Everyone here has been challenging Dohn’s "reporting" on UCLA football program in recent days. I will try to be charitable and say Brian’s reporting when it comes to the status of Dorrell has not been up to par, when it comes to what we have gotten from more established and reputable reporters in the world of college football.
Now all that doubt on Dohn’s reporting on UCLA football will intensify even more given how posted his latest story on Karl Dorrell. Check out what Dohn posted on DN website last night at 10:36 pm PST:
Dorrell, Guerrero clarify comments
By Brian Dohn, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/15/2007 10:36:32 PM PST
Shortly after UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero told several newspapers he would be "very interested" to see how the final month of the season played out, he and Bruins coach Karl Dorrell spoke about the matter.
"I don't want to comment on that now, given where we're at and what we need to do," Dorrell said Thursday. "I know I have a job to do. I have to go and do my job as well as I can, and get this team as well-prepared as I can."
Dorrell's job status has been in question for the past month. Guerrero made his comment Oct. 29, two days after the Bruins lost at Washington State 27-7.
"We talked about it right after he made (the comment), and he explained that it was out of context," Dorrell said. "So I moved on with the rest of my day."
Guerrero met individually with several reporters that day. According to UCLA, the Daily News did not take Dorrell out of context.
"Karl's comment was not in reference to the Daily News," UCLA spokesman Marc Dellins said.
So what is wrong with that story? There is nothing in that report that has a quote from Guerrero. There is nothing in that report that can be construed as clarifying comment from Guerrero on what he said wrt to Dorrell following the game against WSU.By Brian Dohn, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/15/2007 10:36:32 PM PST
Shortly after UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero told several newspapers he would be "very interested" to see how the final month of the season played out, he and Bruins coach Karl Dorrell spoke about the matter.
"I don't want to comment on that now, given where we're at and what we need to do," Dorrell said Thursday. "I know I have a job to do. I have to go and do my job as well as I can, and get this team as well-prepared as I can."
Dorrell's job status has been in question for the past month. Guerrero made his comment Oct. 29, two days after the Bruins lost at Washington State 27-7.
"We talked about it right after he made (the comment), and he explained that it was out of context," Dorrell said. "So I moved on with the rest of my day."
Guerrero met individually with several reporters that day. According to UCLA, the Daily News did not take Dorrell out of context.
"Karl's comment was not in reference to the Daily News," UCLA spokesman Marc Dellins said.
Dohn realizing that he might not be able to get away with this, decides to change the title of his article about 29 minutes after he posted the original header. This is how the latest header looks for the same article:
Dorrell keeping his focus
Brian Dohn, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/15/2007 11:05:55 PM PST
LOS ANGELES - Shortly after UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero told several newspapers he would be "very interested" to see how the final month of the season played out, he and Bruins coach Karl Dorrell spoke about the matter.
"I don't want to comment on that now, given where we're at and what we need to do," Dorrell said Thursday. "I know I have a job to do. I have to go and do my job as well as I can, and get this team as well prepared as I can."
Dorrell's job status has been in question for the last month.
Guerrero made his comment Oct. 29, two days after the Bruins lost at Washington State 27-7.
"We talked about it right after he made them, and he explained that it was out of context," Dorrell said. "So I moved on with the rest of my day."
Guerrero met individually with several reporters that day. According to UCLA, the Los Angeles Daily News did not take Dorrell out of context.
"Karl's comment was not in reference to the Daily News," UCLA spokesman Marc Dellins said.
I have taken screen shorts of both of those articles in case anyone in DN tries to claim the blockquotes are not accurate. So am I the only one who thinks that is bit strange. What is Dohn doing here? What was going through his mind when he felt the need to come up with what appears to be a totally misleading title wrt to the coaching situation at UCLA?Brian Dohn, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/15/2007 11:05:55 PM PST
LOS ANGELES - Shortly after UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero told several newspapers he would be "very interested" to see how the final month of the season played out, he and Bruins coach Karl Dorrell spoke about the matter.
"I don't want to comment on that now, given where we're at and what we need to do," Dorrell said Thursday. "I know I have a job to do. I have to go and do my job as well as I can, and get this team as well prepared as I can."
Dorrell's job status has been in question for the last month.
Guerrero made his comment Oct. 29, two days after the Bruins lost at Washington State 27-7.
"We talked about it right after he made them, and he explained that it was out of context," Dorrell said. "So I moved on with the rest of my day."
Guerrero met individually with several reporters that day. According to UCLA, the Los Angeles Daily News did not take Dorrell out of context.
"Karl's comment was not in reference to the Daily News," UCLA spokesman Marc Dellins said.
Chris Foster from the Los Angeles Time covered the same story and reported and Guerrero or UCLA did not have any comment on DG’s previous comment on Dorrell (emphasis mine):
Guerrero was not available to be interviewed Thursday, a UCLA spokesman said, and there was no response on a request for a comment.
So why did Dohn initially report that "Guerrero clarify comments"?This is becoming a little sad. I really have enjoyed a lot of Dohn’s work in recent years, especially in terms of his coverage on UCLA hoops. However, his coverage of UCLA football this year has been puzzling, again to be very charitable. And given incidents like this (and many others as documented by rest of you during last few weeks), I can see why a reasonable person would perceive Dohn’s coverage as some beat reporter trying his best to protect his access, which in this case seems like protecting the current incompetent regime in charge of UCLA football. And that in turn has totally eroded a huge chunk of Dohn’s credibility when it comes to his coverage of UCLA football. At the very least Dohn’s reporting on UCLA football has now questionable. That much is crystal clear.
GO BRUINS.