Pennington: Answering questions

I thought it’d be fun to sit down with an anonymous questioner today … to answer some of the questions raised by my column on Saturday. Take it away, Anonymous Questioner (er, I’ll admit it … this is ME asking the questions that I’ve heard on this board and others.)

AQ: First of all, how could you dare use anonymous sources?

JP: Anonymous sources have been used in the media for years. That’s how stories are broken and that’s how inside opinion becomes public. From 60 Minutes, with the blacked out face and digitized audio, to The Wall Street Journal to ESPN to talk radio, there’s nothing new about using unnamed sources. These people aren’t getting paid to take the kind of heat that can come from voicing concerns. They have businesses and jobs to think about. I’ve chosen to work in the media (which is why my horrific mug accompanies everything I write), but these former players haven’t. However, not having used anonymous sources before, I did make sure to run everything by long-time journalists in this town who are well respected. And the News Sentinel needed to know who I spoke with as well.

AQ: Were you looking for anti-Fulmer sources?

JP: Certainly not. And that’s one of the odd things about the life this column has taken on. It states very clearly in the piece that each of the players I spoke with believes “that Phillip Fulmer is a good football coach.” This was not a hatchet job. They feel that they’ve seen changes in the program. But they believe Fulmer is the man that can fix it.

AQ: Did you even talk to anyone at all? Disgruntled scrubs?

JP: The persons I spoke with, as I stated in the column, were former starters and back-ups. I believe all of them would be easily recognized by Vol fans if identified. The process began with a couple of conversations I’d had one-on-one with former UT players. As we discussed the state of the program, they stated concerns that meshed with one another (these were two separate conversations). At that point, I tracked down some other former players just to talk about practice, the weight room, etc. They raised the same issues as the first folks I spoke to. At that point, I called some other former Vols that still go over there and asked them if they’d seen the things I’d been told. They responded “yes” to most of the points. Those that they did not confirm got cut from the column. At that point, I made sure that each person knew they were being used as a source or as a confirmation. I even read the column to some of them to make sure that nothing had been taken out of context. These guys knew what was going on. They simply thought that these questions needed to be asked. (I also took out any comments that seemed to point too directly at specific coaches.)

AQ: Do you think it was a cheap shot?

JP: No. At the time the column came out, we’d just gone through two weeks of talk radio not just questioning whether Fulmer was in trouble … but who would replace him. Fans have had questions. The media has had questions. I thought it was a fair analysis of the program to allow former players to have their questions heard. I made it very clear that these were the opinions of a few former Vols. I even stated at the end of the column, “are the issues stated above simply the complaints of old-timers who believe things were tougher in their day?” I then said, “have those issues made a real difference in the program’s level of success? Starting with today’s Georgia game and during the entire month of the October, fans will start to get more answers.” That’s pretty fair, I’d think. In other words, “here’s what several players are thinking … are these real issues… we’ll know more at the end of the month.”

AQ: What about the timing?

JP: I think that was a big part of the issue, and to be completely honest, I didn’t think about recruits being on campus when the column came out. That said, if I had put two and two together, the column still would have run. The media shouldn’t hold stories to help a program or team any more than they should intentionally run stories at times that will hurt a program or team. The media can’t concern itself with that stuff. Not if they’re going to provide fair, honest, balanced coverage.

AQ: Are you angry that your column was called out?

JP: Heck no. Like Coach Fulmer, I’ve chosen a profession that puts my “product” out for everyone to see, comment on, build up, tear down, argue over, etc. His product is wins and losses. My product is columns and TV shows. If I can comment on his wins and losses, he should be able to comment on my column. I wish it hadn’t upset him so much, though. If someone really reads it, they’ll see that even in areas where the players questioned the use of the scout team intensity, I made sure to mention that scholarship limitations may play a role in these things. I made sure to state that these players believe in Fulmer. I made it clear that these are the opinions of sources, not things I (or anyone else in the media) can see with our own eyes. I tried to be very fair with it. Plus, this man has been under some serious pressure. The radio shows and chat rooms had turned pretty ugly. Saturday’s front page included a fan poll in which 70 percent of the Vol fans who responded disapproved of the job Fulmer was doing. Then he saw a column with unnamed players stating some of the changes they’ve seen in the program. So, no, he didn’t cross any lines as far as I’m concerned. I stand by the column … these players (and more) have said that the concerns listed in my column are real concerns. He has the right to cry, “bull.”

AQ: Do you believe what these players told you?

JP: As I said on a radio show Saturday, if you asked enough people, you would find some dissenting voices. I thought it was worthy of writing because I found no dissenting voices even though I was talking to more than the normal number of sources. Does that mean I believe it? It means I think the questions deserve to be asked. And Tennessee deserves the chance to answer. I know that John Adams is preparing a column in which the strength and conditioning program will have a chance to defend itself. That’s good. The interesting thing about this column is that more attention seems to have been paid (in the online community, at least) to who the sources were, rather than what the sources said. The level of practice intensity and practice tempo is nothing new. That’s been written about and talked about in the media for two years now. The players also said that there is not the ‘round the clock competitive spirit in the weightroom that there used to be. They questioned whether the way UT (and most other schools) handle their weightlifting now is as effective as what used to be done five, ten or fifteen years ago. And they pointed out that between Game 1 and Game 4, there had not been a lot of visible improvement in player performance. Game 5 was like a totally different team, rather than the culmination of a gradual improvement. Hard to argue that point.

AQ: What’s next?

JP: I’m in my fifth year of local TV, fourth year of local radio and third year of local newspaper in Knoxville. I’ll do what I’ve always tried to do. I try to be fair. I try to bring up interesting opinions and observations that you won’t find elsewhere. And I deal with the positive and/or negative feedback week to week. That’s the business I chose. At times I’ve been ripped for being pro-UT and for being anti-UT. It all depends on someone’s point of view. But I have no agenda (pro or con). I grew up in East Tennessee, so I know the passion of Vol fans. Anything written about Tennessee will illicit some heart-felt responses. And that’s completely fair.

© 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!