the university conducts it, and the resolution is a definitive framework with how to proceed with whatever is going on with zach legally. it's not a criminal investigation, but public employees can be and often are subject to internal misconduct investigations all the time. i'm not surprised that this isn't the route it went, because this makes the process much more public than urban would want, but that's kind of the point: zach and urban are public employees. they're subject to the same public scrutiny anyone else with their kind of profile would be.
think of it this way: if michael drake was accused of domestic violence in the way zach was, would ohio state let that go? or would they do their own investigation? would he have even been hired?
immediate suspension pending investigation, same as what he's done for his players at ohio state
please share how you know these things you say because I for one do not just take it for truth just because I read it on the internet.
that's fair. kevin knows because he's been involved with the newswriting process for several years now at 11W, and we would never pay or compensate any interview subject involved in a story of this magnitude. i've been writing for 11W for 8 years now, and been a co-owner for 6, and i can tell you that our official policy on this mirrors the policy of virtually every other major news outlet: you do not compensate sources or interview subjects. the potential for blowback is just too high; a source who "shops" their story around might not be telling the truth, for example, and news outlets don't want to risk that in the case of a high profile story (the UVA rape story from rolling stone, for example).
in 2010 and 2011, there were several reports about outlets like abc news paying people to give interviews. after a public outcry, they stopped (at least officially), and several other outlets followed suit. what these news outlets realized is that getting into a bidding war with each other over sources is a huge mistake in terms of both optics and practicality. i'm sure the practice continues occasionally (and of course, excepting tabloids), but the new york times is famously very anti-paying for interviews, and many other papers and outlets have followed suit.
the reason why ohio state would've contacted courtney would be to complete their own internal investigation into zach smith. her attorney is implying that ohio state didn't do their due diligence when it comes to zach. if you're saying "but it's a bad look for a university to talk to the wife of a high profile coach about said coach's potential abuse," you're right, depending on who is doing the internal investigation.
kevin's correct, this almost never happens, for a whole litany of reasons. i very much doubt that courtney smith received a penny for any of her interviews.
i think it was danny, but honestly i couldn't remember for certain and didn't want to short change anyone
you're right, that's a mistake on my part. thanks man
i feel attacked
i honestly read through the thing five times because i was afraid that i was missing some kind of joke and didn't want to make an idiot out of myself