How Auburn should, and still could, handle the Cam Newton story

As a recovering journalist and corporate spokesman currently attending graduate school while on professional hiatus, I have turned my tongue into Swiss cheese watching Auburn gyrate its way through the Newton incident.  There were answers I hated hearing as a reporter or giving as a PR rep than "no comment".  It's like a vegetarian Thanksgiving; something is missing, but everyone pretends that it isn't and that they are better for the missing piece.  Since no one else will do it, I'll designate myself the school's communication point man on this issue in calling the news conference that has yet to be held:

Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I appreciate your time and will not waste it.  Over the past few weeks, a lot of has been said about this institution, the football program, Cam Newton and his family, the coaching staff, and the state of college athletics in general.  Almost all of it has been based in rumors and allegations, speculation and inuendo.  Today, I offer you the facts of this case, limited as they are. 

If you take issue with this list, I'll stand here and answer your questions until each of you is fully satisfied with the response.  If new facts emerge or if the circumstances surrounding known facts change, I will do the same thing.  I will not, however, put Coach Chizik, Cameron, or any other player in that spot.  They have already told you what they know or don't know; they will talk football with anyone who wants to listen, but they will not be discussing this. 

Fact 1:  neither the Southeastern Conference nor the NCAA has accused or implicated Auburn University of any wrongdoing in the recruiting of Cameron Newton. 
Fact 2:  mutliple other coaches - Bob Stoops of Oklahoma and Lane Kiffin while at Tennessee come to mind - have likewise said that there nothing unusual or illegal occured during their recruiting of Cameron Newton. 
Fact 3:  there has been one and only one institution with which the issue of money is said to have been raised.
Fact 4:  that institution neither offered money during the recruiting of Cameron Newton nor paid any. 
Fact 5:  there is no evidence to date that any institution was, in fact, solicited during the recruiting of Cameron Newton. 
Fact 6:  the lone individual who has suggested that Cecil Newton sought money in return for his son signing a letter of intent is Kenny Rogers. 
Fact 7:  Rogers' story has had some inconsistencies and he has no proof of any sort that Cecil Newton sought money from Mississippi State or from any other institution. 
Fact 8:  every story has been based on the word of unnamed accusers who effectively inoculate themselves from cross-examination.  Aside from Rogers, there is not a single person who has gone on the record to connect Cecil Newton with talk of money during Cameron Newton's recruitment.  John Bond and Bill Bell have been interviewed, but neither offers more than second- or third-hand information, and Bond's story has changed.    
Fact 9:  the NCAA believes something wrong was done, yet its ruling hints at a lack of clarity as to what did or did not happen.  The organization cannot definitely state whether Cecil Newton asked for money, if Kenny Rogers offered money, or some combination of those two possibilities occured and no one else has been able to, either.   

Ladies and gentlemen, those are the indisputable facts as we know them.  The rest of the talk is about the alleged presence of a smoking gun despite the concrete absence of a body.  Maybe something did happen, maybe it didn't.  The NCAA believes the former, yet even the organization's own announcement indicates some uncertainty.  When two individuals are offering diametrically opposing accounts, it is not likely that both accounts are true.  This isn't a movie with a subjective plot line.  Money either was or was not discussed.  Cecil Newton either did or did not solicit funds.  Kenny Rogers either did or did not offer them.  But thus far, no one has been able to separate the either from the or. Both Auburn and Mississippi State have chosen to separate themselves from the principals in this case. 

I cannot control what you write nor do I want to.  I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of the press, but just as strongly believe in the presumption of innocence.  I believe Cameron is owed that and it is clear that the University has earned it.  If you have facts that contradict anything that you have heard today, please bring them forward and, as previously stated, I will answer questions until each of you is satisfied with the response.  If my accounting of the facts is in error, please point out where and I will make the appropriate correction.   

It is a shame that what we have witnessed on the football field these past several weeks cannot simply be enjoyed on its own merit.  Not just the skills that Cameron Newton has or the work that goes into cultivating them, but rather, the sheer unadulterated joy this young man brings to football.  When was the last time any of you saw a player of his magnitude having so much fun playing this game?  Now, what questions do you have for me?  
------
 
This probably would not make the story go away, certainly not with Auburn headed to a national title game and the attendant media hoopla.  But, it is a start and it is major step forward from no comment and from terse statements that certain questions will not be asked.  Frankly, it is not a kid's job to say such things; that is what media/public relations folks do.  There is nothing wrong with setting the tone for interviews or establishing certain ground rules. "You can ask all the non-football questions you want, but each will produce a version of the same answer - I cannot answer that, I don't know the answer to that, I am not going to discuss that.  The media are going to ask the questions they want to ask and tell the stories they want to tell; the task on this side of the microphone is to effect conditions to the extent possible and tell the truth afterward.

Sparky's gone, and Mary's not doing too well, either

If there is something more gut-wrenching than watching someone mentally deteriorate, I don't want to know what it is, because it has to be something truly horrible.  We tried to keep Mary, my mom, at home for a time but, unlike physically-debilitating conditions, those of the mental variety soon outpace the ability of family members to keep up.  The neighbor ringing the doorbell at 4 am with mom in tow put the exclamation point on the effort at home-based care.  Mary is now at a nice facility, cared for by a round-the-clock staff and surrounded by older folks who are sometimes part of this world and, at other times, in their own universe.  The typical conversation includes a lengthy spell of trying to figure out the context of what she is talking about:  did something happen at the facility, did a friend say something, is what she is talking about even real. 

Some weeks ago came word that former baseball manager Sparky Anderson had died, just a few days after being put into hospice care during the last days of dementia.  I was a huge fan of the Big Red Machine in the 1970s, a baseball team that always finds a spot on lists of best ballclubs ever.  Sparky was a character, a latter-day Casey Stengel type who knew baseball but had a habit for mangling the English language.  His death was a stark reminder that while people sometimes beat back physical ailments, no one gets over on things like dementia and Alzheimer's.  Imagine knowing the day you talk with someone who has such a condition is the best day that person is going to have; that the next day will be a little bit worse, as will the one after that and the one after that. 

If there is an upside, it is that such patients are not in pain, not spending their last days and months in agony.  Mom has her own world that she sometimes lets us into; at other times, it is virtually impossible to know what she is talking about.  So, you nod where it seems appropriate, say clever things like "uh-huh" and "really?" to give the impression that you are following along a narrative that may as well be in another language.  Frankly, visits are depressing but what do you do.  We visit and try to make the most of it. 

The most maddening thing is that these patients retain a good deal of social skill; in other words, they can fool someone who is unfamiliar with things like the 4 am wakeup, or her calling for a husband who's been dead 9 months, or the other people she sees that no one else does.  But, if you don't know that, she can ask enough general questions or carry on enough of a conversation to leave you believing that the problem is just a few "senior moments".  Those who visit often, however, learn that is not the case.  It's a nasty thing, this dementia.  People don't get a choice but if they did, my recommendation is ask for a physical ailment at the end; the mental type is much harder. 

Facts are facts, except when they aren't

It has not been a good run for journalism.  From the open cheerleading of the '08 and '10 electoral campaigns to the trading in speculation that has marked the Cam Newton "story", the profession continues to be its own worst enemy.  As a former reporter - not a journalist, not a commentator, not a pundit (though I did have the chance to be one of those - it is troublesome to see such a casual disregard of the basics of the profession.  Stories require facts, usually supplied either by documentation or on-the-record interviews.  Maybe the most valuable lesson that any J-school can teach students today is that a reporter can only burn a source one time.  After that, the source will never talk to you again, will discourage others from doing so, and will let anyone within shouting distance know of your unscrupulousness. 

A generation ago, Reagan-era Transportation Secretary Raymond Donovan asked where he could go to reclaim his reputation after being acquitted of some very shaky charges.  The question seems a quaint relic from different time when pesky little things like facts were considered staples of journalism.  It may be that Newton will be come the Shoeless Joe Jackson of his generation but, thus far, there is not a shred of evidence, a trade of data, or a single person going on the record to accuse of him of anything.  Not. One. Thing.

To keep the story alive, the narrative has relied on a combination of second- and third-hand allegations from shady characters and un-named sources who offer nothing to back up their stories, and internal navel-gazing and canibalism over the state of the profession.  A few writers have taken shots at other writers which will last until the next round of allegations is launched so another batch of Heisman voters can self-righteously wax about wanting to avoid another Reggie Bush.

The voters' role is not elect the good citizen of the week, mister congeniality, or a public official; it's to choose the most outstanding college football player in the country and I do not hear any debate over who that is.  And, the writers who chastise colleagues do so only after inserting some version of "if this turns out to be true" into their stories.  Well, if the allegations are proven true, so be it.   Cam will suffer, and it appears that Mississippi State will, too.  Auburn appears in the clear all the way around save for wins that would have to be vacated in the case of a negative finding.  We are a long way from such a finding, however; in fact, we are a long way from anything of substance. 

The 24-hour media monster is aided and abeted by a public that demands to know everything about everyone, five minutes ago.  That leads to sloppy reporting, rumor passed as fact, and an over-reliance on sources who may have axes to grind or are looking to cover their own hides.  It's not pretty and if the industry does not take serious efforts to get its house in order, the next generation's Raymond Donovan is just an allegation away. 

Is it over yet?

It's a year of the additional season - the political season, which makes NASCAR's silly season look like sanity.  A couple of thoughts regarding future campaigns:
--a quiet period 36 hours from the closing of the polls.  That means NO television ads, NO print ads, NO rallies or campaign appearances, NO nothing.  Anyone who remains undecided at that point should forfeit their right to vote.  Sorry, elections demand more than the equivalent of deciding between candy bars at the checkout counter.
--enough with the references to faith, church affiliation, and the other religious garb some candidates are determined to be cloaked in.  While 'separation of church and state' is NOT in the Constitution, politics and religion were never meant to be intertwined.  Besides, who can guarantee that the lead tenor in the choir at Antioch Baptist is better qualified than the New Ager or the candidate who happens to be Jewish, Hindu, or pagan? 
--any ad that does nothing but slam the opponent should be required to provide references to fully back its criticism and I mean fully.  No twisted contexts, no half truths, just reality.  I get the point of negative campaigning, but shouldn't I vote FOR you rather than AGAINST your opponent?
--it's a shame that the current representatives of the word have rendered "liberal" a pejorative of the worst kind, but it is comical to watch candidates joust for the conservative label.  Here's a clue - if your history of donations includes giving money to Obama, Kerry, and Edwards, you are not conservative. 
--no Democrat is willing to admit to being one.  In fact, Dems in ALA and GA make a point of referencing how the DON'T side with their party leadership.  If you are going to vote like a Repub, have the decency to run as one.  (Note to Charlie Crist - this applies to opportunists who bailed on the GOP when it became evident they would lose a primary.)

So I met our next door neighbor......

...at 4 o'clock.  In the morning.  Seems Maria (that's my mom) and her dementia thought someone was being held captive in my car.  That someone was my dad.  Who died in February.  She could have walked down the hall and told us about the "problem", but that would have been too easy and a dull story.  So, she went outside to investigate for herself. 

The neighbor is not a big sleeper and the light in her living room drew in mom like the proverbial moth.  What an Asian lady with a pronounced accent was able to say to a Greek woman whose command English is deteriorating is a mystery, but it was enough to convince mom to let the lady walk her back home. 

Her leaving the house was new, time of night notwithstanding, meaning countermeasures were necessary.  After consultations with Homeland Security, the NSA, and a couple of ex-Special Ops contacts, we went with child-proofing tools and physics.  Doorknob covers, a monitor at the front door, and re-arranged furniture to cover the back prevented further escapes, but these remedies mostly served to raise mom's agitation level beyond our ability to manage. 

A couple of near-sleepless nights later (which makes for interesting lecture participation, by the way), we are preparing for another transition, one that involves a place that makes sure there are no late-night jaunts.  It's not what the plan was and, frankly, feels a bit like failure.  On the other hand, we're not medical professionals and this is a disease beyond our ability to control.  Some lucid moments remain but the toughest part is knowing that the present day is the best that person is ever going to be.  Try wrapping your head around that concept.   

THIS is research?

Enter graduate school and, sooner or later, you will run across a research piece that leads you to question who thought it would be a good idea to study the obvious.  I ran across one such article in a Public Relations Theory class, an article that upheld the Curmudgeon Theory.  That is the one that demands each generation to think poorly of the one that succeeds it.  In this case, PR practitioners of the Baby Boomer variety do not think highly of Generation Y, or Millenials, if you prefer.  

This distaste was based on the elders' belief that Millenials enter the workplace with out-sized senses of entitlement and self-importance.  Gee, now where do you imagine those who have those things got them?  Couldn't be from being reared by members of the same generation that is doing the complaining, could it?  All those "spoiled" kids are the result of an atmosphere in which everyone got a trophy, score was not kept, high schools had multiple valedictorians, and all kids were treated as future kings and presidents.  The remarkable thing isn't that the older set views the younger with a jaundiced eye, it's that the Millenials are able to function as well as they do.  Few generations tried harder to ruin childhood than the same Boomers now whining about young 'uns. 

The predictability in the study is that EVERY generation gripes about the one that follows it, whether the "problem" is tastes in music, hairstyles, clothing, or friends.  And, this works both ways; young people like to think they're getting over on their parents.  They're not; just like the youth of my day did not invent rebellious behavior, and neither did my parents.  Or their parents.  The bar of permissibility has changed but, again, whose fault is that?    

I have high hopes for the Millenials, partly because I have two sons and two step-daughters in their ranks and partly because I am surrounded by them all day.  These are not brats-in-waiting; they are sharp, motivated people.  Sure, they're different from my generation but they are supposed to be.  Their experiences and the things they have been exposed to are different, as those things were different in my childhood as compared to my parents. 

The one surprising thing (at least to me though I am probably wrong) is that Millenials were found to be averse to conflict, a bit startling considering that their parents' generation practically invented youthful conflict.  Then again, those same parents likely overcompensated, so busy wanting to be their children's friend that they ignored being mothers and fathers.  The real study here may be that more Millenials are not in need of therapy.  Good thing.  My retirement years depend on their productivity.   

The ABCs of APA

It is not that APA writing style is particularly difficult, it is that this method is complicated, particularly for a newcomer.  On each of my first two papers, I may have spent as much time on the stylistics imposed by APA requirements as with the substance of the actual writing.  Yes, I get the point; these are research-based works and citation of sources is necessary so anyone curious about a particular point that is made can easily track that information down.  Still, it is quite foreign when compared to anything else I have ever written and, like so many other things associated with grad school, has taken some adjustment. 

The one aspect of APA that practically leaps off the page at both reader and writer is how seemingly everything, no matter how innocuous, is treated as worthy of citation with author, publication, date, and page number.  I half expect to find a paper that includes a source to justify the claim of the sun rising in the east.  Shouldn't some things be considered public knowledge, facts established beyond any hint of doubt? 

For example, I recently did a literature review on envy between siblings.  Every article I looked at included a citation for stating that a sibling relationship is usually the longest-lasting relationship any of us has.  That seems obvious, doesn't it?  The age difference puts a limit on one's relationship with parents; even the best of marriages won't start until a person is over 20; and, friendships also have built-in chronological limitations.  Apparently not good enough.   

Can't help but reminisce on occasion about the relative freedom of writing a 750-word column where the only requirement was  writing something that others would actually want to read and, if all went really well, be moved enough by it to write a letter to the editor to either hail the piece or condemn it.  I have had folks do both and have no particular preference as to which tack readers take.  Both are satisfying in that 1) people took the time to read something I wrote and 2) took a bit more time to think about it and formulate an opinion of their own.  

To a degree, I suppose APA sets the tone for similar results among academics.  They read another's published work, see where material and information came from, scour through the actual piece and possibly some of the sources, and find themselves intrigued enough by the subject matter to attempt to move the discussion further along by doing their own study.  None of this is meant as a complaint; it is simply an observation from someone new to the style.  I'll get better at it and fully expect to be able to justify each of its requirements as more assignments are completed.  A former colleague of mine may have been thinking of APA in saying "learning never ends, but will time?"