Bob Kravitz To the Rescue! (of Jim Souhan) - Indy Star Columnist weighs in on Kill

Donate To GopherHole
Just sent my letter to the Indy Star. Too bad IU isn't on the schedule this year.
 

Kill's tenure here is going to be measured in wins and losses. If his epilepsy hurts the team, we'll see it in wins and losses. Thus, if it is a problem, it's a self-correcting problem.

Then there's the issue of his health, but these columnists aren't doctors and aren't Kill's doctors, thus their diagnosis is worthless.

And of course the "issue" of people not wanting to see someone have a seizure is hardly worth comment.
 



My wife isn't buying a ticket, but I think she might be seeing a middle-aged man writhing on the floor with Tami, if I ever meet her.

And I agree that might make her feel uncomfortable.
 


I don't mind that Jim has his own opinion. What I do mind is describing a seizure as "writhering on the ground". Just terrible.
 

Gopher Bandanna Guy said:
And yeah, not surprisingly, I did fire off a letter to Mr. Kravitz and his editors - why not? It took all of 5 minutes to modify and streamline my letter to the Strib for these purposes. Here it is:

Mr. Kravitz,

I found it unfortunate that you felt the need to weigh in on the conversation regarding University of Minnesota Head Football Coach Jerry Kill that has unfolded in the Twin Cities over the past few days. Unfortunate not because you don’t have right to weigh in on this sensitive topic (you certainly do), but rather because you decided to primarily use your column in some kind of ill-conceived defense of your colleagues (Jim Souhan). And you did so by misrepresenting what he wrote by the very deliberate act of omission. I’ll note that you failed to even provide a link to the full article, and (presuming you read the entire column) cherry-picked out the less offensive quoteables, while leaving the truly awful ones behind.

Do you find statements such as, “Kill suffers a seizure on game day as the coach of the Gophers at TCF Bank Stadium exactly as often as he wins a Big Ten game. He’s 4-for-16 in both categories” or “No one who buys a ticket to TCF Bank Stadium should be rewarded with the sight of a middle-aged man writhing on the ground” appropriate? Presumably you must, as they weren’t quote-worthy in your column. The former is arbitrary. And the latter is ridiculous, considering tens of thousands of people come to a football stadium knowing that there is a real possibility someone may be carted off paralyzed or with their brains scrambled. These statements are not thoughtful or useful in propagating real discussion. Especially when directed at a man who struggles to maintain normalcy in his demanding work and personal routines, all while remaining a respected public figure.

There is no doubt, that Mr. Souhan’s overarching question that was being asked was appropriate and thought-provoking (Is Kill healthy enough to fulfill his duties in leading a NCAA FBS team?). However, in his typical writing style, Mr. Souhan can’t help but bury the meaningful question beneath a wave of inappropriate snark, disrespect to those who struggle with epilepsy every day, and uninformed conclusions. This isn’t new to Souhan’s columns, not by a long stretch. Please be clear on one thing. The backlash Jim Souhan has deservedly endured has little to do with the question he raised. It has everything to do with this tone and tact in raising it. There is a reason that Souhan’s column is being accosted, while Greg Doyel’s national column was not.

In closing, perhaps next time you feel the need to comment on the response of others towards a colleague’s column, you’ll have the fairness to let your readers have the full context of the situation, and not intentionally misrepresent the situation. You’ve embarrassed yourself and your employer.
Sincerely,
Jon Tortomasi
Click to expand...

Would love to see his response, if he sends one.
 

I don't get it. If JK wants to stay, the fans want him to stay, his boss wants him to stay, the players and recruits want him to stay, then why do these two writers think he needs to go? Why does their opinion count at all?
 

Wow. Tami Carpenter. Wherever you are, I raise my glass and say, 'here's to you'. Thanks for that outstanding response.
 




Just looked at Bob Kravitz's tweets. He's standing by what he wrote given Souhan's "heartfelt" (my word) apology...I'm waiting for him to call us a PC mob next.
 

Halsey Hall said:
Tami Carpenter · University of St. Thomas
Boy Jim must be a REALLY good friend or the Journalism program you both graduated from doesn’t have and ethics, integrity or diversity program course requirement. Too bad your editors didn’t confirm the facts in your story they may be writing the same apology. I know I’ll be asking for one in my next letter. Jim Souhan’s editors “caved” because nearly 90% of the people who responded also cancelled their paper subscriptions. Some of us have integrity and we won’t support a business that doesn’t share that view. I promptly took my $250 refund and wrote a $500 donation check to the U of M – in HONOR of Coach Jerry Kill. I’ll do the same each quarter I don’t have a subscription and I won’t have one until Jim Souhan is GONE....
Click to expand...

Was all of this in the comments under Kravitz's article? If so, hopefully enough readers get the message. I dare not click on the story, but am curious about how many responses.

We have some outstanding writers here on the gopherhole. I wonder if Tami is one of them?

I'm not surprised he defended his colleague, but saying he "would have written the same thing" seems dangerous, and calling Strib's editors "gutless" also puts him at risk. Interesting to see how this plays out...
 

This is the problem with many gopherholer's. If someones stance is opposite of yours, then there is no way it can be true. Grow up people.

highwayman said:
There is no way "Grant" is real. He would not limit himself, so why would he limit someone else? Pure fallacy and fabrication. Way to check your source, Brian.
Click to expand...
 



GoldenUMNGopher said:
This is the problem with many gopherholer's. If someones stance is opposite of yours, then there is no way it can be true. Grow up people.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Gopherholers have become accustomed to being wary of anything the media prints about the Gophers. We know there are those in town (in the media) that use inuendo, mis-statements, opinions, or "sources" in order to prove their point thus bringing attention to themselves. We're accustomed to writers hiding behind freedom of the press, speech, and God knows what else to justify printing things that put the program in a negative light.

It's about time that the tables get turned. We can also hide behind freedom of press/speech, but when we do, we're called cultists, misinformed, and dillusional by the same people that pretend to live by these principles. These are the ones that promote being Politically Correct if it fits their agenda. There is nothing right about making fun of someone with epilepsy and calling for them to step down because people are uncomfortable.

We have every right to be skeptical of things that are printed and spoken. By doing this we become and show ourselves as critical thinkers.
 

Maybe Bob could help Jim land a job in Indy so Jim would get to opine about Hoosier and Boilermaker football. I'm sure he would love covering those Cult fanbases.
 

GoldenUMNGopher said:
This is the problem with many gopherholer's. If someones stance is opposite of yours, then there is no way it can be true. Grow up people.
Click to expand...

UMN, I often complain of the negativism in short term situations, and catch hell for it. But your statement is pure, unadulterated bull$hit.
 

killme said:
Was all of this in the comments under Kravitz's article? If so, hopefully enough readers get the message. I dare not click on the story, but am curious about how many responses.

We have some outstanding writers here on the gopherhole. I wonder if Tami is one of them?

I'm not surprised he defended his colleague, but saying he "would have written the same thing" seems dangerous, and calling Strib's editors "gutless" also puts him at risk. Interesting to see how this plays out...
Click to expand...

You can click on the story and then click on the comments. Don't worry, it will be fine. :)
 

Tami Carpenter is my new hero. Her response is about as good as it gets.
 

GoldenUMNGopher said:
This is the problem with many gopherholer's. If someones stance is opposite of yours, then there is no way it can be true. Grow up people.
Click to expand...

While this may often be the case, in this instance, a lot of people around the country, may be the majority, have had the same reaction to the situation. Souhan's column, if not his underlying premise, in particular has generated a vastly negative response.

"Grow up people" sounds like good advice overall. For you, in this instance, "don't be always go with the knee-jerk response" would seem appropriate.
 

Iceland12 said:
While this may often be the case, in this instance, a lot of people around the country, may be the majority, have had the same reaction to the situation. Souhan's column, if not his underlying premise, in particular has generated a vastly negative response.

"Grow up people" sounds like good advice overall. For you, in this instance, "don't be always go with the knee-jerk response" would seem appropriate.
Click to expand...

Golden wasn't disputing (or even disagreeing with) the majority opinion about the appropriateness of Souhan's offensive comments with his "grow up" comment. The "grow up" comment was directed at a statement that a post purpoprtedly by a person suffering from epilepsy must be fabricated, despite no evidence being offered besides disagreement with the position.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Golden wasn't disputing (or even disagreeing with) the majority opinion about the appropriateness of Souhan's offensive comments with his "grow up" comment. The "grow up" comment was directed at a statement that a post purpoprtedly by a person suffering from epilepsy must be fabricated, despite no evidence being offered besides disagreement with the position.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, my mistake, thanks. Didn't get that from this:This is the problem with many gopherholer's. If someones stance is opposite of yours, then there is no way it can be true.
 


I emailed Bob Kravitz and within minutes got this response back from him, or someone responding on his behalf.

"Jim's main point was on target. I'm sure he wishes he'd written it differently especially some of those lines you referred to. But his main point was sound."

"And no he didn't come to me for help. He doesn't need my help. He can stand on his own two feet."

In all he basically ignored my main question as to why he didn't include the nasty quotes from Souhan in his column. Anyone else getting a response back from Mr. Kravitz?
 

Iceland12 said:
If that's the case, my mistake, thanks. Didn't get that from this:This is the problem with many gopherholer's. If someones stance is opposite of yours, then there is no way it can be true.
Click to expand...

I should also be careful not to go too far assuming I understood his/her point. But what I posted was my interpretation of that post coupled with the quote it included: "There is no way 'Grant' is real. He would not limit himself, so why would he limit someone else? Pure fallacy and fabrication. Way to check your source, Brian."
 

DMB123 said:
I emailed Bob Kravitz and within minutes got this response back from him, or someone responding on his behalf.

"Jim's main point was on target. I'm sure he wishes he'd written it differently especially some of those lines you referred to. But his main point was sound."

"And no he didn't come to me for help. He doesn't need my help. He can stand on his own two feet."

In all he basically ignored my main question as to why he didn't include the nasty quotes from Souhan in his column. Anyone else getting a response back from Mr. Kravitz?
Click to expand...

1. If Souhan would have actually said that in his so-called apology, all of this would have died down much more quickly. But he didn't. He basically scolded everyone else for taking what he said the wrong way. In other words, it's everybody else's fault in Souhan's little world.

2. This is obviously not true since Kravitz felt the need to step into this steaming pile with both feet. And as a result, Kravitz now looks like a fool as well.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I should also be careful not to go too far assuming I understood his/her point. But what I posted was my interpretation of that post coupled with the quote it included: "There is no way 'Grant' is real. He would not limit himself, so why would he limit someone else? Pure fallacy and fabrication. Way to check your source, Brian."
Click to expand...

Ok, okay, we get it. You can stop now buddy! :cool:
 

DMB123 said:
"And no he didn't come to me for help. He doesn't need my help. He can stand on his own two feet."
Click to expand...

More likely is this:

Hey Bob, Jim here. Looking for some fast and easy clicks? Haha!
 


I wonder if Bob thinks Chuck Pagano should step down? He's certainly missed games due to a health condition.
 

DMB123 said:
I emailed Bob Kravitz and within minutes got this response back from him, or someone responding on his behalf.

"Jim's main point was on target. I'm sure he wishes he'd written it differently especially some of those lines you referred to. But his main point was sound."

"And no he didn't come to me for help. He doesn't need my help. He can stand on his own two feet."

In all he basically ignored my main question as to why he didn't include the nasty quotes from Souhan in his column. Anyone else getting a response back from Mr. Kravitz?
Click to expand...

I've received nothing from Kravitz, or his editors. Kind of disappointed, but also not surprised. Maybe you touched a nerve?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom