The Carolina Way VIII
- Thread starter DevilDJ
- Start date
- Status
From B-Rad's Twitter account. BTW , just a note to the shoe salesman. Kane doesn't need to "debate" anything. He's a reporter...reporting FACTS. Those "facts" are not in dispute by anyone ( other than those with an interest in exonerating unx's dirty-azz athletic department ) so there's nothing to debate. Gawd. What a self-absorbed tool...
B-Rad responds. Yes , sports fans he actually referred to himself as "Writer/Director" and name-dropped his bs doc. "Pride goeth..."
Letter: DTH misrepresented documentary’s claim
TO THE EDITOR:
In a recent letter to the editor, The (Raleigh) News and Observer executive editor John Drescher forcefully refuted The Daily Tar Heel’s reporting that the N&O declined interviews with me for my documentary film. If Drescher had contacted me first, he would have learned that that claim did not come from my film or me. In my film, I specify that the N&O declined “on-camera” interviews, a fact Drescher confirms in his letter.
Drescher did offer to give interviews off camera if I would allow him and his reporters to interview me afterward. However, such off-camera interviews would have no value for a documentary film. Unlike print, film is a visual medium. Therefore, unless the interviews could be captured on camera, they served no purpose for my film. His offer was thereby not an even exchange.
My film is not the anti-media polemic many expected. My production team and I made the film with the belief that a more humanizing story about the people connected to the scandal would reach a larger audience and have more of an impact. If Drescher and reporter Dan Kane are unhappy that I did not accept their offer to interview off camera, I am more than happy to engage Kane in a live, broadcast debate where neither of us has to be concerned about the other’s editing.
Bradley Bethel
Writer and director
“Unverified: The Untold Story Behind the UNC Scandal”
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/01/letter-dth-misrepresented-documentarys-claim
The highlighted is bs for 2 main reasons:
1 ) B-Rad never mentioned Drescher's offer on purpose. By only stating HALF the story , he knew Drescher and the N & O would appear reticent to appear on camera perhaps because they were "afraid" ( lmao! ) that Cecil B. DeBethel would embarrass them. And...
2 ) He wanted one thing , they wanted another. He could've ( SHOULD'VE! ) said that. He didn't. He presented a false narrative because it "worked" for his agenda. IOW , he did the exact same thing he's accused the media of doing. Not content with simply revealing himself to be a hypocritical azzwipe , he adds the vain-glorious title to himself and challenges legit reporters to a "debate" when there's nothing to debate. The facts are in...some of 'em anyway. Anything else , unx has been able to keep under wraps. There is no exculpatory evidence here that would cleanse unx. They're dirty and the facts proving that aren't up for debate. Of course , B-Rad might get some more attention and face-time if Kane/N&O agreed to it so there is that. What. A. Joke.
Letter: DTH misrepresented documentary’s claim
TO THE EDITOR:
In a recent letter to the editor, The (Raleigh) News and Observer executive editor John Drescher forcefully refuted The Daily Tar Heel’s reporting that the N&O declined interviews with me for my documentary film. If Drescher had contacted me first, he would have learned that that claim did not come from my film or me. In my film, I specify that the N&O declined “on-camera” interviews, a fact Drescher confirms in his letter.
Drescher did offer to give interviews off camera if I would allow him and his reporters to interview me afterward. However, such off-camera interviews would have no value for a documentary film. Unlike print, film is a visual medium. Therefore, unless the interviews could be captured on camera, they served no purpose for my film. His offer was thereby not an even exchange.
My film is not the anti-media polemic many expected. My production team and I made the film with the belief that a more humanizing story about the people connected to the scandal would reach a larger audience and have more of an impact. If Drescher and reporter Dan Kane are unhappy that I did not accept their offer to interview off camera, I am more than happy to engage Kane in a live, broadcast debate where neither of us has to be concerned about the other’s editing.
Bradley Bethel
Writer and director
“Unverified: The Untold Story Behind the UNC Scandal”
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/01/letter-dth-misrepresented-documentarys-claim
The highlighted is bs for 2 main reasons:
1 ) B-Rad never mentioned Drescher's offer on purpose. By only stating HALF the story , he knew Drescher and the N & O would appear reticent to appear on camera perhaps because they were "afraid" ( lmao! ) that Cecil B. DeBethel would embarrass them. And...
2 ) He wanted one thing , they wanted another. He could've ( SHOULD'VE! ) said that. He didn't. He presented a false narrative because it "worked" for his agenda. IOW , he did the exact same thing he's accused the media of doing. Not content with simply revealing himself to be a hypocritical azzwipe , he adds the vain-glorious title to himself and challenges legit reporters to a "debate" when there's nothing to debate. The facts are in...some of 'em anyway. Anything else , unx has been able to keep under wraps. There is no exculpatory evidence here that would cleanse unx. They're dirty and the facts proving that aren't up for debate. Of course , B-Rad might get some more attention and face-time if Kane/N&O agreed to it so there is that. What. A. Joke.
B. Martin @yibyabby
"…off-camera interviews would have no value for a documentary film." Was this Ms. Ferrara counsel? It's wrong.
Bradley Bethel @BradleyBethel
@yibyabby I should have written "this" documentary film instead of "a" documentary film. Off-camera interviews did us no good.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@BradleyBethel I imagine being able to say news media refused to be interviewed (on camera or otherwise) didn't hurt the aesthetic.
dtgoulet @dtgoulet
@yibyabby @BradleyBethel I believe the documentary said "refused to be interviewed on camera", aesthetic or not, a fact.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@dtgoulet @BradleyBethel Yes; also factual was the rest of the on-camera interview story, excluded from the film.
dtgoulet @dtgoulet
@yibyabby @BradleyBethel Also factual, Drescher omitting Bradley's invitation to a live debate (numerous times), excluded from his letter
B. Martin @yibyabby
@dtgoulet That info doesn't seem germane to what transpired for film; but OK: @BradleyBethel and Drescher both selective with facts. Agreed?
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@yibyabby Hasn't a running narrative of Bethel's been gotcha journalism for the sake of sensationalizing the story? There is a scene in the film, with Bethel on a speakerphone, asking the media for an interview and subsequently being denied. What is the purpose of that scene other than a failed attempt at one-upsmanship?
"…off-camera interviews would have no value for a documentary film." Was this Ms. Ferrara counsel? It's wrong.
Bradley Bethel @BradleyBethel
@yibyabby I should have written "this" documentary film instead of "a" documentary film. Off-camera interviews did us no good.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@BradleyBethel I imagine being able to say news media refused to be interviewed (on camera or otherwise) didn't hurt the aesthetic.
dtgoulet @dtgoulet
@yibyabby @BradleyBethel I believe the documentary said "refused to be interviewed on camera", aesthetic or not, a fact.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@dtgoulet @BradleyBethel Yes; also factual was the rest of the on-camera interview story, excluded from the film.
dtgoulet @dtgoulet
@yibyabby @BradleyBethel Also factual, Drescher omitting Bradley's invitation to a live debate (numerous times), excluded from his letter
B. Martin @yibyabby
@dtgoulet That info doesn't seem germane to what transpired for film; but OK: @BradleyBethel and Drescher both selective with facts. Agreed?
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@yibyabby Hasn't a running narrative of Bethel's been gotcha journalism for the sake of sensationalizing the story? There is a scene in the film, with Bethel on a speakerphone, asking the media for an interview and subsequently being denied. What is the purpose of that scene other than a failed attempt at one-upsmanship?
You keep bringing the good stuff, DevilDJ. I'm really looking forward to this clown (Bethel), and UNC taking a big fall. Oh, and I loved that Cecil B. DeBethel reference!
Here is a remake he's planning after all the big money flows in from the blockbuster "Unverified". It's going to be 'Dean-O-Mite'.
OFC
Here is a remake he's planning after all the big money flows in from the blockbuster "Unverified". It's going to be 'Dean-O-Mite'.
OFC
Thanks! Your pics have made me laugh and made this crappy day better.You keep bringing the good stuff, DevilDJ. I'm really looking forward to this clown (Bethel), and UNC taking a big fall. Oh, and I loved that Cecil B. DeBethel reference!
Here is a remake he's planning after all the big money flows in from the blockbuster "Unverified". It's going to be 'Dean-O-Mite'.
OFC
Glad you enjoyed it, Dadz. Anything that pokes fun at the Heels always makes me feel better!
OFC
A Non-Review of Unverified: the Film
Not a Review
I haven't seen Unverified yet; but that's only because I live in San Diego, and so am unable to either attend the North Carolina showings or get my hands on a digital copy. I definitely would have been willing to pay the price of a ticket and attend the premier. I'm not one who thinks Bradley Bethel doesn't matter and that he should be ignored. After all, he was the motivation for this blog and my joining the Twitter-sphere.
I wasn't included among Unverified cadre of invited advance screeners. I did offer to review the film seeing as how Bethel had solicited other bloggers such as Al Hood and Neil Oatsvall, but I never got a response to my offer from Bradley.
More...
http://mindingthecoach.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-non-review-of-unverified-film.html?m=1
Not a Review
I haven't seen Unverified yet; but that's only because I live in San Diego, and so am unable to either attend the North Carolina showings or get my hands on a digital copy. I definitely would have been willing to pay the price of a ticket and attend the premier. I'm not one who thinks Bradley Bethel doesn't matter and that he should be ignored. After all, he was the motivation for this blog and my joining the Twitter-sphere.
I wasn't included among Unverified cadre of invited advance screeners. I did offer to review the film seeing as how Bethel had solicited other bloggers such as Al Hood and Neil Oatsvall, but I never got a response to my offer from Bradley.
More...
http://mindingthecoach.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-non-review-of-unverified-film.html?m=1
I have to keep telling myself not to look at the photoshops or gifs on this thread when I'm out in public.
Bissette is a hole alum. Zero interest in having his alma mater actually take responsibility for decades of cheating , lying and hypocrisy. Here he is outlining his complicit "expectations." Here's a suggestion for the new chair. Have your "august" chamber speak up about the "flagship" the way they did when Valvano was at State. Of course , said chamber is stocked like a trout pond with tarhole alums so their support for unx ain't surprising. Anyway , when an obviously complicit BOG fails to call a spade a spade and/or take any type of decisive action vs an egregiously corrupt institution , such inaction tends to attract attention. IOW , do your job and maybe the board can get outta the headlines....
Q&A with BOG Chairperson Lou Bissette
DTH: What are expectations for 2016?
LB: I think we’ve got a good board and everybody is optimistic about the new year and optimistic about our working together and supporting President Spellings and the university. Another goal that I have is to get the Board of Governors out of the newspapers. We’re not the part of the university that needs to be in the news. It’s the new president and it’s all of the great things that our campuses are doing throughout the state. Those things need to be in the news and not the Board of Governors.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/01/q-a-with-bog-chairman-lou-bissette
Q&A with BOG Chairperson Lou Bissette
DTH: What are expectations for 2016?
LB: I think we’ve got a good board and everybody is optimistic about the new year and optimistic about our working together and supporting President Spellings and the university. Another goal that I have is to get the Board of Governors out of the newspapers. We’re not the part of the university that needs to be in the news. It’s the new president and it’s all of the great things that our campuses are doing throughout the state. Those things need to be in the news and not the Board of Governors.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/01/q-a-with-bog-chairman-lou-bissette
From 2014 but interesting and enlightening nonetheless. The next time some states that Mary Willingham was debunked regarding her test scores for idiot unx jocks , simply refer them here. unx professor Elliot Cramer wrote a letter to the 3 "experts" unx hired to refute Mary. Some technical jargon involved but he says , basically , what we all now know. unx narrowed the "investigation" by withholding info and only asking very specific questions. And they did this to get the desired result. If nuthin' else , the holes have shown themselves to be absolutely unwilling to be judged independently but then again we already knew that too. Anyway , some high ( low ) lights...
I'm afraid that you guys got snookered. You may be interested in some history which may be found at http://paperclassinc.com/jay-smith-mary-willinghams-enemies/
When I heard that our Provost was going to seek a review of Mary Willingham's work, I offered to do a review myself. I would have done an honest independent review as I am sure you tried to do.
The difference is that I would have insisted on much more information than you were provided and I would have had a discussion with Willingham about her claims.
The Provost states in his "Executive Summary": "Not all of the SATA subtests were used for the screenings. For example, the SATA Reading Comprehension and Writing Composition subtests were not used for screening".
This is NOT correct; this statement is true only of the INITIAL screening but not the followup. The questions he asked you to address were based on a misunderstanding of what Mary Willingham did.
There are two facts that we know for certain.
- 36 of 117 athletes initially reviewed were diagnosed as ADHD; the University has not released the figures for the full 182 athletes cited by Willingham. 34 of 341 athletes in revenue sports had SAT reading scores (or equivalent ACT scores) less that 400 where 200 is the minimum score.
This is far below the UNC 25th percentile of 590. In light of what we now about "paper classes", plagiarism, excessive help in writing papers, and strenuous efforts to keep athletes eligible, the fact that "20 have graduated or remain enrolled in good standing" must be taken with a grain of salt.
This does not reflect well on the University's past admission policies for athletes in revenue sports
The suggestion that Mary Willingham does not understand the difference between standard scores and grade equivalents is simply absurd, given her background. http://www.unc.edu/~willingh/2013resume.pdf.
The questions posed to you by the Provost are certainly unartfully phrased and could be interpreted as revealing the bias of the Provost and his associates
Furthermore, as a tutor, Willingham had extensive familiarity with many of the students.
Branum-Martin further says "Reading comprehension scores were not provided. The full records of the SATA items and scores and other reading measures should be obtained for the sake of serving the student athletes and for the evaluation of the programs which serve those athletes."
Both Willingham and the University had such information but it was not provided to any of you.
More...
http://www.ourpaws.info/cramer/Letter to experts.pdf
I'm afraid that you guys got snookered. You may be interested in some history which may be found at http://paperclassinc.com/jay-smith-mary-willinghams-enemies/
When I heard that our Provost was going to seek a review of Mary Willingham's work, I offered to do a review myself. I would have done an honest independent review as I am sure you tried to do.
The difference is that I would have insisted on much more information than you were provided and I would have had a discussion with Willingham about her claims.
The Provost states in his "Executive Summary": "Not all of the SATA subtests were used for the screenings. For example, the SATA Reading Comprehension and Writing Composition subtests were not used for screening".
This is NOT correct; this statement is true only of the INITIAL screening but not the followup. The questions he asked you to address were based on a misunderstanding of what Mary Willingham did.
There are two facts that we know for certain.
- 36 of 117 athletes initially reviewed were diagnosed as ADHD; the University has not released the figures for the full 182 athletes cited by Willingham. 34 of 341 athletes in revenue sports had SAT reading scores (or equivalent ACT scores) less that 400 where 200 is the minimum score.
This is far below the UNC 25th percentile of 590. In light of what we now about "paper classes", plagiarism, excessive help in writing papers, and strenuous efforts to keep athletes eligible, the fact that "20 have graduated or remain enrolled in good standing" must be taken with a grain of salt.
This does not reflect well on the University's past admission policies for athletes in revenue sports
The suggestion that Mary Willingham does not understand the difference between standard scores and grade equivalents is simply absurd, given her background. http://www.unc.edu/~willingh/2013resume.pdf.
The questions posed to you by the Provost are certainly unartfully phrased and could be interpreted as revealing the bias of the Provost and his associates
Furthermore, as a tutor, Willingham had extensive familiarity with many of the students.
Branum-Martin further says "Reading comprehension scores were not provided. The full records of the SATA items and scores and other reading measures should be obtained for the sake of serving the student athletes and for the evaluation of the programs which serve those athletes."
Both Willingham and the University had such information but it was not provided to any of you.
More...
http://www.ourpaws.info/cramer/Letter to experts.pdf
- Status