Media Coverage of SMU & email to WFAA

by **The Falcon** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:58 pm

Mr Pony and Mr. Mustang1965 both made good points about WFAA coverage of SMU/UTEP last Saturday. Thanks for the email addresses and the email showing your complaints.

I have been disgusted with WFAA and DMNews non-coverage, misplacement, and negative slants in reporting for a long time now. After reading some of the posts in an earlier thread I decided I had been quiet for too long, so I vented on Joe Trahan at WFAA. I will include a copy of my email (sent today) and hope most of you can agree with it. I left out
a lot of things gathered over the years and concentrated mainly on the coverage of the SMU/UTEP game on Saturday night.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Joe Trahan-

Here is a copy of one of your replies to an SMU fan from which I will select specific points and make comments on them.
The items in bold blue are the points for my replies.

Let me start out by saying that I am a graduate of the Univ of Texas 1968 and a graduate of the Univ of Colorado 1961; and I live in the Dallas area.
I think your coverage of SMU has been blatantly descriminative over the past several years - starting with lack of attention overall, putting a negative spin on coverage many times, and relegating even good SMU news to last in your broadcast. (evidenced by the win over UTEP.) I would even go so far as to say this is liking kicking us when we have been down. We are trying to turn that around, and the game Saturday wasn't just a one game win - we beat a good team and knocked them out of the CUSA championship game and possibly a bowl game. This was the culmination of a three game winning streak. The week before we probably knocked Houston out of a possible bowl game on their own field. Given this also includes a season in which we beat a very good TCU team and almost certainly knocked them out of a BCS bowl. And while I know about "ifs" and "buts", we probably should have won the Tulsa game (overtime), the Marshall game (overtime - caused by a referee's bad call in not awarding us with a reviewable fumble at the end of that game)

This is just to say that it would appear SMU is making strides and on this particular day they should have had first coverage on your show. As a Texas-ex - I want you to cover Texas - but you have done that all year - this was SMU's day. As for Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas/Iowa State coverage - you certainly wouldn't be letting them down by giving them their coverage after the SMU story.

SMU is your local team. Texas didn't play on Saturday and you gave them excellent coverage on their win on Friday and their prospects for
the top BCS bowl coverage on your Friday 10pm broadcast. In addition A&M, Tech, Baylor - did not play. Give them coverage when they are
playing, but give SMU its day and then cover the others also.

Keep in mind that I am a Texas and Colorado grad - but be fair to SMU. Many people in Dallas are agreeing with me about your coverage of SMU. Most of them are saying they think the media in Dallas - especially Channel 8 and the DMN are being unfair to the local team. We know alums from Big 12 schools live here. I am one of them. But you are perceived as biased, and I hope you can change that. Now about your responses below:

"There's one thing you left out..... they would finish the year with........ a losing season" -

my answer - covered above. Won 3 in a row -
beat bowl bound teams and knocked some out of bowls. This was SMU's day and should have been covered first.

" weigh that against a team Texas team, that I consider to be every bit as local as SMU"

Many UT fans do live in Dallas as I do - the point is
that the physical location of SMU as a university is in Dallas and deserves proper attention. Plus - you already give UT more than enough coverage
on days when they are playing. This was SMU's day.

"should I service fans in the running for a national title first or those rooting for a team putting the wraps on a losing season."

Who says you can't do both by serving SMU fans on their game day while also giving UT & Big 12 coverage later in the telecast. I think your decision reflects your bias in the organizing of the broadcast. A bias which many people have been noticing.

"once I decided to go Texas/Big 12 news before SMU, that forced me to put Oklahoma in front of SMU to keep the big 12 flow"

What a ridiculous statement. You could still keep the "flow" going by covering SMU first and then following with UT and other Big12 action. Again, your decision only reflects your very apparent bias. Noone is "forcing" you to put Oklahoma ahead of SMU coverage - maybe take a look in the mirror.

by **The Falcon** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:02 pm

Here is a continuation and conclusion of the email I sent to Joe Trahan
of WFAA (above)
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

" I pride myself on the fact that I don't just cover what's going on, I also try to convey what it means."

You obviously did not see the meaningin the SMU win. This wasn't just a win - it was a dominating win over a good team. The fumbles and interceptions which helped seal the SMU win were caused by defense that harrassed the UTEP quarterback into many errors and a secondary that can play with most schools.

This may have been a direction changing exclamation point on a team that has been down and out and trying hard to recover - they have
been competitive with most teams this year, and the meaning that I see is that they are making a comeback and that the game last Saturday
was part of the redemption of this program. Please, SMU should have been given its day when it clearly deserved it.

"I'm here first and foremost to service you the viewer, so I'd love to have your feedback, given the information I've passed on.
Let me know what you think."

Hopefully my reply has told you what I think. I along with many others think that WFAA and your decisions on coverage have been biased against SMU for some time. If you are here to service the viewer, please take the comments you are getting from Mustang viewers seriously - and also the comments of a UT and CU alum. We are not asking for you to not give those schools credit and top billing when they deserve it. We are asking for fair treatment for SMU.

** I realize that I have attacked many of your comments (sent to another emailer) and that your first reaction will be to defend yourself.
I am merely telling you what I feel and what I have heard many people in the community discussing.

Please accept the comments above as a long-time WFAA viewer and as constructive criticism which is the way in which they were intended.

by **NavyCrimson** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:05 pm

thx for your support falcon!!! :wink:

by **HixsontoLeVias** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:06 pm

bro....your e-mail is WAY to long, unbearably long, and trust me, he won't read it...why? IT'S WAY TOOOOOO LONG!!....try the USA Today approach next time....straight and to the point. Long Live Mel Ott.

by **NavyCrimson** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:12 pm

come' on HixsontoLeVias - give the guy some slack!!!

we need fans like him!!! be thankful we have some support like him!!!

his intent is what counts!!!

by **RGV Pony** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:42 pm

The litmus test for Mr. Trahan's remarks would be to see if Austin stations ran SMU stories in the early 80s ahead of UT stories. After all, if the BIGGEST football fan in our fair state was sitting in his living room in the governor's mansion, and certainly based on putting one's money where one's mouth is was/is a HUGE SMU fan, shouldn't the local channel cover true contenders (at the time) like SMU before pretenders like Texas?

by **mr. pony** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:06 pm

He'll read it.

Hell, you should have seen the novel he sent back to ME.

Thanks, Falcon.

If everyone on this web site would contact the DMN and WFAA when warranted, I guarantee you things would change. We've been taking this crap WAY too long.

by **mr. pony** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:12 pm

Here' what I sent Trahan and Hansen in 33separate emails after his responses which were similar to what everyone else got:

1) In response to an inquiry, Dale Hansen once emailed me that SMU must "get in line" for coverage around here.

On Saturday evening's sportscast, with no UT, A&M, Tech, TCU, or Baylor game slated, and no Cowboy game on Sunday, SMU's big upset win over UTEP was stuffed in at the tail end of your coverage - a mere afterthought.

Fort Worth covered it better than you guys.

I'll say it again: When SMU returns to being a Top 20 team, (and it may not be long), it is my hope that WFAA is banned from the campus.

(SMU led your sportscast when they were in trouble years ago for doing things that big schools do to this day with little consequence. See Alabama, Arkansas and 20 others that could have gotten the death penalty since then and didn't. Now that hometown SMU is turning the corner, you guys say, 'so what?')

2) Sports journalism should be about more than just taking care of the big guys with the big money anyway. It should look to local stories that "mean something", as you say.

SMU is Dallas' Div. IA team. It is the only program to have ever, and will ever, receive the death penalty. We have fought back through a unprecedented challenges. We missed a bowl game by one game and knocked an 8-2 team out of the conference championship last night. Bobby Chase's acrobatic touchdown catch made ESPN's top 10, (No.3 I think).

Putting the Big 12 after an SMU lead last night would not have hurt UT fans in the least.

3) At least your Belo buds at the Dallas Morning News got it right on SMU-UTEP. It was the lead college football story on the front page of their football sports section.

Wonder what their reasoning was??

by **Dirty Bird** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:33 pm

WHO FREAKING CARES?
You all are the saddest pack of crybabies!!!!
Instead of being happy about the Ponies' big win, and cap to an interesting season, you're worried about what a LOCAL....I repeat: LOCAL...television station has on its Saturday night broadcast?
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Seriously: take a step back and look at how ridiculous your whining is.
Who the hell cares what the local TV stations are saying?
Absolutely inconsequential.

by PK » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:45 pm

Marketing dude, not to mention recruiting...it's all about exposure, especially when something good happens.

by **mustangbill67** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:05 pm

The Dallas media is ridiculous as far as SMU is concerned. I travel all over the country and am amazed by the great coverage given high schools and local universities over the large state schools and the pro's. They all get good coverage but the stations lead with the local sports. If we are going to build a fan base from non SMU allums, we need media attention that spotlights what is going on at SMU be it good or bad.

by **MrMustang1965** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:50 pm

Dirty Bird wrote:WHO FREAKING CARES?
You all are the saddest pack of crybabies!!!!
Instead of being happy about the Ponies' big win, and cap to an interesting season, you're worried about what a LOCAL....I repeat: LOCAL...television station has on its Saturday night broadcast?
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Seriously: take a step back and look at how ridiculous your whining is.
Who the hell cares what the local TV stations are saying?
Absolutely inconsequential.

This guy can't even find his own a** with both hands! Look where he says he's from...! :lol:

You just don't get it, do you, DB?

SMU fans are sick and tired of getting the sand kicked in their face by lots of folks...including the media. If you lived here, you might understand. But since your 'whereabouts' are 'unknown'.... :roll:

We're not a bunch of 'crybabies'...we're died-in-the-wool, hardcore fans!

The more POSITIVE exposure SMU can get via the media when things go right for the Mustangs (like winning key games!), the better the school's chances of getting more fans in the stands and better recruits.

by **Dirty Bird** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:24 pm

Whatever.
If you all would rather focus on how the media, local media I might add, reacts to SMU...instead of being content with a nice win to make us 5-6, fine.
But you're deluding yourself if you think any stud 18-year old recruits are home on a Saturday night at 10:00 pm watching the local news.
In fact, I want my recruits out chasing tail, kicking [deleted] and doing other sorts of cool football-player things.
Not sitting around waiting to see what Joe Trahan is going to lead his WEEKEND, LOCAL, sportscast.
Damn.

by **Charleston Pony** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:29 pm

guys, we need to get off this whining about media coverage. If/when SMU becomes "relevant" again, coverage will follow. Let's start by actually fielding "post season" worthy teams and figuring out a way to pack Ford and Moody. That would be a good start towards becoming relevant again in the college sports world.

by **Dirty Bird** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:31 pm

Thank you, Charleston Pony. Very well put.
I rest my case.

Media Coverage of SMU & email to WFAA

Media Coverage of SMU & email to WFAA

Continuation of Media Coverage email from above.

Who is online