Bob Kravitz Responds to His Kelvin Sampson Column
Media Gossip/Musings February 27th. 2008, 12:35pm
Bob Kravitz of the Indy Star has been the flavor of the week here at TBL, and even though he addressed our questions yesterday on his radio show (and revealed his displeasure for our photo selection), he also took the time to drop us an email regarding his revelation of using off-the-record information from a Kelvin Sampson interview in a recent column. The email is after the jump.
Thanks for using the prehistoric photo. While I’ve noticed some criticism of my hair style in the comments, I’m just happy to recall the days back when I had hair.
First, on the column and the website, I just got on indystar.com, hit sports, went to columnists, clicked on my name and there it was. If it was taken down, that’s news to me. Honestly, nobody mentioned anything to me about the column until I guess it showed up on your site and maybe sportsjournalists.
As for the off-the-record issue, I would agree that OTR is OTR and there’s no statute of limitations on it. I would also say that as I looked over the column the second and third time before sending it, that particular issue did cross my mind. (I was also thinking that if I had to write one more Kelvin Sampson column, I was going to thrust an icepick into my ear). Was I betraying a confidence, or did I write around it in such a way that I was only conveying my impressions after our talk? I felt like it was the latter, but I can certainly see where intelligent people might disagree. Given a second chance at it, I’d probably write it differently, not walk quite to close to the line. It’s not like those two or three sentences made the column.
As for people saying I ought to be fired or the editor ought to be fired, well, good God, we certainly do like to eat our own, don’t we? I’m not sure this rises to the level of the Janet Cooke ruse or Jayson Blair — or even 577 impermissible phone calls to a recruit. But it’s certainly worth debating, I guess, just as long as we keep the hair comments to a minimum. I’m very sensitive.
All righty then!
22 Responses to “Bob Kravitz Responds to His Kelvin Sampson Column”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


February 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Give the man credit. He came off humble and approached the situation as if he was willing to consider he may have been wrong.
Other columnists would have scoffed at addressing a blog nevermind defending their position.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Not to be rude or anything – but nobody really cares.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I’m all for piling on Sampson whenever the opportunity presents itself. Thanks for doing the Lord’s work Kravitz. /UIUC fan
February 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
All that, and he compares himself to Jayson Blair?
Blair made up stories. This dude aired out real conversations that were mutually agreed to be off the record. Big difference.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
good of him to explain himself.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
He didn’t compare himself to Jayson Blair – he said it doesn’t come close to what Blair did. And it doesn’t.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I’ve been going bald since I was 19. That pre-historic photo should make him smile about better days.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It’s cool he responded.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I am glad he sent the picture of himself with the better haircut.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I never thought it was a big deal. I kept thinking the usually reliable TBL commenters had gone temporarily batshit crazy when this first came up.
Besides, Sampson is a filthy pig and has been since he was in Pullman. Kravitz could have made up a story about how Sampson likes to felliciate juvenile goats and I wouldn’t have cared.
Best of luck to Kelvin Sampson at his new job at Idaho St. or Southern Utah or some CBB backhole.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Wow. A sportswriter without a massive ego. A sportswriter willing to admit that there are reasonable minds that can disagree.
Why isn’t this guy on Around the Horn?
February 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
With all the Kravitz bashing, I think his reponse was spot on. He really diffused the situation, in my mind. At least he admits there is case to be made that he was wrong.
In his defense, my original read of the column may me think he was just trying to get across his thoughts and impressions of the guy, and not the actual off the record conversation, so I had no issue.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
meh, not really a story. He acknowledges his mistake in doing something unethical for journalists.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Maybe I might need that Ice pick because I agree with a Hoosier columnist. His answers were more humble and insightful than your typical defensive columnist.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Bob:
Thanks for providing your side. I am one of the folks calling for the head of you and your editor, and your explanation has not swayed me. I am an ex-freelance sports writer and a current corporate PR manager. So, I understand both ends of the argument.
Having said that, good luck in engaging in fun off-the-record chats for the next year or so. Folks will be leery, and rightfully so. I always thought OTR was just that – OTR.
I am hopeful future college journalism and PR classes will use your column to make that point. Just because the man no longer works in your readership does not mean he’s dead.
This speaks to your professionalism, or lack thereof.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I would also say that as I looked over the column the second and third time before sending it, that particular issue did cross my mind.
***
Given a second chance at it, I’d probably write it differently, not walk quite to close to the line.
WTF?! He said he looked over it three times before submitting. He even admitted he thought about the issue. What he isn’t saying is that he screwed up and made the wrong decision. He deliberately chose to go with the OTR quote even though he thought about. Now, because there is an “uproar” he would change his mind. First impressions…never…blah…blah…blah.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
CleveRock — I think you just answered your own question.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Typical Kravitz, get called out for something, respond with self-deprecating humor, say how you see both sides, wait for three weeks, repeat.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
at least he has enough of a levelhead to admit that he can see both sides. granted repeated duplicity isn’t fun to see in a sportswriter, but he’s a decent one, and assholes like mariotti and mike lupica could learn a lesson.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
wow he was talking about me…im giddy
February 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
The story is more interesting to journalists because it presents an ethical dilemma for the profession. It goes beyond a question of right and wrong. For a doctor, it is one thing to make a misdiagnosis, but it is far more serious to behave in a manner not befitting the profession. It is similar for journalists.
The “off the record” point is one debated often. I think generally the consensus is that off the record is off the record, but in isolated instances (like if someone is going to murder someone) you waive that.
Kravitz’ column was not an egregious ethics violation, but generally one doesn’t expose themselves in that manner unless it is to serve the greater public good or the information is newsworthy. I don’t think that adding spice (and not much spice at that) to a column really holds up to that standard.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Kravitz has always been a deceitful, jealous little putz. Just another journalistic fraud. A freaking no-talent phony. Anyone buying into his crap is a fool.