So lot of Bruins are furious (justifiably so) over the latest column from TJ Simers in today's LA Times. Simers today wrote a piece going straight after CRN with his usual snark (without providing any kind of reality based context). I won’t link it (because doing so will serve his purpose of driving up page views of a stale newspaper) but will excerpts few paras from it:

Neuheisel is supposed to be Mr. Personality, oozing charisma all over the place, but when given the Page 2 Test, he became rattled. Gary Matthews comes to mind, and he might have an excuse -- no one knowing yet if an inability to appear interesting is one of those HGH side effects.

Neuheisel had the advantage on Matthews and Dullard, too, in taking the Page 2 Test, because we go back to when he was playing quarterback for the Chargers during the 1987 strike.

Maybe he was uptight because he thought I was going to nickname him "Scab."

No question the Scab wasn't the same guy I remembered, and I hadn't even mentioned Karl Dorrell's efforts in leading Miami past the Patriots and obviously outsmarting Bill Belichick.

I wanted to ask if he had called Dorrell seeking advice -- Dorrell starting his coaching career at UCLA 1-2 after not being left much by Bob Toledo, everyone making fun of him but then coaxing his team into winning five in a row.

Anyone like the Scab's chances of coaxing the Bruins into winning the next five games in a row?

Well, when a "columnist" starts a piece with a personal attack on his subject matter he kind of loses his credibility right off the bat (I know Simers doesn’t have a lot of it). More importantly, it’s not that difficult to take apart the weak arguments he offers up to attack CRN.

To argue that Dorrell was the master mind behind Miami’s win over a Tom Brady less Patriots is just as laughable to make the argument that Lavin was a competent coach because he took a crew of McDonald Americans to Sweet-16s. We all know how super awesome the contributions of an NFL wide receiver coach to its team. I will just go back to this post from January of 2007, when our SBN colleague - TheSportsGuru - over at Mile High Report (who obviously covers the Broncos on a day-to-day basis and does a wonderful job at it) shared the following observation re. the former WR coach, who lucked into the head coaching position in Westwood (emphasis added):

At the time I thought Dorrell was a nice position coach, but no one I would have thought of as a Head Coach candidate at a major D-1 school.  Even looking at his background, there just wasn't a lot of sustained success nor experience at big time college programs.  In that way it is similar to Brewster, who had never been more than a position coach.  The key difference, however, between the two is Brewster's experience as recruiting coordinator at Texas and North Carolina, where he recruited players like Chris Simms and Vince Young.

Dorrell really didn't have a strength, that I saw, as someone in a leadership position.  It wasn't like the Broncos were rolling out Pro Bowlers under Dorrell, and as a matter of fact, every receiver the team acquired or drafted during his time there is no longer with the team.  Sure, Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey are solid, but both were good players before and after Dorrell.   It's a well known fact in Bronco Nation that Shanny has a tendancy to hire "yes" men as assistants, made obvious by the fact that there isn't a "coaching tree" to speak of.  Karl Dorrell is among that group, and not someone I saw then, or now, as a coach with a bright head coaching future.  Some guys are just better suited to be part of a team, not in charge of it, and Dorrell wasn't even a great assistant.

If the Bruins ever want to be taken seriously in college football, on and off campus, they need to get an established, proven successful head coach.  I know Dorrell is an alum, but with no real football strength to speak of the Bruins will continue to win despite Dorrell, which is ok if 8-4 and 9-3 is acceptable every season.

I hope that makes sense.... 

Anyone wants to argue that the situation is any different in Miami?

And then Simers brings up Dorrell’s alleged "hot start" in his first season at UCLA. Simmers either willfully or ignorantly fails to bring up the facts concerning Dorrell 03 v. Neuheisel 08. If you are a regular reader of BN, it shouldn’t be very difficult to look up the facts in support of the arguments that Dorrell inherited lot more talent from an 8-5 Toledo coached team compared to what he left CRN and that schedule for Dorrell’s first season was ridiculously weak compared to what CRN is facing this season. You can find them here and here as well as looking up posts under the tag – "dose of reality" – which is clearly missing in Simers’s tabloid trash in the LA Times.

So what should folks do? IMHO there is no use for linking up his article or lighting up the email inboxes for TJ Simers or Randy Harvey (who I am assuming is still in the EIC for LAT’s sports section). Giving Simers attention through clicking on his article (the link from post mentioning his article has been redacted from BN) only boosts his value to the LAT.

We have no problem with folks linking to legit articles/reports from the LAT or other outlets in the traditional media. I don't agree with those who advocate we ignore the traditional media all together. I think that is extreme, too reactionary and totally misses the point. I find nothing wrong with keeping track of actual news that comes out via traditional news media. I think if you want to be a well informed UCLA fan, you should keep track of news coming out via beat reporters and if you are discussing them you should link to their work. I don't subscribe to the theory that blogs like BN is a replacement to the work done by beat reporters. If anything I think when properly done (see Ted Miller's well run and informative blog on WWL), blogs and traditional media can complement each other in a very productive manner.

However, we all have to become collectively more savvy and sophisticated in terms of how we filter content coming from the traditional media. I think we have to exercise discretion and be selective when deciding to link content from a specific source or where and how to react to it (and I don't think we can just ignore certain attacks on our program and coaches and hope it all just goes away).

So when someone like Simers attacks UCLA and its coaches and fans, we should pick our venues and methods on how to react and respond (without serving their purpose).  Same goes for below average columnists like Marcia Smith in the OC Register. Marcia was at it again this week (again no use linking tabloid trash):

Though he does not throw, run, kick or tackle in the game, Neuheisel is the one who's fumbling right now.

When he accepted the job at his alma mater, Neuheisel brashly, if not blindly, raised the Bruin football program's expectations for winning, dominating in the Pac-10, contending for national championships and getting in the facemask of crosstown rival USC.

At the time, Neuheisel's words were a refreshing blast of enthusiastic, albeit hot, air from a program that had long gone stale. The Bruins' overtime upset victory in the Sept. 1 season opener against a then-No. 18 Tennessee gave Neuheisel's early optimism some substance.

Down 17-10 at halftime to the Wildcats on Saturday, the game was still undecided. Though a few hundred fans, including legendary Bruin basketball coach John Wooden, departed shortly before the third quarter, a sizeable, supportive city of Bruin faithful remained to root for a team that hasn't scored an offensive touchdown since Game 1.

The Bruins lost again, convincingly again, but not as badly as in their second game, a 59-0 shutout at No. 18 BYU. And suddenly the Neuheisel's golden-haired surprise victory of Game 1 seemed more distant, and the two defeats, more pulsing with the kind of disappointment that messes with minds and toy with hearts.

"Golden-haired surprise victory"? Really there is nothing we can write that can respond to that. I will just refer to Jason over at What’s Bruin, Dawg, who pegged Marcia’s work pretty accurately based on what we have seen from her:

[T]here is nothing that could have prepared me for the singular awfulness of Marcia Smith, the OC Register's 'beat' writer for the UCLA Bruins. I use the term 'beat writer' loosely; I prefer to think of her as the crazy aunt that someone at the Register decided to let out of the asylum. Her work is both abysmal, pandering and ridiculous, all at the same time.

I mean it shouldn’t take a lot of brain power for anyone to get the notion that what CRN laid out in his first press conference as the new UCLA head coach, he was laying out a vision for the long term future. Obviously that either went right over Marcia’s head or she was being a craven, cynical tabloid columnist, who was just writing a hit piece to attract just like TJ Simmers.

Again, as many have already astutely observed in this thread, Simmer’s (as well as Marcia’s) shtick is to write something (often absurd and baseless) just so they can rile up people. It’s not difficult to discern they are concern trolling by launching baseless attacks against CRN to get a rise out of Bruin fan base, and drive up the hits on LAT. So why give him the link? So next time he writes something that is off base and just absurd, just take a little time and tear it apart methodically here on BN or whatever UCLA online community you spend your time in (without giving him a link or urging people to email him). They get their satisfaction out of getting angry emails or filling up their usually deserted comment threads. So why give them the attention?

It’s not that difficult to shred their arguments as we have noted above. Take them apart here and eventually they will also turn into a national joke just like Bill Plaschke, but no need to serve their purposes by giving them attention on their websites and email inboxes. Take them to task here (or wherever you interact with other Bruin fans online) and then expose them to other Bruin fans as irrelevant concern trolls offering ignorant comments on matters related to Bruin Nation.

GO BRUINS.

I will go ahead and run with tasser10's idea for the title of this post. In case you haven't read it yet, check out bluestreet's fanpost concerning Marcia Smith, the OC Register "reporter" (and former beat writer for UCLA) who currently blogs on "UCLA Blog".

Looks like Marica has followed up her recent concern trolling re. our football program with another sloppy and poor researched (and as she implies herself a totally uninformed) article taking all kinds of snark filled cheap shots against our football program. I will go ahead and repost the excerpt from the fan post which will serve as bulletin board material for Neuheisel for years to come:

The first day of fall camp on Tuesday felt like the premiere of a B movie. Beyond the coaches, Spaulding Field wasn’t a who’s who but a who’s that?
  Look at the front of the new Bruin media guide. It’s No. 93 and No. 86, or – let me dig up my numerical roster - Harwell and tight end Logan Paulsen.
  Harwell and Logan are both on preseason watch list for national awards at their respective positions. Harwell, the player Neuheisel (above) brought with him to last month’s Pac-10 media day, has emerged as an early “star” more on his personality than his recent performance. Harwell missed the final 11 games of last season because of a knee injury and received a medical hardship redshirt so that he could return for a fifth year.
  Outside of the football team, nobody knows who the Bruins are or how good – if at all – they will be.
  “There are a lot of question marks but we think we can win,” said senior center Micah Reed. “We’re hopefully going to surprise some people.”
  Like on Halloween, maybe.

Well it looks like finally some comments from Bruins are showing up in that sad, empty and unpopulated "blog" and they are not pretty. From Vision:

You are blogging about the Bruins but can’t recognize two proven commodities and senior leaders without referencing their numbers in the media guide? Those pesky helmets, eh…makes it so hard to see the guys.

Regarding your slamming the kicking game…talk to Florida State or Michigan about how important that can be. Or maybe recognize that sometimes special teams is where the young and unproven get their first taste of the game. At first I thought you didn’t know the Bruins, but perhaps you just don’t know football.

At least you are catching up to the LA Times in one department - unqualified and embarassing columnists reporting on a team they obviously do not appreciate, know or even respect. Kudos!

tasser:

Wow…this is supposed to be the UCLA blog? Perhaps you should tone down the sarcasm, Marcia. People who follow the team know what’s going on. Clearly you are not one of those people. Not sure what your point is anyway, other than to make snarky comments about a team that has a very tough road ahead. You are borderline rude and certainly disrespectful. And where were you when Karl Dorrell was bringing the program to this point? Yeah. Thought so. Wake me up when you write something important.

bungo:

Pretty lame article and blatantly baised given that you pick one defensive lineman’s # and a tight end’s #, the former who IS one of our best players, yet did not get much playing time last year due to injury, and our top tight end, who was not utilized in the vaunted Dorrellian offense last year (both reasons which may account for the lack of awareness of his jersey numbers).

Ask how many USC fans would know players who were injured or not utilized for much of last season by their numbers…

Or perhaps a better question why did you not ask who were #7 (Ben Olson) or #36 (Khalil Bell)? Oh yeah, because most people would know who they were…

BTW, ask how many peopl ever heard of Marcia C. Smith and I guarantee you’ll hear the crickets chirping…

and isodore:

Smith: UCLA? Who are these guys?

They are the team you are getting paid to cover. How about you do some research, and cut the snark, and maybe you will write something worth reading.

*note to the editors* Please remove this “writer” and replace her with someone willing to cover the team using facts, and not sloppy sarcasm.

You can add your 2 cents here (be nice and on point).

Again just to see the ineptness in the local traditional media. For folks who are connected via BN and other UCLA online communities, they find a way to get info. But what a disservice it is for others who are still depending on the traditional media to get their sports fix to be subjected to this kind of poorly written material.

We would also hope that Morgan Center itself would take notice of this type of "reporting" and make an earnest effort to get them to do their job in a professional and competent manner.

GO BRUINS.

...Assclown.

When Rich Perelman stepped down as the LA Times blogger for "What's Bruin", many eyebrows were raised when they chose a SUC hack like Adam Rose to take over. He tried to maintain that he could be objective, and while he may be able to do so from here on out, this was certainly not the case two years ago, when he displayed a propensity for lying and spinning worthy of a trOJan, but certainly not worthy of a journalist. In the interest of fairness, from the Anals (yes, one N) of bad writing, we present you with Adam Rose's Verbal Diarrhea.

I will not link the article, as it is better not to reward his mental deficiency with hits at "laist", but I will block the relevant points that show why Rose is just another typical trOJan SCumbag. He calls this dreck "Why (SUC) Haters Are Lame".

FLAME #1: USC breaks all the rules.

USC has faced lots of allegations over the past year, but that's due to the increased scrutiny that comes with the national spotlight. Notice that I didn't say "convictions" or "violations." The team has managed itself far better than Thug U and they didn't demonstrate the same handicap that plagued the Bruins. As for Reggie Bush, nothing seems to stick to him (kinda' like most college defenders over the past three years). If anything shady happened, look to his step dad. This is the same guy who alienated USC fans when declaring that Reggie would go pro several weeks before Reggie made his decision official. There won't exactly be any tears shed in the land of Troy if he goes down for something.

Willful. Ignorance.

Adam is allegedly a journalist, which means that technically he should be just as capable of digging up any of the items on the laundry list of transgressions under Pom Pom, Timmeh, et al. Keeping in mind that this "article" was written in 2006, I wonder how his clairvoyance regarding the Bu$h situation is working out. Last time I checked, Reggie is still on the hook and the justice department is now involved with SUC's cheating because of Mayo's shady entourage setting up a fake charity. Great call, Adam. Maybe you can pick the Patriots over the Giants in this past year's Superbowl too.

FLAME #2: USC fans are bandwagon.

Of course there are bandwagon fans in Los Angeles. Does anybody else remember what Laker car flags looked like? They were yellow. I remember some very empty stands while the Trojans slumped through a 5-7 season in 2000. I even traveled hundreds of miles to watch a squad dubbed "the worst football team in USC history." Why would anybody subject themselves to that sort of loyalty? Because when I wasn't sitting in the stands I was sitting in class with a much maligned Carson Palmer (a so-called underachiever before he took home the Heisman). Students are the best fans (followed closely by alumni) because they are more dedicated, more passionate, and more connected with the student-athletes. As a student-fan, I appreciated the support from non-student diehards when we were loosing, but I couldn't be upset with the large bandwagon that came shortly after USC's last non-bowl loss in 2003 (and yes, I was on the road for that game, too). The students and alumni have always been there. To everybody else, welcome aboard.

Use. Google.

By that I mean a simple google search for football attendance reveals that the season Adam talks about was when the trOJans drew 57 thousand per game in Paul Hackett's final year. Even a bumbler like Karl Dorrell drew 76 thousand in his final year as a lame duck coach (although those numbers were likely inflated due to ND). Bob Toledo as a lame duck? 65 thousand. Yes, lame duck coaches are a good metric, because by that time, the bandwagon fans are gone and the team hasn't had success in a while. So is Adam arrogant enough to say that his sole presence in 2000 offsets this difference of thousands? Well he is a trOJan isn't he? Seems that he doesn't even have a point in this paragraph except to namedrop Carson Palmer like a giddy schoolgirl. Although he's right in his implication that Palmer has gone on to do great things, like this:

via cache.deadspin.com

I suppose the thousands fewer fans that the trOJans drew than the Bruins did in similar situations is evidence that trOJans aren't bandwagoners...oops? Adam: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

FLAME #3: USC is an ivory tower dynasty. Damn Yankees, errr, Trojans.

USC's fans are actually cheering for something that has taken shape over just the last 5 years. Pete Carroll has built something from nothing, taking over a team that had just recaptured the Victory Bell after 8 long seasons, and did it all while being looked down upon as an NFL retread. Unlike other sports dynasties which do it with money (ahem, Yankees), Carroll energizes the team with his own youthful enthusiasm and energy. Other coaches don't take snaps with the team in practice, and that attitude is part of the reason he was able to recruit the best players despite the modern era of NCAA scholarship parity. While the NFL's version of parity gives the best team the last draft pick (and only one per round), Carroll takes future top NFL draft picks into his program en-mass.

Ivory. Tower?

"Today, ivory tower usually describes a metaphysical space of solitude and sanctity disconnected from daily realities, where certain idealistic writers endeavor and even some scientists are considered to reside."

That phrase. It does not mean what you think it means, Adam. Given what has transpired since then regarding Bu$h and Mayo, his line about sports dynasties not doing it with money is particularly hilarious. Even if we ignore that, the Yankees are a professional franchise and are within their rights to build their team however they want, SUC is supposedly an amateur football program. Criticizing the Yankees for building a team with money and holding up SUC as virtuous because they "don't" is one of the most fallacious arguments I've ever heard. I've never heard anyone flame SUC as an "Ivory Tower Dynasty". You know why? BECAUSE THAT PHRASE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. The rest can only be described as brainless fluff, much like Petey the "Humanitarian" or Petey the "Physical Genius". "HE TAKES SNAPS WITH THE TEAM, OMG." Hope you didn't cream your shorts, Adam. I'm sure those snaps are the reason that they want to go to SUC. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the free flatscreen TVs in their dorm rooms or free houses. I'm sure no one at SUC knew anything about that.

FLAME #4: USC is the University of Second Choice.

Stay classy, Bruins. I'm sure those erudite scholars of Westwood realize this is an ad hominum, or "straw man," attack (the last cry of a desperate orator). Different institutions are going to be better at different things (USC gets the gridiron, UCLA gets the hardcourt, USC gets film, UCLA gets medicine). When painting the schools with a broad brush, remember that USC was recently named Time-Princeton School of the Year, and that the incoming Freshman class has a 3.7 GPA and middle 50% SAT range of 1290-1430. Once somebody becomes a Trojan, they become part of a network so strong it's known as the USC Mafia. And if sports are your thing, USC and UCLA are neck and neck for the national lead once football championships are factored into the NCAA rankings (which don't officially crown a champion). When it comes down to it, which championship is more impressive, football or men's gymnastics? (Sidebar: After (UCLA and SUC), Stanford is third. With Cal ranking just outside the top 10, California is by far the top college sport state in the nation.)

Spell. Check.

I don't know what an ad hominum attack is, probably because it's spelled ad hominem. The point of this is not to be a Grammar/Spelling Nazi, but to point out that in a paragraph meant to illustrate how the gap isn't as big as people think it is between SUC and UCLA, he only shows that the gap is as wide as ever with his bumbling of the English language. He's the ice skater that goes for the big jump and falls flat on his ass. If you're going to assert your "smarts" by throwing out Latin phrases in a smug tone, I humbly ask that you SPELL IT CORRECTLY. Furthermore, an ad hominem attack and a straw man attack ARE NOT THE SAME. This guy is a journalist? Are you freaking kidding me? How is an an "argument against the man" the same as "intentionally misrepresenting an opponent's position"? He probably thinks this is an ad hominem too without realizing that intelligence and understanding are the central focus of his paragraph.

I looked up this supposed Time-Princeton thing (from the year 2000), and all I saw was references to helping out in its immediate community (and yes, that area needs PLENTY of help). This is certainly admirable, but it doesn't advance his argument. UCLA is a University Of The People. Our public status ensures that our accomplishments advance the interests of our immediate community, the State of California, and beyond. SUC, once again, is left playing catch up.

He talks about the trOJan mafia like it's a good thing, nevermind that it doesn't travel well. UCLA is worldwide. My UCLA degree will be respected the world over. SUC degrees are only worth something in Los Angeles, and most of the time not even then. How's that trOJan mafia working out in paragraph 1, where he throws Bush's family under the bus? That's some good old fashioned trOJan loyalty.

Then there's the pathetic "if we count football championships" argument. I don't see him mentioning that SUC awarded themselves championships from 7 decades ago that they never actually won. No, this, like everything, has caveats. That's the SUC way. "SUC would be as good as UCLA, IF YOU COUNT..." We don't need caveats. We're UCLA. We are better than SUC. That's why we had the most applicants in the country once again for the hundreth straight year (I've lost count). It goes without saying that I got into both SUC and UCLA. That's what we UCLA students have in common: rejecting SUC. It's so common that we don't even have to mention it as Adam does in reverse (a claim, given his writing, that I am quite skeptical of). That's just the way it is.

See, I can write a flame piece too, except my piece is grounded in facts and logic. I sure hope Adam didn't go to journalism school to put out this kind of garbage, because I've already done him one better, and that's with an Engineering degree (let's just say we are not known for our writing). Looks like Shakespeare was wrong: A Rose by any other name actually smells like sh!t.

Achilles gave us a lot to think about in his post on blogs and traditional media coverage of UCLA. I agree with many of his points concerning how the newspapers in Southern California still hasn’t figured what to do with blogs. They – as in the main beat writers – who cover UCLA and other major athletic program in town still haven’t shown the ability to understand college football/basketball blogsphere and how to engage it both indirectly (by interacting with us) or directly (by launching their own effective blogs).

Sure they are trying. The OC Register has now launched their own “UCLA Blog” (without linking BN or any other UCLA blogs in it’s “blogroll”). Brian Dohn is working away on his DN blog along with Adam Rose, a Trojan alum on LAT’s “What’s Bruin.” Kevin Pearson and Jeff Eisenberg are giving it a go on Press Enterprise. They all should be commended for the effort they are putting in (even though we often do not agree with their commentary and observations concerning UCLA athletics).

However, I think the problem these guys are having is that they have failed to connect with the zeitgeist of the greater Bruin Nation time and time again as demonstrated in their coverage of UCLA football during the Dorrell and Lavin eras. And the collective frustrations have been compounded by the perceived bias on our part in favor of the Southern California athletic program (not just the football program). This is where I diverge a little from my dear friend – Achilles – who posited the argument that coverage is more slanted towards the Trojans because of the newspapers need to sell papers:

If a paper’s coverage is more slanted to SC, I really believe that it is because they’ve decided that’s what sells papers, not because the editor or writer went to SC. Case in point, btw, is the way the LA Times covers the Dodgers and Angels. The Angels are a much better team with a way better record and way more exciting players, but the Times covers the Dodgers like they are the better team. That’s because the Dodgers are more popular and sell more papers.

The most important beats in LA are the Lakers and Trojan football. I’m positive of that. Coverage of those sports sells the most papers. So, they are going to get the coverage. UCLA basketball might arguably be as good as Trojan football, but college hoops does not sell papers the way football does.

I think there is lot more to this explanation than just the need to sell papers. First, let’s take a look at the attendance record of the UCLA and Southern Cal football programs from last three years (and their respective attendance rankings both in the nation and in the conference):

So few thoughts just by taking a look at those numbers:

Given the kind of program record wise Southern Cal and UCLA had last three years, those attendance figures for UCLA football is not bad at all.

Sure the number last year was inflated a little because of the highly anticipated Notre Dame game, and from my understanding UCLA has programs giving tickets to high school kids, still the numbers are pretty damn impressive considering how mediocre the Bruin program was and how unexciting the product (at least in terms of offense) we Bruin fans had to endure from our home team last three years. 

I think that undercuts the argument that coverage of UCLA is not marketable in the Southern California area.

In addition to attendance records statistics, we have seen online the evidence of passion of UCLA alums, students and fans that make up this Bruin Nation. I think the community that has been built here is a pretty good example here, which in terms of numbers (traffic  stats – we don’t really need to go into them – they speak for themselves) stacks up OK against any national program in the country. Likewise the thousands of members of who are posting on Bruin Report Online, Bruin Zone, Bruinville, Bruin Gold and other UCLA online communities further disprove the theory that there isn’t a market for UCLA sports fan in Southern California. The intense hunger and passion for Bruin athletics is clearly evident through the strength of all those communities that make up the greater Bruin Nation. So, I am sure as UCLA alum or student I find any explanation offered by the folks who run the Southern California news papers that centers around the idea that covering UCLA athletics is not a good business decision for them adequate.

Let’s delve into the frustrations of Bruin Nation concerning the perceived unbalanced coverage of Bruin and Trojan athletics. I think one of the main reasons we as Bruin fans have been so frustrated with the Southern California newspapers, specifically the LAT is based on its lack of scrutinty of the run of scandals at the Trojan athletic department compared to how its reporters usually swarm all over UCLA’s athletic department whenever issues have arisen out of Morgan Center. We all remember what happened when Deshaun Foster’s SUV scandal broke in the local media. There was so much incredible public pressure on the Morgan Center that Foster didn’t even get to finish the season. In comparison, Foster’s transgressions look like child’s play when stacked up against the allegations around Reggie Bush. We also remember the public pressure on UCLA athletic department via the local media outlets such as the LA Times when the handicap parking scandal broke at UCLA. The outrage from the local media and us – UCLA alums and students – made sure that UCLA athletic department did the right thing by taking immediate/corrective disciplinary measures against the Bruin athletes who committed those transgressions. 

Compare that to what has transpired in the local media last 6-7 years. It took the reporters at Yahoo.com and ESPN to scoop two of the most dramatic athletic scandals impacting the two marquee figures representing the Trojan football and basketball programs. Despite having access to Heritage Hall, the local beat reporters were scooped badly. It’s been so bad they have been scooped badly by measly bloggers on BN, who did a simple google search to find out the dog cruelty history of Todd McNair (who by the way has also been implicated in the Bush scandal). While OJ2 was allegedly taking in thousands of dollars from runners of sports agents, the LA Times was spending time "reporting" on non-existent violation in Coach Wooden’s  contact w Kevin Love. Even the former chief editor of the LA Times – Bill Dwyre – was recently caught admitting that the LAT perhaps could have done a better job following up on stories concerning alleged transgressions by Trojan athletes.

We can go on and on. We have had chronicled many of these stories on BN which also included the ridiculous and over the top effort of LAT’s Trojan beat writer – Ben Bolch – to elevate the Southern Cal basketball program by comparing our non existent hoops 'rivalry' with JustSC to that of Duke v. North Carolina. So I don’t think the explanation that the coverage is slanted because Trojan football is more marketable is sufficient because we have seen the slanted coverage figure in college basketball as well.

Perhaps one explanation could be that the Trojan athletic department does a better job in pushing out their public relations. They can spin around the local scribes and columnists like no other as evidenced by Plaschke’s infamous comment of Pete Carroll running a football program that “follows the rules.” May be the Heritage Hall does a better job compared to Morgan Center in packaging information with their spin and making their coaches available to the right sources to make sure they always get ahead of the story. Lot of these reporters are probably under pressure of deadline and are looking to take the easy way out by cutting and pasting what is being spoon fed to them.  That still doesn’t excuse their failure to cover what has transpired across town with the same intensity they covered UCLA.

I do think there is something to Achilles’ argument that slanted coverage could be due to newspapers need to sell papers. But as I have shown above that can’t be the only explanation because that is not enough to assuage the concern among Bruin fans resulting from incidents mentioned above among many others over the years.  One thing is for certain, I think UCLA athletics department needs to get it together in managing their PR game.  Dan Guerrero has done a good job in changing the mindset in our athletic programs. However, in addition to addressing the situation re. Pauley’s restoration, he needs to get his people who are currently running the media relations department some help. We will continue to offer our suggestions here when we can. But it is up to UCLA’s officials to make sure they do what they can to shape the media narrative in their favor in today’s complex and rapidly changing media landscape. Otherwise, UCLA will continue to find itself in a disadvantaged position in Southern California’s traditional media landscape which has been slanted against the Bruins.

GO BRUINS.

This started out as a response in a fan post, but I wanted to build on that discussion with a front page blog post. There are some good comments there as well, so if you're interested in this topic, you might want to check that thread out, too. Here is what I wrote (with maybe a little editing and polishing):

I would think the last criteria a newspaper would have when assigning beats is what school the reporter attended. I promise you, if you looked at the New York Times, none of the reporters assigned to covering Manhattan or Fordham or St. John’s went to those schools. And, I think it is obvious that in some smaller, college-type towns, graduates of said college or university are going to work for the local paper. But Los Angeles is a big metropolitan with several newspapers and universities and so it's not going to be the case here.

Reporters are (theoretically) hired because they are strong reporters or strong writers, hopefully both. Editors don’t care where they went to school, as long as it was a good school. At most papers, reporters aren’t even necessarily experts in the sport they cover. They are experts at being reporters. That’s why writers are moved from beat to beat. Brian Dohn used to be the Lakers writer (or maybe it was the Dodgers) - point being, he is not some great expert in college football or even football. He’s (supposedly) an expert at reporting. Kurt Streeter of the LA Times didn’t even cover sports before he became a sports columnist - he was general assignment.

So, there is very little chance that a reporter necessarily comes from the school they cover.

Scott Wolf of the DN is an SC grad who covers SC. IMO, that’s a mistake on the DN’s part. But, SC has the biggest journalism school in LA, it’s gonna happen that some of their grads cover SC. I fairness to Wolf, it's not clear to me that he's necessarily favoring SC with his coverage -- if you look at some of the "wilder" message boards, Wolf is oft-criticized by Trojan fans.

For what it’s worth, Lonnie White played football at USC and he was one of the best UCLA beat writers I’ve read—knowledgeable in football and very fair.

On the other hand (and this is more important), newspapers are missing the point of blogs by asking their beat writers to write them. Because blog has a point of view and by asking your (supposedly) objective beat writer to write your blog, you’re really asking them to do a notes column online. Maybe a little of their perspective gets in, but mostly its notes and information without the opinions.

At the LA Times, their blog editor (Tony Pierce, who wrote “How to Blog” and whose blog (I think it is called BusBlog) is well done, hired Adam Rose to do the UCLA blog after Rich Perelman left. Rose went to SC, but I think he got the gig because he was blogging at LAist where Pierce was the editor. So, he got the job because he is a “blogger”—that is, he’s a skilled blogger, not necessarily a reporter or a UCLA fan.

I personally like what Rose does, though I don’t read it every day. For me, the downside of Rose is that because I’m a fan who really follows things closely, I think I know as much as he does, so there isn’t that much there for me. But if you didn’t read this site and some message boards, Adam probably has a lot of good, new information. I really don’t think Adam has done anything to suggest that because he went to SC, he is undermining UCLA in his blog.

Truth is, newspapers have not figured out what to do with blogs. Assigning their beat writers is probably not the way to go, but most aren’t going to hire a writer other than the beat writer to write a team blog. The Times is doing that, in fairness to them. But generally, newspaper blogs on sports teams don’t have a point of view, they try to be as objective as the reporting is, which isn’t always objective, but it tries to be.

If a paper’s coverage is more slanted to SC, I really believe that it is because they’ve decided that’s what sells papers, not because the editor or writer went to SC. Case in point, btw, is the way the LA Times covers the Dodgers and Angels. The Angels are a much better team with a way better record and way more exciting players, but the Times covers the Dodgers like they are the better team. That’s because the Dodgers are more popular and sell more papers.

The most important beats in LA are the Lakers and Trojan football. I’m positive of that. Coverage of those sports sells the most papers. So, they are going to get the coverage.UCLA basketball might arguably be as good as Trojan football, but college hoops does not sell papers the way football does.

The newspapers in this town are flawed. The Daily News and its sister papers are being dismantled by their owner and the Times is laying off and buying our reporters left and right. No one knows how to monetize the online situation and therefore they are struggling with what to do about blogs and other online content.

But I don't think their flaws are rooted in any bias nor do I think the education of the writers and editors are impacting content -- subjective or otherwise.