I didn’t see anything that even hinted that UCLA had announced that Tevaga would not be on the team because of academic problems. And in this case, my use of “UCLA” implied someone in some sort of official capacity. In a more generic sense, if some guy on Bruin walk said the same thing, it could be accurately said that the statement was from a “university announcement” because it was announced by a kid while he was at the university.

As you may have guessed, my issue is not so much with whether Tevaga is flunking out or not. My issue is with the manner in which unattributed comments get posted and repeated as if they are holy writ. All may be true, of course. But if something is untrue, it could cause a lot of heartache for the person on the receiving end. Suppose Tevaga is in fact not leaving the school because of anything even remotely connected with academics. How would you like to be on the receiving end of that – pxcasey is leaving his job because of performance issues, when in fact your performance was good enough to get you recruited by another employer.

I really find this sort of reporting to be reprehensible and irresponsible. If you want to label it as an opinion or as speculation or as a rumor, then do so and all is OK. But when it is said to be a “university announcement” when it sure didn’t look to me like a university pronouncement, then I think it is wrong to put it in the fact column. Again, it may turn out to be a fact in five minutes, but it wasn’t a fact when it was first posted. It was someone’s opinion.

End of rant. (For now. Ranting will resume when opinions are posted as fact. Unless they’re my opinions, in which case they should be accepted not just as facts, but as stuff that should be made into facts by force of arms if necessary.)