Jump to content

Scarborough's next move...


Recommended Posts

As someone who constantly warns about the biased media, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to post something from an admittedly biased source?

If that weren't enough, your case-study of the "media bias" is that of a politician desperately trying to back-peddle/play the "media bias" card when the media actually researches the claims made by a presidential candidate? I mean c'mon a-zip, this is petty-fogging weak sauce. Get this weak stuff out of here!

You specifically say the ABJ originally reported the $60M shortfall incorrectly. Regardless of whether they got the incorrect information from UA, it was published all the same and people formed opinions based on what they read. You guys then immediately jump to the conclusion that Scarborough intentionally misled the ABJ. I cannot confirm or deny that is true.......I am more inclined to believe the people at the ABJ are too stupid to understand the information given to them. After all, wasn't it the PD that clarified the numbers in the end?

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? Lex Pasimoniae, the law of parsimondy or; The Simplest solution is most likely the correct one.

The reason you are more inclined to believe the ABJ writers are stupid is because you're biased to believing that because you're already preconditioned to hating them. Again, if ABJ reported on the information they were provided by Scarborough et al., than all UA had to do is publish it's own correction Which, I cannot over emphasize enough, they had done in relation to other stories almost immidiately. It wasn't Scarborough who set the record straight on the $60million, it was the ABJ, after digging even further into it. No, they weren't dumb enough to not understand it...it's pretty clear UA didn't report it to them, forcing the ABJ to research further, which is considerably harder and time-comsuming to do.

Again: If scarborough et al. were interested in being open and transparent, they could have easily published this correction on their website, in a press release of their own, as they did with the cuts as they were made. Your opinion isn't consistant with the facts. Note: We never claimed that Scarborough misled the ABJ, though it does appear UA didn't report everything, hoping that relavent stuff that might make the administration look worse than it already does, would fall through the cracks. It's a very common political tactic: control the headlines on A1 on a Sunday, and month laters (maybe) the contrary investigation will be in a blurb on A14 on a Wednesday, when no-one cares to read about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who constantly warns about the biased media, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to post something from an admittedly biased source?

You can quote all the philosophy you want. I think it is a riot you would choose the law of parsimony because my point was very simply stated and you have tried to bring politics, my presumed political beliefs and Dr. S into it while continuing to support my simple statement in your posts ;-)

Edited by a-zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-Zip, while I love your Avatar, your arguments are fragmented and difficult to make sense out of. I'll leave it at that and we'll agree to disagree. I'm in Akron this last week and have had the chance to talk about the state of UA with multiple knowledgable folks with long term ties to the university and the community. Even the kindest toward Scar have not been charitable in their comments about his leadership of UA so far, and that is putting it mildly. In my opinion he's got to go, and most of the board and his overpaid staffers can head out with him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-Zip, while I love your Avatar, your arguments are fragmented and difficult to make sense out of. I'll leave it at that and we'll agree to disagree. I'm in Akron this last week and have had the chance to talk about the state of UA with multiple knowledgable folks with long term ties to the university and the community. Even the kindest toward Scar have not been charitable in their comments about his leadership of UA so far, and that is putting it mildly. In my opinion he's got to go, and most of the board and his overpaid staffers can head out with him.

I don't understand what is fragmented or difficult to understand about a simple comment I made...............

"I just want to encourage all of you to not take everything you read at face value. Before you form your opinions and make judgements on something that is important to you.....do some research and question the information you are reading. There are so many people that have control of the media that have hidden agendas."

It was not a political statement nor was intended to defend or support Dr. S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting article. Not only do current students, staff, faculty and alumni feel The Scar is not being forthright and transparent, it also appears state senators feel the same way.

PRESIDENT SCARBOROUGH: “So, is the picture a little different than saying, ‘The President wants to build an $11 million entry into the University’? Is the picture a little different with actually real information?”

SENATOR SCOTTO: “Not that much different. I just wonder why you couldn’t tell us this upfront, and we still don’t know whether you’re going to build a big driveway or not.”

Edited by Dr Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Did anyone go to the lighting ceremony downtown yesterday? The Scar gave a little speech where he talked about them adding a new mini "polymer" rink to the park downtown. Not one person clapped or cheered, he was met with silence...and some booing.

He also tried to pump the crowd up with referencing Zips Sports (because we had a big win yesterday if you haven't heard) to which zero people were fired up about. This guy is clueless folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone go to the lighting ceremony downtown yesterday? The Scar gave a little speech where he talked about them adding a new mini "polymer" rink to the park downtown. Not one person clapped or cheered, he was met with silence...and some booing.

He also tried to pump the crowd up with referencing Zips Sports (because we had a big win yesterday if you haven't heard) to which zero people were fired up about. This guy is clueless folks.

So sad that no one in a crowd in Akron was "fired up" about the Zips beating the Flashes in a season in which the team is Bowl eligible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team will need to string together several winning seasons before the local non-UA-connected pay attention. There's no tradition there, no history of winning and providing high quality entertainment. This season is certainly a step in the right direction, with hopefully more to come. As far as the scar, he certainly seems to be tone deaf. He needs to take steps to strengthen links with the community, which he was perhaps trying to do at Lock 3. He'll have to work through the skepticism and distrust. It'll take time and solid performance at UA. I've bashed scar a ton here, but was encouraged when I read recently that UA planned to hire 55 new faculty this school year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone go to the lighting ceremony downtown yesterday? The Scar gave a little speech where he talked about them adding a new mini "polymer" rink to the park downtown. Not one person clapped or cheered, he was met with silence...and some booing.

He also tried to pump the crowd up with referencing Zips Sports (because we had a big win yesterday if you haven't heard) to which zero people were fired up about. This guy is clueless folks.

I am not sure what in all your post can be used against the guy. Going downtown to reach out to the community, talk about UA's contribution to the park, or promoting our athletic success.

I think that these are all great things for a president to do. The clueless ones, in my book, are those who booed.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what in all your post can be used against the guy. Going downtown to reach out to the community, talk about UA's contribution to the park, or promoting our athletic success.

I think that these are all great things for a president to do. The clueless ones, in my book, are those who booed.

+1 (I ran out of likes ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what in all your post can be used against the guy. Going downtown to reach out to the community, talk about UA's contribution to the park, or promoting our athletic success.

I think that these are all great things for a president to do. The clueless ones, in my book, are those who booed.

And he has the support of the Akron business community as evidenced by their full page ad in the ABJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what in all your post can be used against the guy. Going downtown to reach out to the community, talk about UA's contribution to the park, or promoting our athletic success.

I think that these are all great things for a president to do. The clueless ones, in my book, are those who booed.

+1 (I ran out of likes ;-)

+1 I also ran out of likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what in all your post can be used against the guy. Going downtown to reach out to the community, talk about UA's contribution to the park, or promoting our athletic success.

I think that these are all great things for a president to do. The clueless ones, in my book, are those who booed.

Because this is only after not doing either of those things since the moment he got here. I mean in community engagement alone; when drastic cuts were being made out of "need" he was rather silent. When the baseball team was cut, he was silent. When the ABJ, the community's largest single media source is producing story, after story, after story that paints a, albeit seemingly somewhat biased, picture he was rather silent. When asked how to fill "That-Stadium" he, rather negatively stated, that he wouldn't have built it. The list goes on and on...

The point is that he hasn't chosen to engage the public in any meaningful way, and then attempts to reach out to the community in a way that fits his narrative. It comes across as dissingenuous, and that can be used against the guy. If you're going to "reach out to the community", than do it right. Do it everyway you can. Not only when it fits your own agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this is only after not doing either of those things since the moment he got here. I mean in community engagement alone; when drastic cuts were being made out of "need" he was rather silent. When the baseball team was cut, he was silent. When the ABJ, the community's largest single media source is producing story, after story, after story that paints a, albeit seemingly somewhat biased, picture he was rather silent. When asked how to fill "That-Stadium" he, rather negatively stated, that he wouldn't have built it. The list goes on and on...

The point is that he hasn't chosen to engage the public in any meaningful way, and then attempts to reach out to the community in a way that fits his narrative. It comes across as dissingenuous, and that can be used against the guy. If you're going to "reach out to the community", than do it right. Do it everyway you can. Not only when it fits your own agenda.

I have to admit, I am coming into this issue after the barn door has pretty-much closed. ;) However, from what I have read about the "affair" (not to compare it to President Peggy Elliott's), it would seem that an army of PR people would have a hard time keeping up with Scarborough's gaffes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the 'The Devil Strip' realizes that it does more harm than good around this subject. The university laid the rumor to rest in September, hashing it back up now, knowing what we know from state legislators, is just causing more distrust. We already know they exhausted all avenues to change the name and settled on just utilizing the tag line instead.

The June e-mail, when the university was still considering the name change, talks about a political campaign. Why? Because they would have had to get buy in from the state representatives to allow the name change. The September statement came at the start of the year, after realizing the subject was dead in the water.

Edited by g-mann17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they wanted to change the name, fished around, heard the backlash, and gave up. Is that any different from what we already knew?

No, but it continues to be a HUGE issue that they can't admit to what they actually were doing. How many other half truths or less are ongoing. I understand that I may not agree with what Scarborough and company want to do, but at least I would respect them if they were forthright about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...