Audrey Snyder no longer covering Penn State for the Athletic

[Obliviax]

And that's all he had to say but he backed away from the table. Franklin never spoke on it--he allowed someone else to handle which is why she CORRECTLY asked him. He handled it horribly and that's why people are mad about Aubrey. She'll be just fine.

Nope, he announced he couldn't talk about it, and any inquiries were to go through PSU's department of whatever it was. He was asked the question and deferred to the spokesperson of that department, giving up the microphone so everyone could hear. Then she asked, IIRC, and he gave up the microphone to the spokesperson again.

The media then parsed the video to make it look like he was simply asked the question and walked away.

CJF simply did what the university told him to do which follows with what every lawyer would have told them to do.

What would you have liked him to say?

 

[LandoComando]

Nope, he announced he couldn't talk about it, and any inquiries were to go through PSU's department of whatever it was. He was asked the question and deferred to the spokesperson of that department, giving up the microphone so everyone could hear. Then she asked, IIRC, and he gave up the microphone to the spokesperson again.

The media then parsed the video to make it look like he was simply asked the question and walked away.

CJF simply did what the university told him to do which follows with what every lawyer would have told them to do.

What would you have liked him to say?

He didn't say that--the other guy (forget his name did). Franklin never made a statement.
He can't step back there and that's why there was an apology. He has to stand there and answer it--every time it's asked--that's leadership.
I'm not blaming him--I'm blaming the PR team that gave him bad advice.
He should have said, "Aubrey, we're unable to comment about the situation at this time"--life every other program would have. He can't step back and they can't tell reports they can't ask. We handled it poorly--it's okay to admit and acknowledge that. That's why there was an apology.
Blaming Aubrey is just wrong.

 

[Obliviax]

He didn't say that--the other guy (forget his name did). Franklin never made a statement.
He can't step back there and that's why there was an apology. He has to stand there and answer it--every time it's asked--that's leadership.
I'm not blaming him--I'm blaming the PR team that gave him bad advice.
He should have said, "Aubrey, we're unable to comment about the situation at this time"--life every other program would have. He can't step back and they can't tell reports they can't ask. We handled it poorly--it's okay to admit and acknowledge that. That's why there was an apology.
Blaming Aubrey is just wrong.

so the statement was made, yet the media still asked. So CJF simply stepped back and let the spokesperson address it, just as the school told him to.

It is Audry, not Aubrey. And that is exactly what the spokesperson said.

He never blamed "Aubrey".

 

[lazydave841]

So--you're saying no one should have asked Harbaugh about the scandal because they knew he wouldn't answer it?

You don't even want us talking about the scandal. You tend to chime in with the same "are we still expecting..." about punishment. Even when there is new info.

And, no, I don't see the point in any reporter asking Harbs about cheating unless they are found guilty/punished of it. It's a wasted question that will yield nothing of note.

Maybe it's just me and what interests me though.

 

[Obliviax]

 

[LandoComando]

so the statement was made, yet the media still asked. So CJF simply stepped back and let the spokesperson address it, just as the school told him to.

It is Audry, not Aubrey. And that is exactly what the spokesperson said.

He never blamed "Aubrey".

He can't step back--that was the problem. That's a sign of weakness in leadership. The school's advice was horrible,
The spokesperson isn't Franklin--Franklin needs to speak even if it's the exact same verbiage.
Sorry--Audrey--I didn't say he blamed her--people here are

 

[LandoComando]

You don't even want us talking about the scandal. You tend to chime in with the same "are we still expecting..." about punishment. Even when there is new info.

And, no, I don't see the point in any reporter asking Harbs about cheating unless they are found guilty/punished of it. It's a wasted question that will yield nothing of note.

Maybe it's just me and what interests me though.

I don't want us talking about it? I was told here that sanctions were coming in September and the NCAA was intentionally doing it when the season started. New info is great but Matt Weiss being arrested because he's a creep isn't "new evidence". I'm all for reasonable discussion not "Michigan needs the death penalty because they didn't support us with the Sandusky nonsense". There's a difference.

Almost everything asked during a presser is a "wasted" question--we get almost nothing of value out of it. Audrey wasn't wrong for what she asked--people are just upset because it became a story when CJF backed away from the podium instead of simply saying "As previously stated, we're unable to discuss that situation." It was something simple our PR group messed up.

 

[lazydave841]

I don't want us talking about it?

That is how it comes across, absolutely yes.

was told here that sanctions were coming in September and the NCAA was intentionally doing it when the season started.

We have a lot of people who don't understand how the process plays out. I barely do. If you know how it works, share the information. Your response is just as unreasonable as the "give them the death penalty" crowd and will always, ALWAYS be frowned upon at ANY non-Michigan board. Know your audience.

Almost everything asked during a presser is a "wasted" question

It all depends on what you are looking for. I've listened to a few (generally because they take place on my off days) and some are better than others.

 

[LandoComando]

That is how it comes across, absolutely yes.

We have a lot of people who don't understand how the process plays out. I barely do. If you know how it works, share the information. Your response is just as unreasonable as the "give them the death penalty" crowd and will always, ALWAYS be frowned upon at ANY non-Michigan board. Know your audience.


It all depends on what you are looking for. I've listened to a few (generally because they take place on my off days) and some are better than others.

It comes across that way because I think people are overreacting and setting unrealistic expectations? Interesting but fair I guess...

How is my response as "unreasonable" as give them the death penalty? I'm not playing to an audience. I'm trying to discuss things rationally. The NCAA was basically neutered after everything that happened here. They know a super league is in the works and them taking any real actions only solidifies that they become irrelevant. Without Michigan agreeing to sanctions, reason would suggest that the NCAA can't actually do anything that means anything. They take away a bowl bid (which no longer matters) and they strip them of a few scholarships (with the portal and NIL that no longer matters) and then everyone will be upset that they didn't do more. I'm not sure what part of that comes across as unreasonable.

When is the last time you feel you got real information from a press conference with Penn State? Honest question--I can't remember the last time something was said in a presser that we didn't already know.

I'm confused about the Michigan complaint but you're one of the few people here I actually think know what they're talking about so I'll roll with it. I just completely disagree that my approach is "no one talk about it" as opposed to "let's set reasonable expectations so we're not irrationally mad". It's like expecting a national title or to beat Ohio State then being livid when it doesn't happen when it was never supposed to happen. Whatever Michigan is sanctioned with people should be thrilled because it's an indication the NCAA believed they cheated--the actual penalties are just about pettiness.

 

[voltz99]

Then you believe the job is to waste a question instead of getting actual football info to write an actual story that fans may read, waste everyone in attendence's time, and somewhat piss off Franklin.

Some don't believe that's her job.....

Most real reporters are not asking important questions at press conferences in front of all their competition. Would you hand a story to your competition?

 

[Safety Blitz]

Then you believe the job is to waste a question instead of getting actual football info to write an actual story that fans may read, waste everyone in attendence's time, and somewhat piss off Franklin.

Some don't believe that's her job.....

If you’re paying her salary, you get to determine how she performs her duties.
If you aren’t writing the check, what you believe doesn’t mean squat.
It would be similar to me writing “Greg, you suck at your job.” I have no idea what you do, nor do I care. For all I know, you may very well be the best in the country at what you do. So my opinion on your job performance is obviously crap….just like your assumed expertise on what she is expected to do.
If, after the ND loss, Franklin had opened the presser by saying “I don’t want to talk about the interception,” would it have been wrong for any/every reporter to ask anyway?
My final point: How many times have you seen someone being interviewed say the don’t want to speak on a subject only to go on and on about the topic when it is brought up again?
Too many people on this board only want to read “our program is perfect and everyone else sucks” stories.

 

[GregInPitt]

If you’re paying her salary, you get to determine how she performs her duties.
If you aren’t writing the check, what you believe doesn’t mean squat.
It would be similar to me writing “Greg, you suck at your job.” I have no idea what you do, nor do I care. For all I know, you may very well be the best in the country at what you do. So my opinion on your job performance is obviously crap….just like your assumed expertise on what she is expected to do.
If, after the ND loss, Franklin had opened the presser by saying “I don’t want to talk about the interception,” would it have been wrong for any/every reporter to ask anyway?
My final point: How many times have you seen someone being interviewed say the don’t want to speak on a subject only to go on and on about the topic when it is brought up again?
Too many people on this board only want to read “our program is perfect and everyone else sucks” stories.

Those are thoughts. But none of those situations are close to what happend or even relate to what happened.

She, along with everyone else there, was told by Franklin he wouldn't answer question nor would he talk about the subject. Everyone there also knows it's PSU policy not to talk about about those types of situations. Yet she went ahead and basically made a scene and asked when she knew Franklin would say something to the effect that he just said he wasn't taking questions on it and in deed wasn't, next question.

Her looking like a fool has nothing to do with who's paying her.
I believe she has a strange idea on how to do her job as she showed it blatantly that day. See post above - "Opinions vary".
Trying to relate an example about a football press conference with questions about football (ND INT) doesn't have the slightest bit of similarity to her gaff.
Some people will end up talking about things they don't want to, but everyone with reasoning means at this point knows that Franklin doesn't talk about injuries or off the field player "mishaps"...
This has nothing to do with what people on this board want to read or what they don't want to read, as she wasn't going to get info on the incident and she knew it, regardless of what anyone anywhere wanted to know.

 

[Zouavelion5]

Those are thoughts. But none of those situations are close to what happend or even relate to what happened.

She, along with everyone else there, was told by Franklin he wouldn't answer question nor would he talk about the subject. Everyone there also knows it's PSU policy not to talk about about those types of situations. Yet she went ahead and basically made a scene and asked when she knew Franklin would say something to the effect that he just said he wasn't taking questions on it and in deed wasn't, next question.

Her looking like a fool has nothing to do with who's paying her.
I believe she has a strange idea on how to do her job as she showed it blatantly that day. See post above - "Opinions vary".
Trying to relate an example about a football press conference with questions about football (ND INT) doesn't have the slightest bit of similarity to her gaff.
Some people will end up talking about things they don't want to, but everyone with reasoning means at this point knows that Franklin doesn't talk about injuries or off the field player "mishaps"...
This has nothing to do with what people on this board want to read or what they don't want to read, as she wasn't going to get info on the incident and she knew it, regardless of what anyone anywhere wanted to know.

She wanted a viral moment to generate clicks....media in the 21st century

 

[LandoComando]

She wanted a viral moment to generate clicks....media in the 21st century

See--this is the problem. Instead of just admitting CJF handled it poorly because of bad advice you're making accusations for absolutely no reason

 

[joeaubie21]

If you’re paying her salary, you get to determine how she performs her duties.
If you aren’t writing the check, what you believe doesn’t mean squat.
It would be similar to me writing “Greg, you suck at your job.” I have no idea what you do, nor do I care. For all I know, you may very well be the best in the country at what you do. So my opinion on your job performance is obviously crap….just like your assumed expertise on what she is expected to do.
If, after the ND loss, Franklin had opened the presser by saying “I don’t want to talk about the interception,” would it have been wrong for any/every reporter to ask anyway?
My final point: How many times have you seen someone being interviewed say the don’t want to speak on a subject only to go on and on about the topic when it is brought up again?
Too many people on this board only want to read “our program is perfect and everyone else sucks” stories.

E-e-ee-e-ee-ee-e-e!!!!!

 

[Safety Blitz]

Perhaps Ms. Snyder was just sending the great and powerful PSU football machine a message:
Your PR guy can tell the media what the coach is and isn’t willing to talk about as they attempt to sweep the issue under the rug, but he sure as hell doesn’t get to tell the media members what questions they can ask.
She asked the question because it was a topic of interest and she planned to report on whatever response she received.
Then PSU botched the response badly, which only caused more media members to report on it.
They looked like the Three Stooges up there on that stage. Their embarrassment was self inflicted. But you want to blame the reporter because “your” coach and “your” program and “your” school fumbled the ball when asked an uncomfortable question.
Had that happened at Ohio State or Michigan, you would be promoting that reporter for a Pulitzer.

 

[voltz99]

Perhaps Ms. Snyder was just sending the great and powerful PSU football machine a message:
Your PR guy can tell the media what the coach is and isn’t willing to talk about as they attempt to sweep the issue under the rug, but he sure as hell doesn’t get to tell the media members what questions they can ask.
She asked the question because it was a topic of interest and she planned to report on whatever response she received.
Then PSU botched the response badly, which only caused more media members to report on it.
They looked like the Three Stooges up there on that stage. Their embarrassment was self inflicted. But you want to blame the reporter because “your” coach and “your” program and “your” school fumbled the ball when asked an uncomfortable question.
Had that happened at Ohio State or Michigan, you would be promoting that reporter for a Pulitzer.

She would not get hired to cover Ohio state or Michigan.

 

[joeaubie21]

Perhaps Ms. Snyder was just sending the great and powerful PSU football machine a message:
Your PR guy can tell the media what the coach is and isn’t willing to talk about as they attempt to sweep the issue under the rug, but he sure as hell doesn’t get to tell the media members what questions they can ask.
She asked the question because it was a topic of interest and she planned to report on whatever response she received.
Then PSU botched the response badly, which only caused more media members to report on it.
They looked like the Three Stooges up there on that stage. Their embarrassment was self inflicted. But you want to blame the reporter because “your” coach and “your” program and “your” school fumbled the ball when asked an uncomfortable question.
Had that happened at Ohio State or Michigan, you would be promoting that reporter for a Pulitzer.

🤡🐴

 

[palmettolion]

Perhaps Ms. Snyder was just sending the great and powerful PSU football machine a message:
Your PR guy can tell the media what the coach is and isn’t willing to talk about as they attempt to sweep the issue under the rug, but he sure as hell doesn’t get to tell the media members what questions they can ask.
She asked the question because it was a topic of interest and she planned to report on whatever response she received.
Then PSU botched the response badly, which only caused more media members to report on it.
They looked like the Three Stooges up there on that stage. Their embarrassment was self inflicted. But you want to blame the reporter because “your” coach and “your” program and “your” school fumbled the ball when asked an uncomfortable question.
Had that happened at Ohio State or Michigan, you would be promoting that reporter for a Pulitzer.

Franklin fumbled absolutely nothing in regards to this situation. He did exactly what he was advised to do by the University and their lawyers.

Snyder would never get the opportunity to see the inside of Michigan's or OSU's media room because those Universities wouldn't have allowed her back after not following instructions the first time.

Again, those beacons of honesty known as the media edited it to look worse, so you'd react as you have/are. If Franklin had just walked away after the first "journalist" asked that question, after being instructed not to, you'd be complaining about that too.

The only thing that would've satisfied you and Ms. Snyder would've been him discussing it, in hopes that it could be spun to look like the football program was complicit and which would have potentially cost the University money.

Heads Ms. Snyder wins, tails Franklin loses.

 

[Zouavelion5]

Franklin fumbled absolutely nothing in regards to this situation. He did exactly what he was advised to do by the University and their lawyers.

Snyder would never get the opportunity to see the inside of Michigan's or OSU's media room because those Universities wouldn't have allowed her back after not following instructions the first time.

Again, those beacons of honesty known as the media edited it to look worse, so you'd react as you have/are. If Franklin had just walked away after the first "journalist" asked that question, after being instructed not to, you'd be complaining about that too.

The only thing that would've satisfied you and Ms. Snyder would've been him discussing it, in hopes that it could be spun to look like the football program was complicit and which would have potentially cost the University money.

Heads Ms. Snyder wins, tails Franklin loses.

Well said.....Franklin and any coach in that situation would be setting themselves up for potential legal issues commenting on an open criminal investigation. The players in question were booted from the team prior to the presser and l believe also booted from the university as well. So the point was definitely moot by that point.

 

[Obliviax]

Perhaps Ms. Snyder was just sending the great and powerful PSU football machine a message:
Your PR guy can tell the media what the coach is and isn’t willing to talk about as they attempt to sweep the issue under the rug, but he sure as hell doesn’t get to tell the media members what questions they can ask.
She asked the question because it was a topic of interest and she planned to report on whatever response she received.
Then PSU botched the response badly, which only caused more media members to report on it.
They looked like the Three Stooges up there on that stage. Their embarrassment was self inflicted. But you want to blame the reporter because “your” coach and “your” program and “your” school fumbled the ball when asked an uncomfortable question.
Had that happened at Ohio State or Michigan, you would be promoting that reporter for a Pulitzer.

First, the incident had nothing to do with PSU. Second, PSU finished in the top four, and she is gone. Third, there is no rule that when one party is wrong, the other is right. They can both be wrong

 

[IANit]

I know some of those on here will probably be happy about this, but the Athletic (A New York Times website) has gotten rid of its Penn State beat writer Audrey Snyder.
I know some of you had a problem when she wrote a story in December about the difficulites of having a home game against SMU, but quite a few Penn State faithful who subscribed to the Athletic, are pissed and are threatening to cancel their subscriptions.

MSN

I liked Audrey's coverage and her YouTube show with Jon Sauber. She usually found a unique angle on things. Probably not canceling my subscription yet. We assume her statement is correct and the whole story, but I haven't seen a statement nor has anyone apparently bothered to ask management at the Athletic what their plans are. Every article I've seen has just been a rehashing of her tweet. You don't need somebody in State College full-time to cover PSU football reasonably well.

 

[PSU4U]

I thought she did a very good job covering the program, both the good and the bad. She was much better than the reporter based in Altoona, Cory Giger. He was a hack. I'm sure Audrey Snyder will find a new opportunity elsewhere. I agree. The most troubling thing is that Penn State no longer has a beat reporter from the Athletic. That news outlet continues to cut back on its staff. It got rid of a bunch of beat writers two years ago, including one who covered the Pittsburgh Pirates.

I thought the two were conjoined at the head or the Butt maybe?

 

[psuno1]

Now she can go cover the Braves or the Packers, good luck to her.

 

[lazydave841]

Whatever Michigan is sanctioned with people should be thrilled because it's an indication the NCAA believed they cheated--the actual penalties are just about pettiness.

This is where I disagree. Their cheating was pretty bad (unless we're still playing the "if they are guilty" game). The lengths they were going deserves harsh punishment otherwise why have rules? This is worse than paying players under the table because 1) said player still has to train and perform 2) its now legal while this level of information theft will never be legal.

It's not petty to think they deserve punishment. College football can replace the Michigan brand easily. It's not like the sports ratings tank because they aren't on TV.

 

[LandoComando]

This is where I disagree. Their cheating was pretty bad (unless we're still playing the "if they are guilty" game). The lengths they were going deserves harsh punishment otherwise why have rules? This is worse than paying players under the table because 1) said player still has to train and perform 2) its now legal while this level of information theft will never be legal.

It's not petty to think they deserve punishment. College football can replace the Michigan brand easily. It's not like the sports ratings tank because they aren't on TV.

I don't know why we have rules to be honest--none of them really matter any more. Nothing alters Michigan won the title--unless actions happen instantly putting an * in the record books or vacating something doesn't actually mean anything. We all saw Michigan win--the fans saw it--they'll always claim they won the title. I think it's petty because most only want it because of what happened here. But we can definitely disagree on that.

We 100% aren't on the same page with the networks. You think the value of the Big Ten TV contract wouldn't be impacted without Michigan? There's no replacing those ratings. See the ratings for "the game". See the ratings when they play us. The Big Ten doesn't have a ton of elite matchups--you can't lose 2-4 a year.

 

[lazydave841]

I don't know why we have rules to be honest--none of them really matter

You can't have a sport without rules. Fixing the inadequacy of students not being paid while the TV contracts and ticket sales bolster a university is a far cry from a team coming up with a scheme to steal their opponents signs, playbooks, computer data, etc.

I think it's petty because most only want it because of what happened here.

Some very well do, but that's misguided hate. There is inherently wrong with this type of cheating that one doesn't even need to be petty to know this is something that needs rectified.

Have you seen some of the new information that's coming out from the Weiss case? It's possible that the Corum LLC and the vacuum business was being used to distribute the money to all the various people who were buying tickets and filming opponents sidelines. Not to mention breaking into school databases and watching uploaded practice footage. If it all ties in (supposed to be an NOI sent in the next few weeks), it is crazy the lengths they went to in effort to gain an advantage.

There's no replacing those ratings. See the ratings for the game. See the ratings when they play us. The Big Ten doesn't have a ton of elite matchups--you can't lose 2-4 a year.

Do you think that alone saves them? If the Big 10 doesn't have a ton of elite matchups, then who does?

If Michigan is marginalized, somebody else can rise up. This is where the Big 10 has always been flawed: they've promoted 2 teams as if they were the only ones that mattered. The SEC jumps on the bandwagon and rides every horse they have. Look at how 11-1 Indiana was viewed compared to multiple 2-3 loss SEC teams.

 

[LandoComando]

You can't have a sport without rules. Fixing the inadequacy of students not being paid while the TV contracts and ticket sales bolster a university is a far cry from a team coming up with a scheme to steal their opponents signs, playbooks, computer data, etc.



Some very well do, but that's misguided hate. There is inherently wrong with this type of cheating that one doesn't even need to be petty to know this is something that needs rectified.

Have you seen some of the new information that's coming out from the Weiss case? It's possible that the Corum LLC and the vacuum business was being used to distribute the money to all the various people who were buying tickets and filming opponents sidelines. Not to mention breaking into school databases and watching uploaded practice footage. If it all ties in (supposed to be an NOI sent in the next few weeks), it is crazy the lengths they went to in effort to gain an advantage.



Do you think that alone saves them? If the Big 10 doesn't have a ton of elite matchups, then who does?

If Michigan is marginalized, somebody else can rise up. This is where the Big 10 has always been flawed: they've promoted 2 teams as if they were the only ones that mattered. The SEC jumps on the bandwagon and rides every horse they have. Look at how 11-1 Indiana was viewed compared to multiple 2-3 loss SEC teams.

But why have rules when they can't truly be enforced timely? Taking years to act makes the rules irrelevant.

I've said throughout Michigan cheated--I've never disputed that--the argument/discussion is what is likely going to happen. Some truly expect the death penalty or other serious sanctions. That's what will cause the ridiculous reaction when what should be expected happens. Setting realistic expectations and hoping for more would be great.

Alone? Maybe, maybe not. That alone forces the Big Ten to defend them. The SEC and Big Ten are the only conferences with great matchups but losing the broadcasting rights to Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State or USC drastically alter the value of the deal.

Do you think Indiana was good or lucky they avoided Penn State, Oregon and basically everyone in the top half of the Big Ten?

The SEC does a better job--100% agreed--which is why Michigan matters as much as they do--past mistakes.