Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1

Post Reply
srsmiley007
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:26 am

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by srsmiley007 »

wlduck wrote:
srsmiley007 wrote:
wlduck wrote:
srsmiley007 wrote:
wlduck wrote:http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... pital.html

First off, suggesting reporters be banned is weak. It suggests that the program has a reason to hide things. Second, read Grief's story. Certainly some may not care for quoting unnamed sources, but he also quotes school officials and players who give their sides. Unlike Canzano, he offers no opinions, just a reporting of the story. Personally I think Grief is a fair and thorough reporter. I'm more inclined to say that fans (and coaches) should stop being so sensitive about what amounts to straight reporting on stories.

I like Taggart allot. He's incredibly frank in that interview about his feeling that the players didn't like each other last year. That's pretty stunning to admit, and his willingness to address it publicly is in stark contrast to previous coaches. I don't mind his defending his side of the conditioning story, and I think he really believes little or nothing wrong was done. But his administration did, and I would have liked it more had he started that defense with a small amount of contrition for it. But I'm sure most here disagree.
Appreciate your take, but, having played, I totally disagree... We had guys herfing during winter conditioning consistently. That's part of the deal... No offense, but there are points in the game where you have to dig deep or you lose and that doesn't just magically happen. You have to be pushed to the limit and trained to overcome. At least these guys had parameters. The worse is when you don't know how long they'll make you go.
Nothing in my "take" or the article contradicts anything in your post. My post was about the article, and Taggarts response to it. I feel like the incident itself was minor- but there was an incedent. And I have been part of many conditioning drills with players " herfing" myself. None ever developed Rhabdo.
Sorry, my bad, I wasn't clear. Still like your take even if I disagree with it which is what makes a good blog.

The part of your comment I disagree with is Willie and contrition. Especially when they fail to include his comments in the story. How does one have contrition for his workout plan? One not unique to college, the military and so many others? Is he upset that his players were hurt. Absolutely. That's not contrition though.

Also, I didn't agree with Grief's reporting on this. I too like him for the most part, but disagree with the slant on this story. As for banning journalistst, I wonder if that's really directed towards Canzano? Grief for the most part reports with subtle slant. Canzano though is a nuclear bomb.

The problem is the story doesn't reference how difficult it is to determine Rhabdo, thus leading the reader to assume the headline of "grueling." How do you see, in advance, potential Rhabdo symptoms? Symptoms are muscle pain or urine. Lactic acid buildup, players with a high tolerance for pain and pushing themselves continuously are going to know the difference? Nope. When informed of the urine, they took action.

Admittedly, I'm no expert on Rhabdo but from what I've read, I'm not sure how they could do anything much different other than have them pee before/after each workout.
Not qualified myself to know how realistic it is to see the onset of Rhabdo in that particular situation. As far as not quoting Taggart for the story are we sure he was willing to comment at that time? Seems like an unusual decision for a reporter to make if he omitted WT quotes from the story. Besides being pertinent, they would also drive readership one would think.

I am basically done with this. I would finish by saying I like the direction towards more openness with the program and would hate to see that change because of a few blips.
+1(since we can't vote it up)
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by Phalanx »

pezsez1 wrote:
No, reporters do not add details to stories to push narratives -- that is literally what sources do. It's up to the journalist to use all that information given by sources to write a fair-and-truthful story, all things considered. There's no such thing (or shouldn't be, anyway) as open mic night for sources. (Which is why I dislike TV news, but that's another conversation). You seem eager to give a free pass to anyone who has ever disliked how something is written. And yet, how do you expect politicians/coaches/etc. to react when media reports don't bathe them in awesomeness? "Oh, the media misrepresented me!" "The media didn't do it right!" "The media is corrupt!" "That reporter has an agenda!" "Whaaaaaaa!" It's always s*** like that. When is the last time you heard, "You know, I was able to see through that media report how a third person with no dog in the fight views what I'm doing, and maybe I should actually seek to improve this." Hahahaha, hell no! It's always complain, complain, complain. Discredit, discredit, discredit. And that's not surprising -- that's the perfectly "human" response when folks criticize you -- but that's why we have journalism, to cut through that noise.

You are correct that everyone has a bias. Journalists are trained to accept their biases early on in journalism school. In fact, not once have I said reporters are unbiased, and if you went back through the history of my posts, I'm certain you'd find me talking about the myth of pure objectivity. But, unlike politicians/coaches/etc., journalists are actually bound by professionalism and expectations to minimize their bias as much as possible. Compare that to Mr. "the story was covered wrong!" Taggart. Did you actually READ Grief's stories? I did, and I just went back and read them again. What did you find to be so unfair and biased as to justify Taggart's complaints? In his Day 2 story, Grief even describes -- almost to perfection -- the exact same workout that Buckmark did up above. He was balanced, correct and included perspectives from school officials and players.

The fact is, the Oregon coaches conducted a poorly designed workout, and the players (who aren't professional athletes or trainers) paid the price. And now Taggart is crying over the media not focusing on all the positive things the program is up to -- and this is a week in which three players went to the hospital with rhabdo and then a new assistant was arrested for drunk driving. Seriously, WTF, Taggart? How about just man up, acknowledge you had a bad week and quit blaming that on the media? It's just pathetic.

This quote from you, Phalanx, is especially troubling:
Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't.
This is your whole view in a nutshell. So you think Grief should be Taggart's mouthpiece -- that, or refrain from writing anything that makes the program look bad -- and if he doesn't, then Taggart should be able to withhold information from him?

Dude. How can you even say something like this, then attack Grief for being biased and unfair in his reporting? That's totally contradicting. I hope you think about this for more than a few moments and try to understand how this point of view doesn't fit in with your earlier contention that journalists need to be MORE fair and MORE objective. A purely fair and objective journalist -- or one as close to that as possible -- would NEVER be anyone's mouthpiece.
Nobody is arguing for a reporter to be a mouthpiece for anyone (although it happens all the time). I think you need to learn to find the vast expanse between 'biased reporting' and 'source's mouthpiece'. You're flying off the handle and missing my point entirely.

In this case, Taggart's accusation is that Greif interviewed him, but then didn't include any quotes or anything representing his side of the story. Reporting one side and not the other of a story leaves one open to accusations of slanted reporting, and is a very common practice in journalism.

To me, this is a dumb argument. There isn't any doubt in my mind that journalists do their utmost to establish narratives and tailor facts to support them. I have watched it happen again and again, and there are many devices for doing this, including only quoting sources who agree with the narrative. There may be some who don't do this, but they are in the minority. I think Taggart is well within his rights to cry foul at biased reporting, even while at the same time the coaches were in the wrong. In any case, the players appear to agree with Taggart, and they were there. You may dismiss this, but I think it means something.
buckmarkduck
All-American
Posts: 10565
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
Contact:

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by buckmarkduck »

While their are lots of Journalists with integrity, the bottom line is newspapers are all very close to be extinct. So a percentage of journalists are now leaving out facts to make a story sound juicier and hoping it becomes national news, in hopes of selling more stories. Anyone who doesn't think so, is probably to close to the situation or just doesn't want to admit that things are going that way.
srsmiley007
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:26 am

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by srsmiley007 »

Phalanx wrote:
pezsez1 wrote:
No, reporters do not add details to stories to push narratives -- that is literally what sources do. It's up to the journalist to use all that information given by sources to write a fair-and-truthful story, all things considered. There's no such thing (or shouldn't be, anyway) as open mic night for sources. (Which is why I dislike TV news, but that's another conversation). You seem eager to give a free pass to anyone who has ever disliked how something is written. And yet, how do you expect politicians/coaches/etc. to react when media reports don't bathe them in awesomeness? "Oh, the media misrepresented me!" "The media didn't do it right!" "The media is corrupt!" "That reporter has an agenda!" "Whaaaaaaa!" It's always s*** like that. When is the last time you heard, "You know, I was able to see through that media report how a third person with no dog in the fight views what I'm doing, and maybe I should actually seek to improve this." Hahahaha, hell no! It's always complain, complain, complain. Discredit, discredit, discredit. And that's not surprising -- that's the perfectly "human" response when folks criticize you -- but that's why we have journalism, to cut through that noise.

You are correct that everyone has a bias. Journalists are trained to accept their biases early on in journalism school. In fact, not once have I said reporters are unbiased, and if you went back through the history of my posts, I'm certain you'd find me talking about the myth of pure objectivity. But, unlike politicians/coaches/etc., journalists are actually bound by professionalism and expectations to minimize their bias as much as possible. Compare that to Mr. "the story was covered wrong!" Taggart. Did you actually READ Grief's stories? I did, and I just went back and read them again. What did you find to be so unfair and biased as to justify Taggart's complaints? In his Day 2 story, Grief even describes -- almost to perfection -- the exact same workout that Buckmark did up above. He was balanced, correct and included perspectives from school officials and players.

The fact is, the Oregon coaches conducted a poorly designed workout, and the players (who aren't professional athletes or trainers) paid the price. And now Taggart is crying over the media not focusing on all the positive things the program is up to -- and this is a week in which three players went to the hospital with rhabdo and then a new assistant was arrested for drunk driving. Seriously, WTF, Taggart? How about just man up, acknowledge you had a bad week and quit blaming that on the media? It's just pathetic.

This quote from you, Phalanx, is especially troubling:
Some get smart and realize it isn't good business to do a biased report about someone who may provide you with other stories in the future, e.g. biting the hand that feeds you. Others don't.
This is your whole view in a nutshell. So you think Grief should be Taggart's mouthpiece -- that, or refrain from writing anything that makes the program look bad -- and if he doesn't, then Taggart should be able to withhold information from him?

Dude. How can you even say something like this, then attack Grief for being biased and unfair in his reporting? That's totally contradicting. I hope you think about this for more than a few moments and try to understand how this point of view doesn't fit in with your earlier contention that journalists need to be MORE fair and MORE objective. A purely fair and objective journalist -- or one as close to that as possible -- would NEVER be anyone's mouthpiece.
Nobody is arguing for a reporter to be a mouthpiece for anyone (although it happens all the time). I think you need to learn to find the vast expanse between 'biased reporting' and 'source's mouthpiece'. You're flying off the handle and missing my point entirely.

In this case, Taggart's accusation is that Greif interviewed him, but then didn't include any quotes or anything representing his side of the story. Reporting one side and not the other of a story leaves one open to accusations of slanted reporting, and is a very common practice in journalism.

To me, this is a dumb argument. There isn't any doubt in my mind that journalists do their utmost to establish narratives and tailor facts to support them. I have watched it happen again and again, and there are many devices for doing this, including only quoting sources who agree with the narrative. There may be some who don't do this, but they are in the minority. I think Taggart is well within his rights to cry foul at biased reporting, even while at the same time the coaches were in the wrong. In any case, the players appear to agree with Taggart, and they were there. You may dismiss this, but I think it means something.
Have to agree with Phalanx. I'd be pissed if my take wasn't shared.
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by pezsez1 »

Nobody is arguing for a reporter to be a mouthpiece for anyone (although it happens all the time).
It does happen all the time! It's often pretty casual, too. You see it all the time on cable news, when politicians affiliated with different "sides" of issues are allowed to ramble on with no real-time fact checking. So, yay, at least we agree on this one thing.

That said, you ARE arguing for Grief to be more of a mouthpiece. You cautioned Grief for "biting the hand that feeds him." What did you mean by that? It seems you're implying that Taggart feeds him, so Grief should be cautious about how he portrays him.

I support an independent media. I am firmly against shutting out reporters who dare publish unflattering information.
I think you need to learn to find the vast expanse between 'biased reporting' and 'source's mouthpiece'.
I explained this in my last post.

You are asking for Grief to act like a mouthpiece. You're giving credibility to Taggart's complaining. Do you even know what Taggart is complaining about? Does Taggart even know? I watched the KEZI interview and it looks like his big complaint is "the coverage just wasn't positive enough" (to paraphrase).

Well guess what, Taggart? If your assistants put three players in the hospital and then one gets arrested in the same week, you're not going to get rosy, sunshine-filled headlines! Because there's no objective way to cover those stories without the vibe being unpleasant. Because those stories ARE unpleasant.
In this case, Taggart's accusation is that Greif interviewed him, but then didn't include any quotes or anything representing his side of the story. Reporting one side and not the other of a story leaves one open to accusations of slanted reporting, and is a very common practice in journalism.
I'd love to know for which story he was talking about, and whether he and Grief were actually on the record, and whether he actually added anything to the story that Grief didn't actually thoroughly cover. As someone else said, it's pretty unlikely that Grief interviewed Taggart for this story and then chose to arbitrarily leave him out in favor of unnamed sources.

I mean, use common sense. If Grief really had a hidden agenda, he would have ran Taggart's comments alongside the insider's comments to try to pit them against each other. But this isn't fantasy land, and actual journalists don't work like that, so that didn't happen.

(And, as I've said twice now, Grief's description of the workout almost exactly matches Buck's description. So, again, what's really the problem here? What is Taggart REALLY mad about? His "side" made it into the story. He's just mad that the vibe wasn't fluffy, but that's not Grief's problem.)
To me, this is a dumb argument. There isn't any doubt in my mind that journalists do their utmost to establish narratives and tailor facts to support them.
And apparently nothing will change that. But you'd be laughed out of any newsroom I've ever been in. Journalism is such a thankless, low-paying career, and the folks who work at newspapers care too much about being fair and accurate (and not getting fired for screwing up) to get wrapped up in other people's narratives. Do you honestly think Andrew Grief has ANY interest in Taggart's narrative? For real? Why would Grief be interested? Is Chris Peterson paying him under the table? No, no, no. This whole thing IS silly, just not for the reasons you think it is.

Note -- one of the reasons I'll never go back to full-time journalism is BECAUSE I enjoy the freedom to be opinionated and not have to constantly worry about my objectivity. Have you ever had a job where you get company memos to not participate in political events or participate in primary voting? Nah, probably not. Because most people outside of journalism never need to think that much about their own biases.
There may be some who don't do this, but they are in the minority.


Seriously, WTF dude.
the players appear to agree with Taggart, and they were there. You may dismiss this, but I think it means something.
Of course they agree with Taggart. They're actually part of the team, and they actually DO have a stake in the narrative.

Again, pushing narratives is literally what SOURCES do. Journalists don't care. The exception is guys like Canzano, who are literally paid to have opinions and get people talking about what's going on.


I really want to be done with this.

None of us like excuses, right? Let's all agree this is Taggart's problem and just move on.
Willie Taggart is a dick.
User avatar
greenyellow
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35679
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by greenyellow »

Just to let everyone know, there'll be a Taggart interview up shortly from KVAL's Sky Muller after it airs on their Inside the Pac recap show this afternoon.
Image
lomiton
One Star Recruit
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by lomiton »

THIS vvv WHAT PEZSEZ SAYS! vvv

CWT continued response on this exercise issue continues to raise the hair up on the back of my neck. I wish, Wish, WISH he would just say something along the line of "mistakes were made, I feel terrible, I take full responsibility, this episode is in no way shape or form is reflection on the players that went to the hospital or the rest of the players on the team, we have addressed things internally, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN and I am truly sorry" and leave it at that. Nothing more.

Here's the score card:
Fault of Grief/Canzano/Media = no
Fault of players not being in shape = no
Fault of players not tapping out = no
It wasn't a big deal = no, it was and as long as those kids are not back 100% it will be
We did same thing at USF, WKU, military, crossfit, etc = so what?
Iowa had the same issue, only worse = so what!
Current players supporting our coaches and program administration = what are they supposed to say? (and I'll bet a few years from now we'll hear different)
Recruits don't think of it as a big deal = interesting but who cares?

I like what CWT has done since he got to Eugene. However every time he opens his mouth on this I want to send him a telepathic message that says quit making excuses #noexcuses

As for getting in a pissing match with the Oregonian, if he wins enough games it won't matter. If he doesn't they will bury him and that probably won't matter because everyone will already be looking for his job. That said, it's typically not a good idea to get into it with people that buy ink (or electrons) by the barrel...

Go Ducks!
pezsez1 wrote:
Nobody is arguing for a reporter to be a mouthpiece for anyone (although it happens all the time).
It does happen all the time! It's often pretty casual, too. You see it all the time on cable news, when politicians affiliated with different "sides" of issues are allowed to ramble on with no real-time fact checking. So, yay, at least we agree on this one thing.

That said, you ARE arguing for Grief to be more of a mouthpiece. You cautioned Grief for "biting the hand that feeds him." What did you mean by that? It seems you're implying that Taggart feeds him, so Grief should be cautious about how he portrays him.

I support an independent media. I am firmly against shutting out reporters who dare publish unflattering information.
I think you need to learn to find the vast expanse between 'biased reporting' and 'source's mouthpiece'.
I explained this in my last post.

You are asking for Grief to act like a mouthpiece. You're giving credibility to Taggart's complaining. Do you even know what Taggart is complaining about? Does Taggart even know? I watched the KEZI interview and it looks like his big complaint is "the coverage just wasn't positive enough" (to paraphrase).

Well guess what, Taggart? If your assistants put three players in the hospital and then one gets arrested in the same week, you're not going to get rosy, sunshine-filled headlines! Because there's no objective way to cover those stories without the vibe being unpleasant. Because those stories ARE unpleasant.
In this case, Taggart's accusation is that Greif interviewed him, but then didn't include any quotes or anything representing his side of the story. Reporting one side and not the other of a story leaves one open to accusations of slanted reporting, and is a very common practice in journalism.
I'd love to know for which story he was talking about, and whether he and Grief were actually on the record, and whether he actually added anything to the story that Grief didn't actually thoroughly cover. As someone else said, it's pretty unlikely that Grief interviewed Taggart for this story and then chose to arbitrarily leave him out in favor of unnamed sources.

I mean, use common sense. If Grief really had a hidden agenda, he would have ran Taggart's comments alongside the insider's comments to try to pit them against each other. But this isn't fantasy land, and actual journalists don't work like that, so that didn't happen.

(And, as I've said twice now, Grief's description of the workout almost exactly matches Buck's description. So, again, what's really the problem here? What is Taggart REALLY mad about? His "side" made it into the story. He's just mad that the vibe wasn't fluffy, but that's not Grief's problem.)
To me, this is a dumb argument. There isn't any doubt in my mind that journalists do their utmost to establish narratives and tailor facts to support them.
And apparently nothing will change that. But you'd be laughed out of any newsroom I've ever been in. Journalism is such a thankless, low-paying career, and the folks who work at newspapers care too much about being fair and accurate (and not getting fired for screwing up) to get wrapped up in other people's narratives. Do you honestly think Andrew Grief has ANY interest in Taggart's narrative? For real? Why would Grief be interested? Is Chris Peterson paying him under the table? No, no, no. This whole thing IS silly, just not for the reasons you think it is.

Note -- one of the reasons I'll never go back to full-time journalism is BECAUSE I enjoy the freedom to be opinionated and not have to constantly worry about my objectivity. Have you ever had a job where you get company memos to not participate in political events or participate in primary voting? Nah, probably not. Because most people outside of journalism never need to think that much about their own biases.
There may be some who don't do this, but they are in the minority.


Seriously, WTF dude.
the players appear to agree with Taggart, and they were there. You may dismiss this, but I think it means something.
Of course they agree with Taggart. They're actually part of the team, and they actually DO have a stake in the narrative.

Again, pushing narratives is literally what SOURCES do. Journalists don't care. The exception is guys like Canzano, who are literally paid to have opinions and get people talking about what's going on.


I really want to be done with this.

None of us like excuses, right? Let's all agree this is Taggart's problem and just move on.
scoducks
Three Star Recruit
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by scoducks »

http://www.dailyemerald.com/2017/02/23/ ... -reporter/

Good article on the situation and judging from the article looks like Grief is banned from interviewing Taggart. Oh well, lets ban Canzano and I'll be happy. Also has good insight from an Oregon professor who investigated the issue.
User avatar
pudgejeff
Senior
Posts: 4897
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:21 am
GM: Sacramento Kings GM

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by pudgejeff »

This really saddens me if he is no longer speaking with a reporter. What kind of example is he setting for the players. I'm super unimpressed with his handling of this.
Groundswell
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:36 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by Groundswell »

Honestly, I don't/didn't have a problem with the use of the term "military" or "grueling". I want my football team being pushed. But the staff clearly screwed this up. I thought the Grief story was plenty fair, though I might like to have seen quotes from Taggart in the story. I've looked at the story a number of times. It's not a hit piece. If Taggart wants to ban Grief, whatever, but I think the only real "issue" here is players spent a week in the hospital. And still aren't cleared for full-workouts. Now, I really want to side with Coach Taggart over the press, but this dailyemerald story isn't going to help him at all. And may be worse public relations than the original story. If I have any criticisms with Coach T. so far, it's over this whole scenario. He just needs to let it die. It's a lose/lose for him.
User avatar
DuckedOut
Three Star Recruit
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:05 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by DuckedOut »

pudgejeff wrote:This really saddens me if he is no longer speaking with a reporter. What kind of example is he setting for the players. I'm super unimpressed with his handling of this.
Chip did the same thing.

Honestly, despite what some would say otherwise in this thread, Grief twisted the information he was given so he'd get more clicks on his article and more attention nation wide. Don't care if that's what journalists do, it's what he did and he messed with the wrong head coach. Taggart is not the type of guy to let that slide...which is a good thing considering this won't be the first reporter to be banned by Taggart. Lotta bad journalists here in Oregon.
TualatinDuck
Senior
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Tualatin

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by TualatinDuck »

Sure doesn't sound like how taggert would talk to a reporter.
"And I can be the warrior for those who are frail and weak,
And I can be the compass for those that search and seek." ~Lem Absher
maxduck
Senior
Posts: 3769
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:37 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by maxduck »

Headline from the NBC college football column Willie Taggart no longer speaking with Oregon beat reporter http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... -reporter/

Just say mistakes were made, shake hands and move on. Taggart will not win in the court of public opinion, a much bigger failing than the original incident.
lomiton
One Star Recruit
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by lomiton »

Welp! CWT has his share of bullets...guess it's up to him to fire them how he sees it. While comparatively weak on a historical basis, The Oregonian has plenty of juice and reach, including national. If CWT wins games and keep things clean in the program he will be fine and he can keep Andrew locked out; but my guess is that he is not going to any slack from the Big O whatsoever if things go sideways, real or perceived. Not the way I would have handled it (as stated in previous posts) but he's picked his battle...just wondering what CWT sees as the upside of all this nonsense? The biggest problem with all this nonsense is that the fact is three players went to the hospital under the direction of a program run by one William Taggart - and there is no believable "alternative narrative" that gets around that.
goducks99
Two Star Recruit
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:06 pm

Re: Willie Taggart interview with KEZI's Kristen Rodgers

Post by goducks99 »

I just wish Taggart would move on. He's making the story last much longer and be more visible than if he would just let it go.

Greif is a former Oregon student and athlete, so I highly doubt he has it out for the University.
Post Reply