Jordan Poyer Interview - OTAs June 2, 2021

[Malazan]

this board...lol. The people on here that are holier than thou about the Bills only having to answer questions they want to answer are the same type of people demanding the Pegulas do interviews and answer questions about the Sabres.

Edited June 3, 2021 by jeremy2020

[Hapless Bills Fan]

35 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yeah, I agree.   Wawrow can ask, although this is the second time he's tread there, and he should realize that people within the organization see him doing it.  

 

As to the contract issue, you've just agreed with me.   Yes, the vaccine has some football connection.  So does the contract issue.  They both have a connection.   My point was that no reporter persists in asking the contract question after the Bills have said we aren't talking about it.  Somehow, Wawrow thinks it's okay to keeping asking this other question.   That will have only one effect - to reduce the kind of access Wawrow gets.  As Sullivan's situation proved, the old adage - don't argue with someone who buys ink in 55-gallon drums - doesn't always apply.  

 

I haven't, really.   Questions about Josh's contract are asked almost every time Beane gives an interview and likewise Josh.  No one is claiming they're out of bounds because the Bills have said they aren't talking about it.  Hopeful reporters keep re-phrasing and re-packaging in the hopes of gleaning something.

 

I don't get your Sullivan thing, but that's OK.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I haven't, really.   Questions about Josh's contract are asked almost every time Beane gives an interview and likewise Josh.  No one is claiming they're out of bounds because the Bills have said they aren't talking about it.  Hopeful reporters keep re-phrasing and re-packaging in the hopes of gleaning something.

 

I don't get your Sullivan thing, but that's OK.

It's true that the press often ask the came comp questions of Beane and Josh, and they get the same answers each time.   What's different is that they don't start their press conference by saying "I'm not talking about my contract."   So, in those press conferences, the subject hasn't come up and hasn't been dealt with so, sure, the press take another shot at it.   But in this case, Poyer DID start his press conference with a clear statement, and within 10 minutes JW asked a question Poyer had just said he wouldn't discuss.  And when Poyer said, again, he wouldn't discuss it, JW asked AGAIN!   Nobody does that when the subject is compensation.   It may come up once, but when the press is told "we're not talking about that," the press respects it.  

 

JW just should know better.   It's journalism 101 - you respect the ground rules.   If I tell a reporter something is "not for attribution," the reporter doesn't say I'm the source.  If I tell the reporter something is for background only, the reporter knows that I'm just helping him understand the situation, without his having any authority to say a source told him these things.  Journalists who don't respect ground rules like those lose their access.   

 

Anyway, JW will do what he wants, and you and I will read what he writes, usually.  And we'll disagree about things, as we often do.  That doesn't keep me from enjoying what you have to say.  

Edited June 3, 2021 by Shaw66

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

So I'll ask you the same question said Wawrow should ask himself:   What part of "we're not going to talk about it" don't you understand?  Teams and players set ground rules for press conferences all the time.   The Bills have set theirs.  

 

You and I can discuss the significance of the vaccine to football operations all day long.   I get that.  But Wawrow is being stupid if he doesn't realize that his access to the Bills is going to become more limited if he persists in pushing issues the Bills don't want to talk about.   Sullivan lost his job because he couldn't see the obvious.   Wawrow ought to know better.  

so you think any time a player (or coach, GM, or owner for that matter) tries to preemptively shut down a topic reporters should automatically cow to their wishes and not attempt to do their job? 

[Shaw66]

33 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

so you think any time a player (or coach, GM, or owner for that matter) tries to preemptively shut down a topic reporters should automatically cow to their wishes and not attempt to do their job? 

Of course.   The press doesn't have any greater rights than the interviewee.  The player only has to talk to the press to the extent the league requires it.  

 

And if a reporter wants to have access to good interviews with players, the press has to treat the players with respect.   Wawrow pisses off Poyer, the Bills will circle the wagons around Poyer and Wawrow will get bupkus when he interviews them.  

[TBBills]

Wawrow killed that interview... So awkward for him to ask that question just don't do it. ***** it's football now. You want to talk vaccine go on medical talk show.

 

I hope they don't go away for camp b.c I would rather they train at the best facility in the NFL.

Edited June 4, 2021 by TBBills

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Of course.   The press doesn't have any greater rights than the interviewee.  The player only has to talk to the press to the extent the league requires it.  

 

And if a reporter wants to have access to good interviews with players, the press has to treat the players with respect.   Wawrow pisses off Poyer, the Bills will circle the wagons around Poyer and Wawrow will get bupkus when he interviews them.  

You’re exactly right - they are on equal standing - the press can ask whatever they want and the player(s) are free to answer or decline. Journalists so beholden to their subjects that they would never dare press them don’t stay journalists for long. 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

You’re exactly right - they are on equal standing - the press can ask whatever they want and the player(s) are free to answer or decline. Journalists so beholden to their subjects that they would never dare press them don’t stay journalists for long. 

I think you seriously misunderstand the role of people who cover modern pro sports teams.   And you misunderstand the balance of power between the teams and players on one hand, and the writers, on the other.  

 

Wawrow isn't a journalist.  He is just a guy who produces content that the print or online sources use to attract readers.  He isn't an investigative journalist on some highly principled search for the truth.  He doesn't have to ask the tough questions to succeed at his job.  His bosses want him just to write something interesting about the team.  So long as readers like what he writes, Wawrow's bosses don't care at all if he's sucking up to the players and teams.  Peter King has made a fortune sucking up to Favre and Manning and Brady.   And they don't care if Wawrow is ahead of his fellow writers on a subject like the vaccine.   A scoop isn't worth very much, because all the other writers hear his questions and see what he writes, and if it has any legs, they all write it, too.  So there's no advantage to be out ahead of the other writers on an issue like this.   

 

The one way that a writer like Wawrow can make a name for himself, to set himself apart, is to have better access to the Bills than the average writer.  For example, it's a big deal for a guy like him to get a one-on-one interview with a player or players, and even better with McDermott or Beane.  A lengthy article about Poyer is worth a lot more to Wawrow's bosses than some paragraphs about the vaccine.  If Poyer is in the mood to do a one-on-one interview with someone, how likely do you think it is today that he'll give that interview to Wawrow?   Not very.   How likely is it that Frazier will choose Wawrow?  Not very, because Frazier wants to back his player.  If the players don't like you, they aren't giving you the stories.  

 

Look at Jay Skurski's interview with Trubisky in Buffalo News.  Do you think anyone on the Bills would sit down today with Wawrow to do an interview like that?

 

The plain dynamic at work here is that Wawrow needs the Bills a lot more than the Bills need Wawrow.  The sports media can always find another guy to write stories.  So when Wawrow keeps asking questions the Bills don't want to answer, when it's clear he's asking Poyer to talk about things that are not in Poyer's interest, Wawrow is putting at risk his ability to do his job.  

Edited June 4, 2021 by Shaw66

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you seriously misunderstand the role of people who cover modern pro sports teams.   And you misunderstand the balance of power between the teams and players on one hand, and the writers, on the other.  

 

Wawrow isn't a journalist.  He is just a guy who produces content that the print or online sources use to attract readers.  He isn't an investigative journalist on some highly principled search for the truth.  He doesn't have to ask the tough questions to succeed at his job.  His bosses want him just to write something interesting about the team.  So long as readers like what he writes, Wawrow's bosses don't care at all if he's sucking up to the players and teams.  Peter King has made a fortune sucking up to Favre and Manning and Brady.   And they don't care if Wawrow is ahead of his fellow writers on a subject like the vaccine.   A scoop isn't worth very much, because all the other writers hear his questions and see what he writes, and if it has any legs, they all write it, too.  So there's no advantage to be out ahead of the other writers on an issue like this.   

 

The one way that a writer like Wawrow can make a name for himself, to set himself apart, is to have better access to the Bills than the average writer.  For example, it's a big deal for a guy like him to get a one-on-one interview with a player or players, and even better with McDermott or Beane.  A lengthy article about Poyer is worth a lot more to Wawrow's bosses than some paragraphs about the vaccine.  If Poyer is in the mood to do a one-on-one interview with someone, how likely do you think it is today that he'll give that interview to Wawrow?   Not very.   How likely is it that Frazier will choose Wawrow?  Not very, because Frazier wants to back his player.  If the players don't like you, they aren't giving you the stories.  

 

Look at Jay Skurski's interview with Trubisky in Buffalo News.  Do you think anyone on the Bills would sit down today with Wawrow to do an interview like that?

 

The plain dynamic at work here is that Wawrow needs the Bills a lot more than the Bills need Wawrow.  The sports media can always find another guy to write stories.  So when Wawrow keeps asking questions the Bills don't want to answer, when it's clear he's asking Poyer to talk about things that are not in Poyer's interest, Wawrow is putting at risk his ability to do his job.  

 

The power dynamic you talk about is real and I think it’s the media’s job to push back against it, not just accept it. 

Again you make great points and that’s why I appreciate JW asking those questions. I don’t want beat reporters turning into blatant league shills like Peter King (who I despise) or access merchants like Schefter or Rapoport. 
 

You may well be right that JW risks something pressing questions about vaccinations, but that’s a plus in my book, not a minus. I don’t want a pack of fawning local reporters puffing up this team. It’s not needed; they’re already good. And we already have that on a national level when it comes to the league with people like King whom you mentioned.

 

edit: And that imbalance in the power dynamic is exactly why local reporters should keep asking questions about it. Do you really want a cowed media feeding you only what the team and league wants you to hear? If yes, then you’re just a sheep.

Edited June 4, 2021 by JoPoy88

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Wawrow isn't a journalist.

 

I'll just stop right there and say I don't know who is a journalist if John Wawrow isn't.  Unless you categorically believe no one who covers sports is a journalist.

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Look at Jay Skurski's interview with Trubisky in Buffalo News.  Do you think anyone on the Bills would sit down today with Wawrow to do an interview like that?

 

I also think you're kind of blowing this up into more than it is.  It's not violating a confidence like quoting someone who said "off the record...." or "for background only....".  He asked a question probing if he could get some info, Poyer said "not going there", interview moved on.  Wawrow is more a news reporting guy than a feature writer, but he's been offered access and 1:1 interviews in the past and will likely be offered them in the future.  He does have a reputation built for years that goes beyond 1 question in 1 interview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

16 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Sure, players can talk about any issue they want, but that doesn't mean they MUST talk about any issue the press wants them to.  This coach and these players have decided they aren't talking about the vaccinations.   It's a personal issue about individuals' health and/or politics, and there is no reason they have to talk about it to the sports media.  

 

And just because some guy may not be available in October because he got COVID doesn't change anything.   If the team discovers today that the guy has a heart condition that may affect his availability in October, that doesn't mean the team tells the press.  It's a personal health decision, and it's confidential information.  

 

Might the fact that some guys on the team haven't gotten vaccinated affect the team in some way in October?   Sure.  So might any one of a hundred other decisions players make affect the team in October.   That doesn't mean that the players or the team are required to talk to the press about every one of those decisions, especially those decisions that are personal.  

 

 

None of the above means the media shouldn't ask. Indeed I think it is absolutely all the more reason why they should. When something has the ability to affect the team in-season the Bills don't get to decide whether it is newsworthy or not. We know there are differences of view in that building. It is a legtimiate news story and one that the media are legitimate in continuing to go back to. At camp the Bills are not going to be able to keep this bottled up as much as they may wish to. The league regulations published last week mean that even just someone watching practice will likely be able to deduce who is and isn't vaccinated. 

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you seriously misunderstand the role of people who cover modern pro sports teams.   And you misunderstand the balance of power between the teams and players on one hand, and the writers, on the other.  

 

Wawrow isn't a journalist. 

 

As someone who has covered a modern pro sports team I find that offensive. 

 

John Wawrow is 100% a journalist. 

[TBBills]

Wawrow just needs to stop asking questions people don't care about. He is trying to bait Bills players into saying something they don't want for news worthy content. It's a paparazzi type of journalism that is done to bring out anger and the hopeful slip up... Disgusting thing to do but it is still considered journalism.

 

No one cares about the teams vaccine talk, people want football back without needing to hear stupid ***** like that.

 

A witch hunt to find out who isn't vaccinated so they can be shamed and John can get his clicks.

Edited June 4, 2021 by TBBills

[Chandler#81]

On 6/2/2021 at 8:01 PM, Limeaid said:

 

JW is not a click bait reporter. He works for AP and is poster on TSW.

 

I believe you are reading into it what you want to or are trying to start argument here.

HA!🤣 If you’ve learned Anything in your time here, hanging around here IS’NT a good look. 

Good thing for him that he’s a PRINT journalist. He’s got the face and speech patterns for it and routinely makes a fool of himself venturing into the other areas.

[Punching Bag]

4 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

HA!🤣 If you’ve learned Anything in your time here, hanging around here IS’NT a good look. 

Good thing for him that he’s a PRINT journalist. He’s got the face and speech patterns for it and routinely makes a fool of himself venturing into the other areas.

 

Yea when I worked in industry briefly it was important to be accurate than fast.

With current media it is important to be first, even if what you are saying is not true or coming from sketchy sources you have not double checked, so you can get credit and ignore any blowback from details you may have gotten wrong or made up (speculated).

[Malazan]

17 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

JW just should know better.   It's journalism 101 - you respect the ground rules.   If I tell a reporter something is "not for attribution," the reporter doesn't say I'm the source.  If I tell the reporter something is for background only, the reporter knows that I'm just helping him understand the situation, without his having any authority to say a source told him these things.  Journalists who don't respect ground rules like those lose their access.   

 

You have some.. inaccurate information. Teams, according to NFL Policy, can not revoke reporter access. They need approval. For example, the Jets hired a law firm to compile a dossier that it presented to the league when it wanted to revoke Manish Mehta's credentials and that guy did crazy sh*t like harassing Joe Douglas' kid at his baseball game and creating a fake burner account the he then pretended was Adam Gase. 

 

The Pro Football Writers of America (which is acknowledged by the NFL and Wawrow is a member) would certainly intervene if the Bills tried to remove access because someone asked a question the players or team said they didn't want to answer. 

 

 

The very idea that because someone says, "I don't want to answer questions about that" that they should then be immune to answering questions about it is just flat out insane. Think it through. If any public figure could do that then the only questions that would ever get asked are 'approved' questions and what would be the point? 

Edited June 4, 2021 by jeremy2020

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, TBBills said:

A witch hunt to find out who isn't vaccinated so they can be shamed and John can get his clicks.

 

On what planet do you feel that's at all an accurate description of the question John Wawrow asked?

 

Did you actually listen to the interview or are you just shooting your own attitudes off your fingertips, that any question about vaccination is a "witch hunt" and "shaming"?  Wait, don't tell me, I know the answer to that.

 

C'Mon Man.

 

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

Yea when I worked in industry briefly it was important to be accurate than fast.

With current media it is important to be first, even if what you are saying is not true or coming from sketchy sources you have not double checked, so you can get credit and ignore any blowback from details you may have gotten wrong or made up (speculated).

 

The thing is, Wawrow is employed by one of the last holdouts to that "important to be accurate" belief, AP.  They have requirements regarding what qualifies as a direct source, needing 2 confirmatory sources etc etc.

 

As opposed to much of the rest of current coverage where Ian Rappoport or Adam Schefter can tweet out a rumor from an unnamed "source", and then NFLN and ESPN and a bunch of other media write a story about it citing Schefter's tweet as their source.

 

Which is why the animus directed at Wawrow over this is kind of puzzling to me - it wasn't a witch hunt, it wasn't an attempt to find out who is vaccinated, and he IS far better qualified to be called a journalist than many these days.

[Jerome007]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:45 AM, JoPoy88 said:

The vaccine questions aren’t directly to the game on-field, yes. But the league is clearly setting different standards for teams based on whether or not the team meets the vaccination threshold. Those standards affect things like practice, meetings, mobility within team facilities, etc. Those things DO affect the team and can indirectly affect on-field performance; Brandon Beane has admitted this himself. So it kinda is a football issue and seems like it should be okay for media to ask questions about it.

The NFL should be asked questions then for making up these standards, not players. No one should be forced to inject anything, and it is a personal decision that should be private, and this is a run around away of somewhat forcing this issue. And if the Bills do reach the NFL imposed limit, then stop bugging players that chose otherwise. 

 

As for the interview, Poyer didn't want to delve into why Bills had such high attendance, but you could tell it probably was a heated debate among players. Good that once a decision was made player wise, most chose to follow their teammates. And for those who think it's the same with injecting a vaccine, get a life and some perspective.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Jerome007

[JoPoy88]

45 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

The NFL should be asked questions then for making up these standards, not players. No one should be forced to inject anything, and it is a personal decision that should be private, and this is a run around away of somewhat forcing this issue. And if the Bills do reach the NFL imposed limit, then stop bugging players that chose otherwise. 

 

As for the interview, Poyer didn't want to delve into why Bills had such high attendance, but you could tell it probably was a heated debate among players. Good that once a decision was made player wise, most chose to follow their teammates. And for those who think it's the same with injecting a vaccine, get a life and some perspective.

I have no problem with the league being asked how and why these standards were adopted. I also never said Poyer or any other player was wrong for declining to answer any questions about vaccinations. But reporters shouldn’t be insulted and accused of hackery just for asking. 

[Punching Bag]

10 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

I have no problem with the league being asked how and why these standards were adopted. I also never said Poyer or any other player was wrong for declining to answer any questions about vaccinations. But reporters shouldn’t be insulted and accused of hackery just for asking. 

 

It is more of a reflection on accuser than accused.

[JoPoy88]

12 hours ago, TBBills said:

Wawrow just needs to stop asking questions people don't care about. He is trying to bait Bills players into saying something they don't want for news worthy content. It's a paparazzi type of journalism that is done to bring out anger and the hopeful slip up... Disgusting thing to do but it is still considered journalism.

 

No one cares about the teams vaccine talk, people want football back without needing to hear stupid ***** like that.

 

A witch hunt to find out who isn't vaccinated so they can be shamed and John can get his clicks.

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

[TBBills]

6 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

You only care if it makes someone look bad which is what Wawrow was trying to do. Someone says they won't answer those questions stop trying so hard to ask it and ruin a whole interview b.c of stupid awkwardness.

It shows how bad he is at it. He got some attention for this but it isn't the kind that helps him as a journalist.

Edited June 4, 2021 by TBBills

[JoPoy88]

Just now, TBBills said:

You only care if it makes someone look bad which is what Wawrow was trying to do.

Riiiight. Doesn’t address anything I said or asked but seems legit. So not only do you know everyone’s cares, but their motivations too? Doubling down on the generalizations was the card to pull huh? Pfft. 

[Punching Bag]

13 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

 

He is in charge of silent majority except he is not silent.

 

Remember when facts do not match reality create your own facts!

 

And don't forget to rate down.

[TBBills]

4 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

He is in charge of silent majority except he is not silent.

 

Remember when facts do not match reality create your own facts!

Hey 4 pages b.c Wawrow ruined an interview, not bad. This would have never of made 3 if not for his blunder.

Edited June 4, 2021 by TBBills

[Punching Bag]

4 pages due to a hack's comment.

[GunnerBill]

47 minutes ago, TBBills said:

He got some attention for this but it isn't the kind that helps him as a journalist.

 

A good journalist shouldn't care whether his journalism "helps him". 

7 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

You have some.. inaccurate information. Teams, according to NFL Policy, can not revoke reporter access. They need approval. For example, the Jets hired a law firm to compile a dossier that it presented to the league when it wanted to revoke Manish Mehta's credentials and that guy did crazy sh*t like harassing Joe Douglas' kid at his baseball game and creating a fake burner account the he then pretended was Adam Gase. 

 

The Pro Football Writers of America (which is acknowledged by the NFL and Wawrow is a member) would certainly intervene if the Bills tried to remove access because someone asked a question the players or team said they didn't want to answer. 

 

 

The very idea that because someone says, "I don't want to answer questions about that" that they should then be immune to answering questions about it is just flat out insane. Think it through. If any public figure could do that then the only questions that would ever get asked are 'approved' questions and what would be the point? 

 

This. I once got thrown out of a Sir Alex Ferguson press conference for asking him a question I knew he didn't want to answer. That is the job. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 6/3/2021 at 7:45 AM, JoPoy88 said:

I mean, some of you are saying “it’s not a football issue” and then going into the ways it actually is of consequence to teams and the league. Seems a little contradictory.

 

The vaccine questions aren’t directly to the game on-field, yes. But the league is clearly setting different standards for teams based on whether or not the team meets the vaccination threshold. Those standards affect things like practice, meetings, mobility within team facilities, etc. Those things DO affect the team and can indirectly affect on-field performance; Brandon Beane has admitted this himself. So it kinda is a football issue and seems like it should be okay for media to ask questions about it.

 

This.  Mind, I think it's a fine thing for the Bills players to all agree to keep vaccine status and vaccine discussions "in house".

 

But it's still a football issue because of the NFL/NFLPA rules and their potential impact on efficiency of football operations and on player availability after exposure.

4 hours ago, TBBills said:

You only care if it makes someone look bad which is what Wawrow was trying to do.

 

You know that how?

 

4 hours ago, TBBills said:

Someone says they won't answer those questions stop trying so hard to ask it and ruin a whole interview b.c of stupid awkwardness.

It shows how bad he is at it. He got some attention for this but it isn't the kind that helps him as a journalist.

 

I mean, the guy asked a question, Poyer declined to answer the vaccine part, made some general comments about pro's of TC at AdPro and pro's of TC at SJF, and the interview continued.  Why and how did it "ruin a whole interview?"

 

I'm kind of getting the impression that you and a couple other guys are the ones who are super-sensitive on these points.  Guy asks a question OH NOES!  RUINED THE WHOLE INTERVIEW!.  Plus you know his motivation (making people look bad) and you know that no one cares.  Well for one, seems like you care, a lot, or it wouldn't be such a big deal to you that the question got asked, not answered, and the interview moved on along.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

The NFL should be asked questions then for making up these standards, not players.

 

That would be entirely fair IMHO - not just the NFL, but the NFLPA for the player standards.

[HappyDays]

6 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

 

No one actually cares what answer Poyer or anyone else on the team gives. We already know the answer. There's nothing else to learn. The question only matters insofar as it drives conflict, which is the main currency of the internet now. We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. He asked the question because it's controversial and now people are talking about it. That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

Edited June 5, 2021 by HappyDays

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No one actually cares what answer Poyer or anyone else on the team gives. We already know the answer. There's nothing else to learn. The question only matters insofar as it drives conflict, which is the main currency of the internet now. We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. He asked the question because it's controversial and now people are talking about it. That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

 

Just curious: what was the actual question Wawrow asked?  Do you even know?

 

Because the above makes it sound as though you don't.

[Doc Brown]

On 6/3/2021 at 3:10 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

As a former journalist I think it is absolutely the job of reporters to ask tough questions. It is not the job of reporters to ask players the questions they want to answer. The vaccine issue is a tough one for the Bills right now because their players made it so - whether it was Josh's likely too honest answer to a question earlier in the spring or Cole Beasley's clumsy tweet - they put it out there. McDermott has wisely in my view tried to put the issue back in the bottle and pull the clasp shut but I am afraid Sean doesn't get to choose what the issues are that the media asks about. 

 

For those who say the reporters should "stick to football" the regulations released last week make it pretty clear to me that whether or not individuals on a team are vaccinated is going to affect the football season in a multitude of ways. It is a legitimate line of questioning. 

Beane also didn't help with his unprompted comment suggesting decisions may be made for the bubble players based on whether they're vaccinated or not.  I don't like where this is going at all as trust issues between the players, coaches, and upper management could develop over this issue.  Something that hasn't seemed to be a problem since McBeane got here.  

[JoPoy88]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No one actually cares what answer Poyer or anyone else on the team gives. We already know the answer. There's nothing else to learn. The question only matters insofar as it drives conflict, which is the main currency of the internet now. We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. He asked the question because it's controversial and now people are talking about it. That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

Again with the “no one cares.” Bro, you don’t speak for everyone. YOU may not care, and that’s fine. Personally, I do care about the answer to JW’s question, for purely football reasons, since the league announced these different standards based on a team’s level of vaccination. I’d like the Bills to be able to take advantage of the relaxed rules for teams that meet the vaccination threshold.

 

 Other people may also care about that question and answer in broader terms as well, because some people want to get past COVID and see as many people as possible vaccinated asap. That would include public figures like the local football team.

 

Generalizations are the quickest way to prove to others that you’re a moron.

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

 

Journalism is certainly not supposed to be about avoiding tough questions because someone says they don't want to answer them. It is pursuit of truth ultimately. 

[HappyDays]

8 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

Again with the “no one cares.” Bro, you don’t speak for everyone. YOU may not care, and that’s fine. Personally, I do care about the answer to JW’s question, for purely football reasons, since the league announced these different standards based on a team’s level of vaccination. I’d like the Bills to be able to take advantage of the relaxed rules for teams that meet the vaccination threshold.

 

I wish the players would just get vaccinated and be done with it, but they've made their opinions known and there's not much else to say. It frustrates me. But we already know the answer any player will give to any question related to the vaccine - "we've decided to keep this an internal issue" or "I'm not answering a question about the vaccine" or "that's a question for our coaches." So no one really cares about the answer, just the controversy. We know what McDermott and Beane think, we know what the players have decided together. Any further questions are just meant to rankle the players. In this case it just made the interview really awkward for a couple minutes and we didn't learn anything new.

 

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Journalism is certainly not supposed to be about avoiding tough questions because someone says they don't want to answer them. It is pursuit of truth ultimately. 

 

The truth has already been found. We know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. We know the players aren't going to give specific answers. I very much disagree with his thoughts on the vaccine, but it is what it is. It's the dregs of the NFL offseason so journalists are going to latch onto any controversy they can, that's what this is really about.

 

I feel like I have to keep reminding people that these are football players. They aren't public speakers or social activists or scientists, etc. In some sense players like Poyer and Beasley brought this on themselves by airing their opinions publicly so they have to take some responsibility for that, but now the players have all decided to stop talking about it. Asking more questions won't accomplish anything.

Edited June 5, 2021 by HappyDays

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

The truth has already been found. We know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. We know the players aren't going to give specific answers. I very much disagree with his thoughts on the vaccine, but it is what it is. It's the dregs of the NFL offseason so journalists are going to latch onto any controversy they can, that's what this is really about.

 

I feel like I have to keep reminding people that these are football players. They aren't public speakers or social activists or scientists, etc. In some sense players like Poyer and Beasley brought this on themselves by airing their opinions publicly so they have to take some responsibility for that, but now the players have all decided to stop talking about it. Asking more questions won't accomplish anything.

 

Again, I don't think you actually heard the question. It was not "Jordan, what do you think about covid vaccines?"

[HappyDays]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Again, I don't think you actually heard the question. It was not "Jordan, what do you think about covid vaccines?"

 

No I heard, he asked him how the vaccine compliance would affect where training camp will be. Which, again, is not a question for Jordan Poyer. And you could tell he was trying to sidestep around asking how the vaccines would affect the team as a whole. McDermott and Beane have openly talked about it. The players have decided as a team not to.

 

The only reason I got into this discussion is I saw people trying to argue that Wawrow asked the question for some kind of noble journalistic pursuit, all I'm saying is he clearly just asked the question because it's a hot topic controversy and creates buzz. That's his right as a reporter. I'm just calling it what it is.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

The truth has already been found. We know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine.

 

And previously you said: "We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine."

 

Both of these strongly imply that Wawrow asked Poyer what he thought about the vaccine.  But Wawrow didn't ask what Poyer thought about the vaccine.  He asked about what Poyer thought about whether the NFL rules about vaccination would affect SJF for training camp, which IMO is a football question that is fair to ask.

 

Poyer said, essentially "nice try, that's still asking about the vaccine in my book, Next" which is also fair

 

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

No I heard, he asked him how the vaccine compliance would affect where training camp will be. 

 

So then why do you keep bringing up "he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine"? 

 

I thought Poyer handled the question very well.

 

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

Which, again, is not a question for Jordan Poyer. 

 

True, but journalists ask players questions that really aren't appropriate for them all the freakin' time.  They'll ask Mitch Morse or Jon Feliciano what he thought about the Bills pass rush inability to affect the opposing team's QB, like they're going to throw their teammates on D under the bus even if they watched defensive series.  One time Morse said straight out pretty much "I was too busy trying to solve some blocking issues with my OL coach to watch the defense"

 

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

The only reason I got into this discussion is I saw people trying to argue that Wawrow asked the question for some kind of noble journalistic pursuit, all I'm saying is he clearly just asked the question because it's a hot topic controversy and creates buzz. That's his right as a reporter. I'm just calling it what it is.

 

Oh, Horsefeathers.  No one has claimed it was "some kind of noble journalistic pursuit".  People have just been countering the claims that

1) Wawrow is a hack

2) Not a journalist

3) asking an inappropriate question

There's a lot of space between "not a hack, yes a journalist, no the preferences of the interviewee (in an open interview) shouldn't restrict what questions get asked" and "some kind of noble journalistic pursuit". 

 

Let's not pretend that people in this thread spontaneously popped up to say "Wow, what a great question Wawrow asked, how Noble!  the epitome of journalism!"  No, not at all.  To the contrary, people chimed in defending Wawrow from what is (in some of our views) unfair criticism.  And even the defenders acknowledge that Wawrow's manner of asking questions is rambling and leaves a lot to be desired.

 

You're probably correct that Wawrow asked the question because he thinks it's a hot topic that people want to hear about.  Isn't that why all reporters ask questions?  I get it, you don't want to hear about it, but I think there are probably others who are interested in questions of the general family "how will the NFL rules affect the operations of my football team"?

[GunnerBill]

53 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No I heard, he asked him how the vaccine compliance would affect where training camp will be. Which, again, is not a question for Jordan Poyer. And you could tell he was trying to sidestep around asking how the vaccines would affect the team as a whole. McDermott and Beane have openly talked about it. The players have decided as a team not to.

 

The only reason I got into this discussion is I saw people trying to argue that Wawrow asked the question for some kind of noble journalistic pursuit, all I'm saying is he clearly just asked the question because it's a hot topic controversy and creates buzz. That's his right as a reporter. I'm just calling it what it is.

 

I disagree. It is a legimate question with a legitimate purpose. And I say that as someone who has sat in those rooms and asked questions I know the participant doesn't want to answer. 

[Shaw66]

I've been lurking around, looking at what people are saying here since I said my piece, but something Happy Days said got me to want to get reengaged.  

 

First, to be clear, I want to apologize to JW.  I think what I said may have been misinterpreted.  I didn't mean to disparage him by saying he was not a journalist.   My sense of the guy is that he works at his craft, he's written a lot of really good stuff, and I'm sure he does his best to adhere to the principles of journalism.   However, that doesn't change what his job is.   He is job is to create content, day after day.  His job is to write a couple hundred words about the Bills every couple of days that are meaningful, informative, and seem fresh.  Yes, scooping the other writers sometimes helps him write something that attracts extra readers, but Wawrow was not going to scoop anyone by asking these questions at an open press conference.   Everyone else would have been in on it immediately, and there would have been no scoop. 

 

Second, also to be clear, I've said and I continue to believe that he's free to ask whatever questions he wants.  That's up to him.   What I said was that by doing what he did, he will tend to limit the access he gets to the Bills.  It will tend to limit the quality of the responses he gets from the team, because if they're unhappy with the way he pursues them, the natural tendency of human beings, including the Bills, is to stay away from the guy.   From his point of view, it's bad for his business if he antagonizes the Bills, because it will affect his ability to write the kind of content his employer wants.  

 

So, as I've been reading the comments of people, I've been wondering why it is that what Wawrow did bothers me?   I mean, why do I care if he's doing something that may affect his job performance negatively?   If he can't figure out what's good for him and what isn't, that's his problem.   Then I read what Happy Days said - that the real reason that Wawrow asked the questions and persisted was that he was trying to create controversy, which Happy said is the currency of the internet these days.  Why create controversy?  Because it's easier to write a couple of hundred words about the Bills if there is a controversy pending.   If there's no controversy, it takes some creativity to write something that engages readers. 

 

And then I realized it:  What I don't like about Wawrow asking those questions is that he's trying to create controversy, and controversy is bad for my team!   That's the problem.   This is my team he's talking about, and he's trying to make my team look bad and he's trying to get the players on my team to argue with each other in the press.   He's trying to disrupt the community of players that McDermott works hard to create and maintain.   Is he trying to do this because he WANTS to make problems for the Bills?   No.  He's trying to create controversy because it will be easier to write about the Bills,  easier or more fun, or more interesting.   He's trying to disrupt what's going on within the Bills organization for his own benefit or entertainment.  

 

I don't need that and I don't want that.  Controversy is not good for my team.  It's not good for my team if Wawrow tricks Poyer in talking about something that he promised his teammates he wouldn't talk about.  It's not good for my team if Poyer says something about one of his teammates and then his teammate tweets a response.   The Bills are going to do whatever they do about the vaccination, and none of Wawrow's questions are going to change that.   But Wawrow's questions CAN change the team chemistry - I don't want that, and McDermott doesn't want that.  

 

There is nothing good for my team that was going to come out of Wawrow's questions to Poyer, and there was potentially something bad.  (And please don't try to tell me that JW's probing questions might cause Poyer to reconsider his point of view and that in turn might cause him to lead the Bills in a different direction that might be beneficial to the team.  It's true, it might, but a mid-air butterfly could have created an instantaneous micro-draft that might have pushed Norwood's kick inside the right upright, too.  Wawrow wasn't trying to improve the Bills' decision-making, and the chances that his questions actually would have an impact were miniscule.)

 

The simple fact is that I don't want my beat writers trying to stir up trouble with my team.  It isn't good for team, and I don't want it.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

The simple fact is that I don't want my beat writers trying to stir up trouble with my team.  It isn't good for team, and I don't want it.  

 

 

I don't think he is trying to stir up trouble. I don't accept that as his objective. Is he aware that is a potential byproduct of his questioning? I am sure he is. But that isn't a reason not to ask it. JW's primary responsibility is to do his job as a journalist. It is not to avoid asking the tough questions in case it rocks the boat.