I've not found Lawless to be a flip flopper. When I hear him give a different opinion he often admits he was wrong or changed his mind and why. Which is not a flip flopper on the usual negative definition.

His interview style can be annoying but it's his reporter training. He tries to lead people to the conclusion he wants or lead them to the quote he's looking for. I'm sure it's great at getting material for his articles but unnatural for an audio interview.

Lawless has improved quite a bit over the last two years.

However his inside scoops rarely come true and he really brown noses the Jets staff.

His interview style can be annoying but it's his reporter training. He tries to lead people to the conclusion he wants or lead them to the quote he's looking for. I'm sure it's great at getting material for his articles but unnatural for an audio interview.

I hope to god that's not how reporters are taught. They should be reporting the facts not trying to lead people into soundbites that fit the conclusion the reporter wants to have. 

 

His interview style can be annoying but it's his reporter training. He tries to lead people to the conclusion he wants or lead them to the quote he's looking for. I'm sure it's great at getting material for his articles but unnatural for an audio interview.

I hope to god that's not how reporters are taught. They should be reporting the facts not trying to lead people into soundbites that fit the conclusion the reporter wants to have. 

 

 

As someone who is a reporter/journalist/interviewer (though admittedly, not a sports reporter), that absolutely is not standard reporter training. You want to get a good quote, sure, but not by leading people to the conclusion you want. I suppose if you went to the TMZ School of Reporting, you'd get that type of training, but anywhere else (school or practical), you most definitely want to ask open-ended questions that let the interviewee say as much as possible to the point where you get that great quote -- and hopefully an open and honest one.

 

 

His interview style can be annoying but it's his reporter training. He tries to lead people to the conclusion he wants or lead them to the quote he's looking for. I'm sure it's great at getting material for his articles but unnatural for an audio interview.

I hope to god that's not how reporters are taught. They should be reporting the facts not trying to lead people into soundbites that fit the conclusion the reporter wants to have. 

 

 

As someone who is a reporter/journalist/interviewer (though admittedly, not a sports reporter), that absolutely is not standard reporter training. You want to get a good quote, sure, but not by leading people to the conclusion you want. I suppose if you went to the TMZ School of Reporting, you'd get that type of training, but anywhere else (school or practical), you most definitely want to ask open-ended questions that let the interviewee say as much as possible to the point where you get that great quote -- and hopefully an open and honest one.

 

 

 

I see and hear far more "leading" questions than I ever have in sports media, lately.  I blame the big-time sports show guys like Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith, Jim Rome etc for this upswing in opinionated, ******-baggy sports opinions.  It has become less about the story than it has about the angle or argument a personality wants to show.  

That's a by-product of newspapers dying as a source of information. Too many other places for people to get their information so someone got the big idea that columnists needed to be the entertainment and it's a horseshit idea, mostly because Gary Lawless is not entertaining in any way shape or form. I'd rather read Paul Friesen because at least he is clear what his character is supposed to be. 

And when you're choosing to read Paul Friesen over Gary Lawless, you realize how terrible your selection is.