KP Coalition: Viera Decides Not To Interview

March 1, Mark Viera of the Washington Post contacted me about writing another article about the Kennedy Proposal, which would have been printed in the Washington Post Magazine. I have not had an article about me nor my efforts since Viera wrote last summer; however, the members of the Coalition felt that it was best to forgo the opportunity.

The first reason, in the video segment on the Washington Post website (2:15 – 2:26), Viera stated, “I have spoken to several people who he has distributed his proposal to. And many of them have either not looked at it, or said that it is simply unfeasible. “

I understand that everyone may not agree with my proposals feasibility but I also won’t willingly let reporters say that my proposal is unfeasible without supplying facts or the names of the people they have spoken with.  It doesn’t matter if ge even supplies one, Viera didn’t want to rescind his statement about my proposal and thus I did not move forward with the article.

The Post is the 5ths most circulated paper in the Nation but this is an opportunity for me and the Coalition to take a stand against yellow journalism and improper representation regarding the Kennedy Proposal from the start.

I am looking for all sorts of dialogue about the topic. I shared with Mr. Viera that I was interested in pursuing a public slander and defamation suit. Do any other college football playoff advocates think that it is fair or legal for Viera to say my proposal is “simply not feasible” without supplying the names or cognitive explanation of why the Kennedy Proposal is unfeasible?

Email Transcript

Mark,

Thanks for contacting me about the WA Post Magazine and the "where-are they-now feature" but the members of the Coalition feel that it is best if we forgo this oppurtunity.

In the video segment of our last interview with you and the Washington Post, you stated " I have spoken with several people that he  has distributed his proposal to and many of them have not looked at it or said that is simply not feasible. " (2:15 - 2:26)

In order to pursue in an interview with you, we ask that you supply the names of those people who have publicly deemed the Kennedy Proposal as unfeasible. If you cannot supply those names and their reasoning, then we ask that you explain why the Kennedy Proposal is unfeasible. 

We understand that everyone may not agree with us in the Coalition about the Kennedy Proposal's feasibility but we will ask that those who write about the proposal state which side they agree with but to also explain why the Kennedy Proposal is unfeasible/feasible. You also stated, "but does not address the economics tied into the discussion.

Yes, the Kennedy Proposal does. If you still disagree with our statement then prove why. I remember a certain conversation under that bridge where I made a statement and you said, "Can you prove that?" Can you prove what you have said?  Until we read your explanations in print and able to see a video clip  on the Washington Post of you addressing these concerns, I will be unable to discuss the Kennedy Proposal.

If we hear your explanation regarding those two statements then we will move forward with our normal interview polocies. Also, I am only granting sit down and phone interviews with media members within the Higher Education community ages 18-24; however, if you would like to begin the interview process, the questions can be sent via email.

God Bless,

Brandon

Executive Director of the KP Coalition

www.kpcoalition.com

Brandon,

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm disappointed to hear you're not agreeing to an interview.

In reference to your question about my intentions, it is simply to update readers of The Post on how you got home, what you are up to now and how, if at all, your proposal has changed. This is an opportunity for you to reach a large Sunday audience in one of the nation's most influential publications, so I hope you'll take advantage of it.

You said you ask news media outlets to state whether they agree with you or not. As a journalist, I'm not taking one side or the other in terms of judging your proposal. Good or bad, I simply report the facts to the best of my knowledge and let the readers decide for themselves. But if we speak again, I'm more than happy to let you address the proposal's feasibility and to provide you the chance to address the economic concerns you said I missed in the initial article.

Like I said, I hope you'll reconsider. I think it would be a cool what to tell readers what you're up to these days, and for you, it's another opportunity to spread the word about your initiative. My deadline for this piece is approaching quickly, so please let me know if we can speak at some point tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks,

Mark

No article came in the Washington Post and that’s not because I didn’t agree to the interview—I did. Mark didn’t want to publicly discuss the Kennedy Proposal and the statements he made.