Let me start off by saying that I don't intend to hold up Brian Dohn as a pinata for bashing. Number one, it's too easy. Second, although it disappoints me greatly that he is obviously afraid to ask the tough questions of Dorrell, I do get some value out of his blog. Third, I'm simply not interested in hearing from the defenders of crappy journalism.
"No, I wouldn't lose access, but if Dorrell doesn't want to answer a question in a certain way, it doesn't matter how many times it gets asked. Yes, it is frustrating not getting answers to certain questions, but I am not going to badger a guy by asking the same question five times, so he can not answer it five different ways."
Sorry, no earthshaking answer here and, in hindsight, my question could have been better. Dohn's answer is not much different than the one he gave to 66 (although I didn't find the above answer insulting). And for those fretting about Dohn's job security, he said he would not lose access if he pressed Dorrell. So, sleep well, defenders of all journalists, good or bad.
In hindsight, I should have simply asked Dohn why he doesn't simply report when Dorrell won't answer a question directly. And I find the term "badger" in Dohn's answer silly: no one is asking him to "badger" anyone. If Dorrell won't answer a question directly or gives a nonsensical answer, and you can't get a clear and direct answer out of the guy, then just report that. The reading public could then draw their own conclusions about why Dorrell is not answering questions.
I will give Dohn credit for answering my question. I would also suggest that everyone should pose a (respectful) question to him beginning every Wednesday. The Q's and A's are entertaining to read.
Interestingly, the following Q&A (not my question) appeared directly under Dohn's answer to me:"If UCLA still had confidence in Dorrell wouldn't they express that when responding to the press about the Dienhart leak?"
"What leak? Do you mean the false report? What more can UCLA say than making the comment it is untrue? That seems perfect, and succinct, without giving any credibility to the story."
I think we all know by now (from Fox 71's fine work) that this was probably not a "false report." I sent Dienhart an email requesting permission to clue in the LAT and Daily Bruin, among others, to the fact that this was likely not a false report, but Dienhart never emailed me back, which I took to mean a denial of my request.
Here is where I will bash Dohn: It's ok not to toe the party line, especially because you don't work for UCLA. Just because the Morgan Center says something, you don't have to adopt it. Unfortunately, something tells me that even if Dohn read Dienhart's response to Fox, Brian would still toe the "company line."
And, by the way, Dohn didn't answer the above question: Why didn't UCLA express confidence in Dorrell when responding to the "leak" (whether it was false or not)? Doesn't Dohn's sputtering response sound like someone who is just a tad bit defensive? I find his reaction very strange.
I just thought you might find the above interesting.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.