You said “Doh! is stating there is a story behind the story about Warner that he can’t share.”

I don’t know if my least favorite “journalist” said that or it’s just your interpretation of what he said, but either way it’s even worse writing that his incessant use of anonymous sources. It puts the subject of the story in a horrible position.

When Doh! or any writer claims that a particular thing is true, but bases the claim for that truth on an anonymous source, the reader must accept many things as being true: (1) the writer is being truthful in all respects, (2) there was in fact a source, (3) the writer accurately transcribed what the source said, (4) the writer accurately interpreted what the source said, (5) the source was being truthful, (6) the source accurately perceived what he said was true, (7) the source has no bias, (8) the source has no agenda of his own, and on and on.

Now, Doh! says directly or by implication that he’s got a story that is so interesting he can’t even tell you what it is. That’s not just an anonymous source, it’s an anonymous source with an anonymous story. Doh! suggests, by innuendo, that Warner couldn’t get into UCLA because of grades, or because of some character flaw, or because of some other negative thing (he’s secretly a trOJan). “Boy, I sure want to tell you, but I can’t.” The subject of that story is unfairly put in a negative light, and how can he possibly defend himself when he is not even allowed to know what he’s supposed to have done.

That sort of journalism is more reprehensible than the stuff you see in the supermarket tabloids. Those stories are understood by all to be either hyperbole or fiction. Nonetheless, the National Inquirer has a huge budget for handling defamation cases. Doh! and other writers for ostensibly legitimate newspapers hold themselves out to be paragons of reporting virtue, with chivalrous qualities in terms of journalistic honesty. “But I have this story about Warner that’s so sensational I can’t even write it, but boy oh boy if you knew what my anonymous source told me, wow, would you ever think Warner is a bad guy. Gee, I wish I could tell you.”

I am highly critical of Doh!, but I think my criticism is fair. Doh! is critical of guys like Warner, but in the most unfair way possible. The Warner story reminds me of an incident when I was a pledge. I was called to my big brother’s room for an interview. He told me to start doing pushups until I told him what I did wrong. Well, I confessed to a lot of things and never did get around to the thing that caused my big brother to givie me the pushups. What’s the difference between that and what Doh! is doing to Warner?

I truly can’t understand why the BN and its denizens seem to confer automatic legitimacy on Doh!. When he quotes sources to tell a story, I generally accept the truthfulness and accuracy of that quote. Some quotes, of course, must be questioned. CTS was once criticized a specific player and that criticism was quoted and published. When CTS or one of his defenders realized that throwing a player under a bus by name made CTS look bad, the publisher of the quote (who I believe was Doh!) changed the quote to make CTS look better. Nonetheless, a quote is better than a writer’s interpretation of a quote, generally. But this “there really was a story I can’t tell you” business is undefensible. I truly do not understand why it is even referred to other than to serve as the basis for criticism of bad reporting.

Was this live? Were there other people in the room listening to people asking questions and watching and listening to Doh!‘s answers? Or was this a published Q&A, with Doh! posting the Q’s and Doh! posting the A’s? If it’s the latter, then I absolutely positively stand by my criticism. Remember that Doh! refused to post any questions which were critical of him, so there is definitely a filter on what get’s published. A question inviting an irresponsible response should not have made it through the filter. “Mr. Doh!, recruit John Doe has decided not to come to UCLA, some say because he had problems with his grades, others say because he is a pedophile, and others say because of [name some socially unacceptable characteristic.] Is there a story about this that you can’t tell?” If he can’t give the answer to the question with facts, why post the question? Do you think Doh! would publish any question that I would formulate about his style of journalism? “Mr. Doh!, when are you going to stop lying about your sources, since it’s clear that you’re obviously just making this stuff up?” Obviously a question like that would not make it to a Q and A. He has already demonstrated that he controls the content of his blog or column or whatever you want to call it.

Another question. What reader would phrase a question the way it appears to have come out in a Q and A. The question would have been diirect: “Why did Warner opt out of UCLA?” It wouldn’t have been “Hey Doh! I don’t know why Warner didn’t come to UCLA and would like to know. Do you know the answer? I don’t want you to tell me, I’ll just be secure in knowing that you know.” Does that sound like the way a real person would ask a question? Frankly, I think the question came from one of Doh!’s fictional anonymous sources.

Whatever the source of the question, it is clear to me that the only reason for him to have answered it is for self-aggrandizement — to make him look like he knows more than anyone else. When you think about it, that’s really the story Doh! is trying to get out to the public. He could care less about Warner. The story is Doh!, and his great contacts and insights. That’s OK. He has a right to puff himself up, but I remain of the belief that it’s singularly unfair to do it by publishing an unidentified rumor which is phrased so that the context is unquestionably negative.

Historical anecdote. When I was a student, one of the local TV news guys was George Putnam, slightly to the right of J. Edgar Hoover. During the days of student unrest in the early ’70’s, there was a mild demonstration at UCLA, which George criticized. Then he covered a fire at some factory in Whittier. He ended that story with “As yet, there is no proven connection between the fire in Whittier and the riots at UCLA.” That was, of course, a true statement, but in context it was intended to convey the notion that there was a direct connection, and that he would soon get to the bottom of it. The story was George and his investigative journalism, not a story about a demonstration and a story about a fire.

I remain of the belief that Doh! has yet to rise to the level of the National Inquirer. He wrote a hit piece on a kid who cannot defend himself, and he did it for the same reason a dog licks his genitals – because he can. It is cowardly in the extreme. Yet Doh! is still perceived to be a legitimate writer, worthy of being quoted in the BN. Well, as long as he keeps being quoted, I’ll keep on commenting. I believe my comments about Doh! are much fairer than his comments about Warner.

Disclaimer: I don’t know Warner, never saw him play, have no idea about his character or anything else about him. I know of no story about Warner that I can’t tell or that I can tell. I likewise don’t know Doh!, and don’t read him other than what get’s republished here. If nothing were republished, I would have to find some other subject for my rants.

Doh! says that he got a particular question sent to him, and you accept that he is telling the truth. I don’t believe the basic premise for reasons I outlined above. I can’t prove that Doh! didn’t get a question which asked him to say whether there was something that couldn’t be said which contributed to something. But logic and Doh!‘s history suggest that it didn’t happen the way he said.

As you (this time not global) have undoubtedly perceived, I am highly skeptical of anything emanating from or attributed to Doh!. He has proven himself to me (not necessarily to others) to be a charlatan, and to be reckless with the truth. My moan about “why do you accept the basic premise” was another wail from the wilderness about why anyone would accept the basic premise that the Q’s in his Q and A’s are actually Q’s from actual people.

I disagree with Nestor on one aspect of things. He encourages you to keep reporting on what Doh! says. I have campaigned for a long time to have a moratorium on Doh!.

We have something like two months before the football opener. Wouldn’t now be a good time to see if we could do without Doh!? Let’s see if the BN can survive without quotes from or references to him. One benefit of course would be fewer rants from me, and that has to be good by any standard.