Who the $%^# is Holly Rowe?

Up until a couple of minutes ago, I had never heard of Holly Rowe.

As it turns out, she’s an ESPN reporter. Which means, specifically, her job is to interview coaches before, midway and after sporting events. Which means, specifically, she is paid, oh, $150,000-$200,000 (maybe I’m off—this is a guess) to ask, “Coach, what was the difference in the first and second halves?” and “What did you say to your team at halftime?” In other words, it’s a dreadful gig; one that takes all the smarts and insight of a case of plastic tubing.

Alas, I digress. The reason I now know the name Holly Rowe is because of this clip, which took place after the recent Sugar Bowl and was linked off of a bunch of sports sites:

Obviously, there’s no excuse for Holly Rowe forearm shivering a print reporter. Or, for that matter, forearm shivering anyone. It is not, however, surprising. Talk to any writer worth his or her salt, and you’ll get an angry story or two about some jackass TV reporter barging his/her way into an interview. There’s never really been an officially written code of interview ethics, so TV folks—with some exceptions—just do whatever they have to do to ask their (always) dumb and non-insightful questions. Hell, I can’t count the number of times I’ve been talking to an athlete about, oh, his childhood or his divorce or his motivation when Jim or Chuck or Sue from Channel Whatever shoves a mic in the subject’s face and takes over with, “So, Myles, talk about that home run …”

I’d like to say Myles apologizes afterward, or at least acknowledges the oddity of it all. He almost never, does however. Why? Because TV rules the world.

And TV doesn’t give a shit about print.

 

4 thoughts on “Who the $%^# is Holly Rowe?”

  1. Jeff-
    I never watch TV news because I can’t stand it for questions like these. Written stories always offer more insight and depth and I’ve always found them more interesting. Plus, I can read at my own pace. I’ve always wondered, though, why TV news always asks the same questions to a victim’s family after a violent crime: “You’re [daughter, son, etc.] was [fill in brutal crime]. How did that make you feel when you found out?” Is their response supposed to surprise them?

  2. welcome to the wonderful world of cram it down your throat sports TV. Had that been me, I probably would have shoved Holly back into the bleachers, and told her “wait you F’n turn”. but since we are a “I need it now” mentality, this kind of behavior is not surprising. Holly and ESPN owe the print reporter an apology, but I doubt she or ESPN will give one.

  3. Jeff – I can’t account for TV people all situations nor do I condone a forearm to any human being and people in post-game scrums generally lose all track of normal decorum (still photogs, anyone?), but there is a generally established protocol immediately after games that the broadcasting network gets first access to coaches and players for interviews that, more often than not, are airing live immediately after the game. Should there have been a PR/Sports Information person there to handle this order of priority? Of course.
    As I said, I’m not defending Holly Rowe’s actions, only that the situation was not analogous to you conducting an interview in a locker room or clubhouse or after practice and being interrupted – in this case, ESPN was entitled to the first interview – on the field, immediately after the coaches handshake – and I would argue that the print reporter should not have been trying to conduct an interview in that situation.

    1. I would argue, sir, that Miss Rowe should have been ready and in position. Since she was not she should wait her damn turn. And if she had given me the forearm shiv she’d be picking her ass off the ground.

Leave a Reply