-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
John Wilkins' 7' brother
- Thread starter Da Coach
- Start date
One thing from all this is pretty clear is that Mr. Wilkens does not want his kid in Gary, IN. and he will probably end up in the hands of someone that he trusts and respects. I also bet that having an older brother near by will be a bonus. If that brother goes to BU and happens to bring his little brother over to campus all the time to practice and help him out I bet no one would get upset about that.
Looks like some here on BradleyFans were right.
The rumor in Wednesday's Journal Star was "erroneous".
Here is some verified information about Jonathan Wilkins, brother of BU recruit John Wilkins. And it comes from the PJ Star, the same source where the erroneous rumor was reported 2 days ago.
http://www.pjstar.com/preps/x349783990/Hoop-du-Jour
According to one local talent evaluator, an item in Wednesday??™s Journal Star reporting that Metamora could get a 7-foot freshman next season is erroneous. According to Bill Flanagan, Jonathan Wilkins, younger brother of Bradley recruit John Wilkins, will not live in the U.S.
Flanagan says the younger Wilkins will stay in his native Belgium for 11 months a year. In July, he will come to Gary, Ind., and stay with his father, former Illinois State player Jeff Wilkins, so he can play one month of AAU basketball.
The writer even prefaces it by saying:
I would hope people would know what a tall tale is? :lol:
I didn't think that "journalists" for what is supposed to be a respectable newspaper would delve into reporting rumors!?!?!?!?!;-)
As long as we are talking about headlines, let's take a look at the PJS' correction in today's paper. The title on this is "Wafflling on Belgian."
Doesn't anybody at the PJS have the guts to admit they made a mistake and should not have printed this in the first place?
I doubt it!:evil:
Doesn't anybody at the PJS have the guts to admit they made a mistake and should not have printed this in the first place?
I doubt it!:evil:
Apparently not...
I won't even dignify the rest of tornado's post with a response. Only the most foolish people in the world would take the reporter's comments as fact. This board is making me sick and makes me want to get farther away from it every day. Too bad because it actually does have some reasonable discussion every once in a while.
But Scouter, T is right in at least one respect. Why did the PJS feel there was a need for a correction? And...Once there was a correction article written, why did the PJS have to continue to frame the article with a flip headline and why did the PJS writer feel there was a need to frame the last part of the article with; "Consider this a candidate for Sports Illustrated??™s ???This week??™s sign of the apocalypse.???
I'll tell you one reason why... BAD JOURNALISM:!:
Beni, it wasn't written as a correction. It's a follow-up on what was printed. The last part of the note probably is insinuating that it's against the norm to bring a kid over here for one month to play AAU ball instead of bringing him over to live and play high school basketball as well.
Scouter, even if you follow your path here that this was printed as a follow up to the previous article, it is still a correction as they are basically admitting with the first sentence that the first report contained errors.
"According to one local talent evaluator, an item in Wednesday??™s Journal Star reporting that Metamora could get a 7-foot freshman next season is erroneous."
We can split hairs on this all day but I am very fired up about this as I am friends with one of the people mentioned and my friend had to deny a lot of questions thrown to him by people who read the first article.
Beni, I understand your point but I see it as a follow-up and not a correction because the original report was a rumor in the first place (although some seem to disagree). Had it been reported as fact, then I'd call it a correction also.
That's a good way to look at it.
A problem arises though, when some people have a much more reasonable mind than others.
This thread is a great example of that. :wink:
If there is one thing we should have learned the last few years is that rumors or anything portraying the likelihood of not the whole truth is probably not the truth. Example are the WMD that were rumored to be in Iraq! Boy did the press eat that one hook, line and sinker and not once did a major paper for that fact apologize for their error in judgment.
This Wilkens piece is small frys compared to much larger issues so I'm over it.:lol:
This Wilkens piece is small frys compared to much larger issues so I'm over it.:lol:
bigdaddystuck
New member
Hmmm....I thought this thread was closed?!?
I wish it would have stayed that way. :lol:
