A minor local-media controversy is brewing from the first round of the NCAA Tournament at Winston-Salem. Two sites, WRAL and the Duke Basketball Report, commented on the "cheering" by the North Carolina media in the press room during Duke's defeat to Virginia Commonwealth.

I was at Joel Coliseum and the roar was significant, but I would suggest that had more to do with the nature of the game. VCU, an 11 seed in a tournament devoid of upsets, just hit a game-winning shot. The crowd's noise level was more a reaction to that ending than an anti-Duke bias. I'd suggest, the reaction would have been the same if Eric Maynor's shot had come against UNC.

That's not to say there were not credentialed media members cheering for VCU. Specifically, there was one television camaraman from Baltimore, a VCU grad, who was the most demonstrative and his behavior was clearly unprofessional. However, to lump the rest of the North Carolina media with one VCU grad from Baltimore is disingenuous.

For the two aformentioned reports to insinuate that the entire, or a significant portion, of the "North Carolina media" somehow celebrated Duke's loss is both misleading and insulting to the vast majority of media members who were not involved.

03/29/07 at 12:42
So how many writers in the N&O sports room once wrote for the Daily Tar Heel?

And how much did your nose grow when you wrote that last paragraph?

Was there any cheering going on in the media room in East Rutherford Sunday?

03/29/07 at 13:12
I might add that Ken Tysiac of the Charlotte Observer pointed out what happened too. And his point of view greatly differed from yours.
So what was that you were telling me about the "unbiased big, bad media" in late January?

03/29/07 at 13:49
You might also want to go onto Bill Rozinski's show in Charlotte. He had a different take as well.

03/29/07 at 13:57
What did Rozinski say?

03/29/07 at 19:35
Dave:
By my count, there are as many writers on the N&O staff that went to UNC (two) as N.C. State (myself and Chip Alexander) and none from Duke.

And there was no cheering in East Rutherford because there was no other game going on for everyone to congregrate around the TV and watch.

Lastly, I was sitting a stone's throw from Ken in Winston-Salem. Just goes to show you how people interpret incidents differently. That's all I was doing, offering my interpretation as someone's whose reputation was being sullied by sweeping accusations.

If you're going to say there was cheering, then name the cheerleaders.

— JPG

03/29/07 at 22:36
Joe,
I wasn't there. So I can't name the cheerleaders. I'll leave that to you and your conscience.
But don't you think the very idea we're having this conversation is bad enough? Just the fact you have to write a post even explaining this in the first place? Just the fact that there were people cheering in the first place (which you don't deny). Put yourself in the shoes of a Duke fan, who only wants unbiased coverage. After hearing what happened in Winston-Salem, how can you honestly expect them to take the media seriously again in terms of being objective in sports coverage?

Can you honestly say there wasn't any members of the N&O staff cheering? Just asking.

03/30/07 at 11:41
Dave:
You're right. I wish we weren't having this conversation. I can promise you this, there was nobody from the N&O cheering for Duke's loss.

Think of it this way, in a bracket published for the world to dissect, we (Caulton Tudor and I), picked Duke to go to the Sweet 16.

I guarantee you, neither one of us was cheering when they lost in the first round.

—JPG

03/30/07 at 12:46
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Why would we expect the press to be emotionless and have no biases simply because they are the press? The important thing is that they can put their biases aside when they're performing their jobs (writing articles, interviewing players and coaches, etc.). I don't care what J.P. or any other reporter says or how loud they cheer when they're sitting around watching a game. I care about their objectivity when they're writing newspaper articles. If you suspect their work is biased, send them emails and write their editors. Let it be known that you plan to stop reading their material. But it's unreasonable to expect them to suppress their biases when they're not actively performing their jobs.

04/02/07 at 17:36
Why is this important? it's important because these are the journalists that we are intrusting to report on things fairly, like the Duke LAX story, like the overblown Henderson/Hansbrough story. That is why this is important.

Dave, I will name some cheerleaders.

Eddy Landreth, Bill Cole is a good place to start and then segue to Andrew Jones.

04/02/07 at 20:59
Dave you mentioned Tysiacs, also Jeff Goodman of Fox Sports wrote a blurb on it in his blog.

Chapel Hill Gigilo isn't telling the entire story.

04/07/07 at 22:48
I see no problem with naming names. In fact, names SHOULD be named. This is an ongoing and growing trend. If names are named, maybe it would slow down.

04/24/07 at 03:21
Andrew Jones didn't do it but Dan Collins is a name you want to look at.

04/24/07 at 11:52
Please don't tell me Duke fans have showed up to protest "media bias." I can give you countless examples of media bias towards Duke. Next thing you know Dukies will be saying someone else "gets all the calls."

Also, as unprofessional as it may be, the members of the media in the press room are human, and sports fans as well. They have the right to pull for who they want. Just because they are just as happy as every one else to see Duke bow out in the first round doesn't mean you should victimize yourselves.

04/27/07 at 01:14
There is such a thing as professionalism Ramses, but given the behavior you are so used to by your esteemed radio network(ie piped in crowd noise) I could understand how you could care less about such things.

I doubt you will ever hear any tails of Barry Jacobs or Bill Brill(Duke grads) screaming out in joy over Roy Williams choke job against Georgetown.

04/27/07 at 01:15
Of course I meant "tales" in the prior post.