talk about things that he wants. He's a coward if he puts conditions on interviews. What's he scared of? He can give a bull shit answer to questions. As an audience we can then judge him on his bullshit answers.

Some writers and TV people have that policy too. I just recently heard that Barbarah Walters once obliged a subject with their conditions on an interview. She said she never did that again. It was Barbrah Strizane that she allowed conditions for.

Sometimes pushing a question, but not to the point of annoyance for everyone involved, or a creative rewording/rephrasing, will get an answer out of the subject.

FF, I was arguing the general point that Carm and Mac have made that they don't do interviews with condtions, not the specific situation regarding JR. I was just using an example as to why a person would have legitimate reasons not to answer. I can also imagine some questions and situations JR or another sports owner wouldn't answer either.

I never suggested JR or anyone else ought to be able to select the questions they are asked. But many times, media people know in advance that they will not get answers if they go in certain directions. Yet they choose to do the interview anyway because the overall value of the interview is worth it to them. But apparently the sports guys wouldn't do that?

Exactly, Colonel. Asking the questions, even of an unresponsive subject, can have a payoff. But if you make a pre-determination not to do the interview at all because the subject said he would be unresponsive, then you missed the chance.

I agree but that doesnt change my objection to the corporate CEO/SEC analogy. They are different animals. I really doubt MJH or any subsequent show has had a guest on that would be in violation of law if they answered a question. Possibly an attorney for violating attorney/client privelage, but I doubt thats ever even been the case. They simply dont want to face tough questions. I would much rather hear MJH or any other show talk about anything else or have on any other segment then ask a particular guest what they are doing this weekend, how they feel about their alma mater's chances in the big game, etc. These questions are stupid, a waste of air time, and I think that in general they would rather pass up a bland interview in order to get what they deem more compelling air time/programming in that slot.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I was trying to address the general question theoretically, and was not specifically focused on Reinsdorf. The unrelated example I gave was in response to a Colonel comment about pre-conditions and had nothing whatsoever to do with the specific Reinsdorf issue. I guess that point was not clear at 1 am.

You guys don't want interviews with conditions? Fine. But I think this kind of policy prevents valuable interviews from being done. As Colonel suggested, sometimes you know the guy won't answer but persistent, friendly questioning might result in more info than you expected. I think there are a few interviews in this town that would not be a waste of time, but perhaps will never occur because the participant may decline to answer some questions and thus the media won't bother with them. But I guess that's just me.

To broaden your thinking about this, here is a possible interview situation, for example. Why has nobody in the local sports media interviewed Sam Zell? Why has nobody asked Mr. Zell whom he favors selling the Cubs to? Why has nobody from any sports media apparently had any desire to talk to the guy? Why has nobody asked him what he is looking for in a sales price for his Cubs? Why do they not inquire as to why Sam has chosen to be invisible and has delegated all matters Cub to Crane Kenny?

Does the media already know that Zell might not answer all of these questions, so they don't even bother to ask any of them? Is that what is happening here? So am I to infer that the sports' media's requirement of "no conditions/all questions must be answered" results in a sports media that won't interview the owner of the Cubs at all during any of his 1-3 year tenure as owner? Does that make sense?

Jerry is very speciifc before all interviews of what they can and can't talk about.

I don't believe Carmen that he did not know that.

Carmen claims he was in Reinsdorf's office the very next day rehashing the event.

A bit more of a disturbing thought that he had an alleged misunderstanding with a guy and went crawling to his ofice for forgiveness.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”