Cecil Newton clarification

[macus23 24]

I just emailed Mark Winne, the person who broke the story about Cecil Newton admitting to "conversations" about money.  He emailed me his reply within 2 minutes.

Here is my email to him:

I am not a reporter, nor an investigator, I am just a fan of college football who is following this developing story.

Can you clarify a story you broke for me?

In your report about Cecil Newton, you mention a source close to the situation told you that Cecil "admitted having conversations with an ex-Mississippi State University player about the possibility of under-the-table money".  This statement addresses the fact that there were conversations, but does not say specifically that Cecil asked for money; only that the conversations took place.

Almost every member of the media that references your story states that Cecil asked for money, instead of the fact that conversations took place that could have been initiated from either side.

Are these people misinterpreting the content of your story, or am I?

Thank you for your time Mark,

His response was very short but very telling IMO.

I think you are a discerning reader.

I think that says a lot.

[gameoverEagleFan 0]

interesting

[ChuckTownTiger 0]

I just posted on the another thread about the media miss quoting his statement.

Thanks for the post because I thought I may be missing something.  I have now come to the conclusion that the media just doesn't give a damn.

[greenaj1345162886 0]

I like the sound of that.

[macus23 24]

Yeah, I got a little overzealous and should have posted this in the other thread.

Sorry, MODS feel free to merge.

[87aubie 0]

In other words, he doesn't have a clue either.  He would have just said "No comment" but that would have been viewed as a change in his position and would have raised a bunch of red flags regarding his eligibility to write another story next week.

[Magnolia and College 1]

Good job.

[AUBourne 425]

macus,  great job man.  Hope Finebaum uses this to attack the media with. 

[WarEagle10 77]

In other words, he doesn't have a clue either.  He would have just said "No comment" but that would have been viewed as a change in his position and would have raised a bunch of red flags regarding his eligibility to write another story next week.

Winne is an Auburn grad.

Macus, That's a very interesting response to you. Sounds to me like while Cecil did admit to talking money, he may not have been the one who initiated it.

[macus23 24]

To me, he didn't answer my question directly, only stating that my/our observations were astute.

Since he answered it that way, I feel like he is very limited in what he could say in that report.  I also think that he is sitting back smiling as he watches the rest of the media tie a rope around their neck.

[greenaj1345162886 0]

Thinking it could mean, "Wow you're not an idiot like the rest of the nation/media and maybe you're on to something" ?????

[Camdog 0]

I knew Mark Winne at Auburn. He is a very good reporter. I think you are on to something. This may explain the fact that Cam is playing. I don't trust Kenny Rogers. The man is a liar!

[macus23 24]

Thinking it could mean, "Wow you're not an idiot like the rest of the nation/media and maybe you're on to something" ?????

I think that's exactly what it means.

[tigerrules 517]

Good job Macus23.

Until I am proven wrong....I believe that Rogers and others either initiated or coaxed Cecil into conversation.  I think Cecil may have considered the option.  He then turned his info over to the NCAA, either on his own or because he told Auburn and they did that together.  Mark Winne is a very reputable and first class reporter here in ATL.  I should have known he was an Auburn grad.

[The Ox 0]

To me, he didn't answer my question directly, only stating that my/our observations were astute.

Since he answered it that way, I feel like he is very limited in what he could say in that report.  I also think that he is sitting back smiling as he watches the rest of the media tie a rope around their neck.

Actually, I think he did answer your question directly. Essentially, you re-stated what was in the article as you understood it:

"This statement addresses the fact that there were conversations, but does not say specifically that Cecil asked for money; only that the conversations took place."

From there you reiterated the conclusions that other "journalists" in the media were drawing:

"Almost every member of the media that references your story states that Cecil asked for money, instead of the fact that conversations took place that could have been initiated from either side."

And then you asked if it who was misinterpreting. When he replied that you were "a discerning reader", he was saying that you were "exhibiting keen insight and good judgment." That was his way of saying that yes, what you understood is what he actually reported, and that anyone drawing any other inferences or extrapolating beyond the plain language in his report was not a discerning reader, i.e. they were not  "exhibiting keen insight and good judgment."

Bottom line? Mark Winne is saying his source said there were discussions about possible money, but is not saying that those discussions were initiated by Cecil Newton or that Cecil Newton requested money in order to Cam to sign with MSU.

I'm glad to see that you and some others have a firm grasp of language. The last week or two has left me shaking my head at the apparent inability of people who as journalists are supposed to have a professional facility with language demonstrating either that they don't or that they are being disingenuous and purposely misleading in order to sensationalize this story.  I've also been extremely disappointed with the apparent lack of reading comprehension among the general public. People should be more discerning. Sadly, I think that may be beyond the capability of more than a few.

[Chaotic_zx 1,052]

Because: "Yes, your correct in your apprehension and Cecil Newton wasn't the one who initiated it" or "Cecil Newton initiated it and is as dirty as they come" would have been far too easy.

I swear being general and as vague as possible why trying to convey doom and gloom is annoying as possibly can be.

To me it's the equivalent to saying " I have a secret but I can't tell you". Ok, then just leave me alone then.

[SCWarEagle 4]

I swear being general and as vague as possible why trying to convey doom and gloom is annoying as possibly can be.

To me it's the equivalent to saying " I have a secret but I can't tell you". Ok, then just leave me alone then.

There has been WAY too much of this going on with this.

[312234 0]

Thanks for posting that.

[Ed_ 3]

To me, he didn't answer my question directly, only stating that my/our observations were astute.

Since he answered it that way, I feel like he is very limited in what he could say in that report.  I also think that he is sitting back smiling as he watches the rest of the media tie a rope around their neck.

Actually, I think he did answer your question directly. Essentially, you re-stated what was in the article as you understood it:

"This statement addresses the fact that there were conversations, but does not say specifically that Cecil asked for money; only that the conversations took place."

From there you reiterated the conclusions that other "journalists" in the media were drawing:

"Almost every member of the media that references your story states that Cecil asked for money, instead of the fact that conversations took place that could have been initiated from either side."

And then you asked if it who was misinterpreting. When he replied that you were "a discerning reader", he was saying that you were "exhibiting keen insight and good judgment." That was his way of saying that yes, what you understood is what he actually reported, and that anyone drawing any other inferences or extrapolating beyond the plain language in his report was not a discerning reader, i.e. they were not  "exhibiting keen insight and good judgment."

Bottom line? Mark Winne is saying his source said there were discussions about possible money, but is not saying that those discussions were initiated by Cecil Newton or that Cecil Newton requested money in order to Cam to sign with MSU.

I'm glad to see that you and some others have a firm grasp of language. The last week or two has left me shaking my head at the apparent inability of people who as journalists are supposed to have a professional facility with language demonstrating either that they don't or that they are being disingenuous and purposely misleading in order to sensationalize this story.  I've also been extremely disappointed with the apparent lack of reading comprehension among the general public. People should be more discerning. Sadly, I think that may be beyond the capability of more than a few.

Just to play devils advocate here and try to be as objective as possible I don't think it necessarily verifies that he is agreeing with the assertion that Cecil didn't ask for money.  By the way that he framed the response you could just as easily conclude that that was the quote that he got from his source and that the source wouldn't confirm whether money was asked for or if conversations were the only thing that were had with no request for money from Cecil.  If that is the case he may be reading the same thing into that comment as what was asserted in the email and by saying the OP was  a discerning  reader may simply be implying that the OP is thinking the same thing he is.

Again just playing devils advocate sense we seem to have a point of doing the same thing the media has been doing on here but going to the opposite extreme with it in trying to put everything the best possible light for Cecil instead of the worst possible that the media has been doing.

[stealthyfan 124]

And then you asked if it who was misinterpreting. When he replied that you were "a discerning reader", he was saying that you were "exhibiting keen insight and good judgment." That was his way of saying that yes, what you understood is what he actually reported, and that anyone drawing any other inferences or extrapolating beyond the plain language in his report was not a discerning reader, i.e. they were not  "exhibiting keen insight and good judgment."

On the button Ox. Every journalist has a bit of street lawyer in their discussions with others, but this statement is neon yellow with its simple message.

[tigertrax 0]

This just confuses me further.  If his source said Cecil had a conversation but the other party initiated the money talk then why wouldn't an Auburn grad say that.  Sounds to me like he was deliberately confusing but I have no idea why he would be.

[msg6367 1]

On Rivals Radio this morning, Bill King repeatedly said that "Daddy was shopping Jr. at MSU so common logic would say he did the same thing at AU."  He also said as of right now there is no evidence to link AU to anything but any reporter that is worth anything is investigating.  I tried to call into the show to ask where he is getting his info from because every article I read said Cecil admitted money was discussed but not who iniated the discussion and to stop trying to sensationalize what really happened.

[stealthyfan 124]

On Rivals Radio this morning, Bill King repeatedly said that "Daddy was shopping Jr. at MSU so common logic would say he did the same thing at AU."  He also said as of right now there is no evidence to link AU to anything but any reporter that is worth anything is investigating.  I tried to call into the show to ask where he is getting his info from because every article I read said Cecil admitted money was discussed but not who iniated the discussion and to stop trying to sensationalize what really happened.

You give Bill King WAY too much credit . . .

[msg6367 1]

On Rivals Radio this morning, Bill King repeatedly said that "Daddy was shopping Jr. at MSU so common logic would say he did the same thing at AU."  He also said as of right now there is no evidence to link AU to anything but any reporter that is worth anything is investigating.  I tried to call into the show to ask where he is getting his info from because every article I read said Cecil admitted money was discussed but not who iniated the discussion and to stop trying to sensationalize what really happened.

You give Bill King WAY too much credit . . .

I'm not giving King any credit.  If I hear something false, it's my responsibility to call him on it.  I'm tired of all these fake journalists and media personalities reporting garbage. 

[herktiger 0]

Ed:  That is pretty much what Ox just said--it could be either way and was probably intentionally vague for whatever reason.  And I find it interesting that you are talking about being a "devil's advocate" and your post count is now 666!    War Eagle!