Here’s a quote from yesterday’s paper regarding the Jim Harbaugh hiring: “… two people within the university with knowledge of the negotiations told the (Detroit) Free Press on Monday evening. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because Michigan officials weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the coaching search.” If these people were “within the university” it probably means they are college educated. Maybe not UM grads but they got a degree from an accredited college somewhere.
Therefore, it’s not like they didn’t understand what “not being authorized to speak” meant because they knew enough to inform the writer they’d only speak if they were allowed to remain anonymous. So the question is, why? Are they rewarded in some way – cash, gifts, favors or just chits to be stored and used at a later date?
Earlier this season, I saw another example of how awfully easy (and fun?) it is to cast aspersions from relative anonymity when I read an article in which an anonymous NBA assistant said Kobe Bryant is more or less washed up, comparing him to a Washington Wizards-era Michael Jordan. Why not just keep that bit of juicy gossip to himself, at least until he was ready to come out publicly and say it? Probably because he’d rather tell his closest friends that the quote was his, getting attaboys from his buddies, while strongly denying it if anyone else attributed the line to him.
When a head coach is fired, usually there are – or had been, if the termination had been brewing – players coming to his defense. The coach-player bond is often as powerful, in some cases, more so, than that of a father and son. The final time the (by then) former coach and his players get to meet is usually an emotional one. Things said at that meeting are meant for the people in that room – and only the people in that room.
Although I have no first hand knowledge of what went on when Bo Pelini met with his former squad of Nebraska Cornhuskers, one of two things had to have happened. Either a disgruntled player (or wannabe player) surreptitiously taped Pelini’s comments or, because the meeting was held at a local high school in Lincoln, someone was tipped off and the room was bugged. Is there any other method the newspaper could have received an audiotape, as was reported?
Well, his detractors (and Pelini had a ton, many created by his brash style) would undoubtedly say, “He shouldn’t have used those words, period. It’s the reason he got fired in the first place.” To that I have two comments. One is simple and ought to be easy to relate to for those middle age and beyond of us: Old habits die hard. The other comment: Is each and every critic so pure of word and action that none of them would mind if any private conversation they had with friends were made public? Even the ones when two people might be
slandering discussing a third party each of them know (and consider a friend)? How would anyone like it if that third person was privy to those comments?
I have said to my friends on numerous occasions, while we were having a private conversation, “Aren’t you glad this isn’t being taped? We would be open to some serious repercussions.” With all the snooping people there are, including as it turned out, our own government, is the Thought Police truly a myth?
After a recent game between Cleveland and Miami, LeBron James was shown talking to his close friend, Dwyane Wade, with his jersey over his mouth. Did you think James, who knows the ways of the paparazzi as well as anyone alive, was fearful of spreading germs to his former teammate?
Googling quotes on gossip I saw several profound ones but chose this one to share:
“People are probably not happy with their own lives if they’re so busy discussing yours.”