Demovsky Delivers

In my Cutler/Bedard post, frequent commenter 'Jayme' complained that my constant jousting with Greg Bedard is getting old. I responded that I would start picking on Demovsky. Why Demovsky, you ask? 

Because he's a constant source of material.

In his blog post regarding Aaron Kampman finally speaking to reporters, Demovsky gives us the following:

...defensive-end-turned-linebacker Aaron Kampman finally addressed reporters about new role in the Packers' new defense. And perhaps Kampman, who hadn't talked publicly since Dom Capers was hired to install the 3-4 defense back in January, would have been better off not talking because what he said -- more importantly how he said it -- did little or nothing to dispel speculation that he's less than thrilled about the change.

In a somewhat terse exchange with reporters, Kampman gave unusually short answers. Perhaps the best question posed to him was this: If it were up to you, would you still be a 4-3 (defensive) end?

To which Kampman responded: "I'm not at liberty to make those choices."

See, what Demovsky calls 'the best question posed' is exactly the kind of question I can't stand. It's the worst kind of hack-o-rific "gotcha/drum up a controversy" question there is. No, Demovsky didn't ask it, but the fact that he thinks it's the best one on offer tells you that either a) the rest of the questions were ludicrously bad, or b) Demovsky has disappeared into that horrible void where journalists go when they think it's all about them.

Because that's what that question is about - the press.

Sure, they'll tell you it's a chance for Kampman to tell 'his side of the story' - but that's bullshit. How in the world is the reader served by knowing what Kampman would do 'if it were up to him'. It's totally irrelevant. Kampman is the player, McCarthy is the coach. If McCarthy says Kampman is playing OLB, it's Kampman's job to play OLB. But no, the press pushes microphones and tape recorders into Kampman's face asking what HE would do. Well of COURSE he still wants to be a 4-3 end. That's not his choice to make, and he and every reporter in the room knows it. But the media soldiers on, driving the story to juice up the controversy whenever and however it can. It's a farce and Demovksy's post is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

0 points
 

Comments (20)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Franklin Hillside's picture

June 03, 2009 at 03:11 pm

Lori Nickel had a much more tempered take on Kampman's responses.

It's like her and Demovsky weren't even talking about the same thing.

0 points
0
0
Jayme's picture

June 03, 2009 at 03:39 pm

"It’s like her and Demovsky weren’t even talking about the same thing."

Franklin, I couldn't agree more. I read Nickel's article first and was quite confused when I got to Demovsky's blog post. Although I've been all over the map in defending and criticizing different media members, Demovsky, as well as whoever asked the question, should be ashamed of themselves. The answer to the question is obvious, especially considering the fact that Kampman had said at some point in the past that he would be uncomfortable switching sides as a 4-3 end. Kampman's only possible answers result in him obviously lying and looking bad or telling the truth and looking bad. This is poor, sloppy, irresponsible journalism at its worst.
---
The worst part about it is that merely by talking to it, we're encouraging it. Anyone who reads this blog post is going to go to packersnews.com and read the article just to know what we're talking about, and that feeds the beast that causes this garbage. Like anything having to do with the Favre virus, I think the best thing to do when you come across this crap is to completely ignore it, and maybe stop visiting the site for a day or two as punishment.

0 points
0
0
dustybricks6's picture

June 03, 2009 at 06:02 pm

The video is up at Packers.com. It's the quintessential non-interview interview. It's not exactly Woodward & Bernstein up there in Green Bay...

0 points
0
0
Donald's Designated Driver's picture

June 03, 2009 at 09:28 pm

Not so fast, Aaron.
--------------
When Silverstein asked Thompson whether he was "arrogant" you **ate that shit up**.
--------------
I'm struggling to see how the Kampman question is hack-o-riffic but the Thompson question was old-fashioned terrific. Elaborate.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

June 03, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Mostly because Thompson's arrogance can effect his job performance. A GM's personality goes a long way in the sense of how he chooses to build his team. I have called out Thompson for his arrogance on more than one occasion, and I don't think Silverstein was out of bounds what so ever with the question.
-
Asking Aaron Kampman if he would still be a 4-3 end if it was up to him isn't even close to the same. How on earth are you as a reader served by either the asking of that question or in an answer to it? I think it's ludicrous, as is your equating of the two, in my opinion.

0 points
0
0
Ryeguy812's picture

June 03, 2009 at 10:23 pm

I liken that question to the fact that it's going to be a long long summer so they need stuff to write about. You give Kampman a loaded question and that serves your article writing for the next few weeks beating the dead horse that is "the pains of switching to a new defensive scheme"

0 points
0
0
Donald's Designated Driver's picture

June 04, 2009 at 05:58 am

Ludricous? Really?
------
"Are you arrogant?"
"Are you an asshole?"
"Are you stupid?"
------
You think you are going to get a "yes" answer to any of those questions? So what is the point of the question other than to drum up shit and make the writer the focal point of the interview? It was Silverstein's "Chris Everett" moment, and for some reason you have a huge blindspot about it.
------
Oh...but you actually think Thompson is arrogant (and have called him out on it!). So what? People actually thought Everett was soft and fragile. That doesn't mean that insulting and/or taunting your interview subject is somehow "tough journalism." I'm not following your logic there. Connect the dots for me.
------
From where I sit, the Thomson question is just as (and probably more) bush league than the Kampman question.

0 points
0
0
Ron La Canne's picture

June 04, 2009 at 07:17 am

At this point in the 34 implementation, the only people able to respond to questions about it are the coaches. The players are learning the system and are reluctent to soment on something they are not yet comfortable with. Hence "gotcha" jounalists like Dumbovsky and that pea brain Jesse Garcia (WTMJ 4) are just showing what simple minded idiots they really are.

I hate those who generate controversy for controvery's sake. Go write a story about Favres hemroids.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

June 04, 2009 at 07:32 am

DDD - Again - Thompson's arrogance, real or percived, has much more to do with his job than what Kampman would do if he were coach. That's my take - you disagree. I got it.
-
On a side note, looking back at the post in question, I wrote:
-
...taking over for Bob McGinn who has done most of the GM season ending Q&A’s prior to this, does just a first rate job asking questions that fans want answered, and, more importantly, following up and not letting Thompson get away with vagueness and generalities.
-
If THAT is me **eating that shit up** I'd hate to see how you characterize the posts where I actually DO, um, **eat that... you get the point.

0 points
0
0
Donald's Designated Driver's picture

June 04, 2009 at 08:04 am

On eating that shit up: "I thought asking Thompson if he was arrogant was brilliant." (From the comments).
---------
Yeah arrogance would affect job performance. Got it.
---------
Would being "stupid" or an "asshole" also affect job perfomance? So would it be a "brilliant" question to ask Thompson if he is a "stupid asshole"? Connect the dots for me.
---------

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

June 04, 2009 at 08:06 am

Um, Jason Wilde, your hero, came very close to asking the 'stupid' question to both McCarthy and Thompson during the whole Favre debacle. "Do you know what you're doing?" To you, that's brilliant journalism. But God FORBID we ask about someone being arrogant. Then it's beyond the pale...

0 points
0
0
Donald's Designated Driver's picture

June 04, 2009 at 11:45 am

You're just deflecting.
-------
I never said anything about Wilde's question being "brilliant." In fact, I never said anything about it one way or the other. Do I think it was brilliant journalism? No. Do I think it is anywhere near as obnoxious as "are you arrogant"? No. But all of this is neither here nor there.
-------
The point is, if you like that style of "tough journalism" (gag), you gotta like it if its Silverstein or Demovsky or Jime Rome (hey he's just out there saying the things that thousands of fans would like to say!).

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

June 04, 2009 at 12:14 pm

No idea why you're being so obtuse on this (is it deliberate?) but here are your own words:
-
Speaking of Jason Wilde: read his interview with Thompson. Read how he handles the Rodgers situation. Read how he brings up the Ryan/Frost debacle (a topic that Silverstein didn’t even bother to bring up). It’s excellent journalism. And he is getting Thompson to answer his questions!
-
You're right, you never said it was 'brilliant' (which I am using much the same way my English wife does, meaning 'great', not that I think it's an astounding mental feat or anything - this may be part of our disconnect)but I would def call the above **eating that shit up** - for a guy who opened his interview with "Do you know what you're doing?"
-
As for your deflection comment, I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. Kampman and Thompson do two different jobs. The questions posed to each are expected to be of a different variety, thus each being held to separate standards, I don't care WHO asked them.

0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

June 04, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Whoa !!!
You guys are letting the local media drive up your blood pressure.
_____
How about a recap of the local medias' most recent 'non-stories'. Collins - wrong. -Kampman - wrong. - Driver - wrong. That's 0 for 3. I sure hope the Pack starts out better than 0-3 in 2009. Obviously, the local media is headed toward another losing season.

0 points
0
0
Donald's Designated Driver's picture

June 04, 2009 at 01:54 pm

Aaron: the "do you know what you're doing" question was last summer. It was not during the interview that I thought was far superior to the Silverstein peice. (BTW, Wilde starts the interview with an "aw shucks" mea culpa to question the previous summer explaining that he intended the question to be ironic in light of the Packer's 2007 success). You can read the whole thing here: http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/packers/431961
-----
Anyhow, if I praise one interview that is somehow a statement that the writer's entire body of work is "brilliant"? Come on. Again, you are just (clumsily) trying to deflect, here. And now you are trying to put words into my mouth.
-----
On the other hand, I am not putting words in your mouth. You specifically called the "are you arrogant" question "brilliant" (in either English-English or American-English, that is a positive thing). Why is that brilliant but the Kampman question out of bounds?
-----
I'm still waiting for you to connect the dots, but I suspect that you will go on a five paragraph diatribe about me and the Wilde interview. Prove me wrong.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

June 04, 2009 at 02:24 pm

This is beyond silly.
-
You're correct. I conflated the two interviews. Forgive me.
-
I've connected your precious dots three times already. You don't accept that answer. That doen't change it.
-
THEY.....DO.....DIFFERENT.....JOBS....SO....I.....EXPECT....DIFFERENT....TYPES...OF....QUESTIONS.
Dots - connected.
-
As for 'brilliant' um, actually, yes there's a big difference between the two intents, but cool, you go on with your bad self.
-
Look, I understand you DISAGREE but being belligerent and repeating 'connect the dots for me' doesn't make your position any more correct.
-

0 points
0
0
Donald's Designated Driver's picture

June 04, 2009 at 02:42 pm

Aaron: okay. Now we are getting somewhere.
-----
So you expect two "different" kinds of questions. That's your answer.
-----
Are you saying that "Are you arrogant?" and "Would you rather play 4-3 if it were up to you?" are "the same kind of question"?
-----
That part is not obvious to me.
-----
Your complaint about the Kampman question was it was hacky and all about the press.
-----
My complaint about the Thompson question was that it had nothing to do with getting an answer but it was (wait for it) all about the press. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Why not?
-----
Are you trying to say that you WANT interviews that are all about the press when a GM is interviewed but you don't want interviews that are all about the press when a player is interviewed? Why? That is where I would like to see some dots connected. It is definitely not obvious and I know you can articulate something a little more pursuasive than they have different jobs end of story. They live in different houses too. Drive different cars. Why does having a different job mean its brilliant when a journalist grandstands and rubs his interview subjects nose in insults?

0 points
0
0
MC's picture

June 04, 2009 at 03:26 pm

Aaron, I'm not sure I'd say the jousting with GBP media types biz is 'getting old,' necessarily but, due partly to the permanence and the harshness of the printed word, your tone is not always clear.

_________

I don't know you personally, but I suspect you are a nice guy and a good-natured fan who occasionally likes to stir things up in a borderline aggressive way. Sometimes, though, underlying hostility surfaces (or seems to). I'm not saying that's a bad thing (some of the funniest blogs are the most abrasive ones) but it's there...

0 points
0
0
Jayme's picture

June 04, 2009 at 04:25 pm

MC, I think you basically summed up what I meant when I said that it was getting old, but I lacked the eloquence to say it properly.
---
As for the comments above, basically what I'm pulling out of it is that all three questions being discussed are "hack-ish" type questions, depending on circumstance. If used in the wrong circumstance (as was the Kampman question) whoever asks them is just trying to cause trouble and make a story where there is none. If used in the proper circumstance, they can shed light on the inner workings of the mind of the interviewee. The ongoing arguments seem to revolve on both of you trying to prove the same thing to each other in different words. Am I even close to being right?

0 points
0
0
IPBprez's picture

June 04, 2009 at 04:48 pm

Have to agree with MC and Jayme.
-
Also - Asking Ted Thompson about arrogance is a BAIT question - only credible if you respect Hacks over real journalism. The whole premise for it was the Reporter was mad about the Favre Soap Opera, period. It was juvenile, no question. Pictures of little tyke sticking tongue out, at his Parents, come to mind. If not for the fact that he was a Reporter, then defamation lawsuits are an option, no? I would certainly think so.
Real option here, would be to ask Aaron the same thing, since HE'S in charge here. You would get the same scenario, only different tundra.
THAT kind of Press Conference Question is what's made Mainstream Media such a waste of time - like that 7 minutes I'll never get back.

0 points
0
0