Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning...

[-X-]

Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning audio of Gregg Williams

By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu ... son-040612


The day after he rocked the sports world by releasing audio of a shocking pregame speech by former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, filmmaker Sean Pamphilon strongly denied that he posted the footage without legal permission.

Reacting to a statement by former Saints special-teams standout Steve Gleason – the subject of one of Pamphilon’s upcoming documentaries, who is suffering from ALS – that he violated their contractual agreement by failing to obtain Gleason’s authorization, Pamphilon insisted “we do have a production agreement that I followed. I can’t understand why Steve would think it’s in his best interest to prevent me from telling the truth about Gregg Williams.”

The four-page contract does not specifically prohibit either party from posting footage – audio or video – prior to completion of the film.

That contradicts with Gleason’s assertion that “Sean Pamphilon and I have an agreement that all recordings ultimately belong to me and my family. Nothing can be released without my explicit approval.”

The contract does state that once the film is completed and sold, the Gleason Family Trust owns the footage. However, the film is not yet completed.

The co-production agreement is for a planned feature documentary, tentatively titled “300 Seconds.” In Gleason’s statement, he intimates that he and Pamphilon were working solely on a “video journal library, documenting my thoughts on life to pass on to” Gleason’s son, Rivers. Pamphilon, while acknowledging that project, had previously told Yahoo! Sports that he and Gleason were also working on a feature documentary.

[Steve Gleason: Release of Gregg Williams audio wasn’t OK’d]

Pamphilon has yet to release video of Williams’ speech, instead posting a 12-minute audio file on his website. On Friday afternoon, he gave a statement to Yahoo! Sports (and which he also planned to post on his website) that states, in part: “It is true that from the beginning Steve and his wife [Michel] were opposed to releasing this footage and I felt strongly that the public had a right to hear this material and judge for themselves. To this end we agreed upon a third party, a person of high character who both Steve and I trust implicitly, to mediate and advise us on the final decision. When I received a call from this person saying to release the audio ‘the sooner the better,’ I did just that.”

In the statement, Pamphilon insists he has “nothing but love and respect for Steve, Michel and his whole family.” He also addresses the charges from some critics that he released the footage for personal gain: “I have taken no money. I am a man of modest means and for the past year have financially gone out on a limb to document Steve and Michel Gleason’s life, as well as contribute to their various ventures regarding Team Gleason. I did this out of love and yes, I hoped it would eventually turn into an amazing film and I would have been rewarded for my efforts.

“The material I shot with Steve this past year was unbelievably compelling and there was no doubt this film would have been HUGE. In effect, yesterday, I gave up a sure thing, to do what myself and many other parents would consider the right thing.

“I feel as strongly today as I have from the beginning that the audio speaks for itself and that the public had a right to hear it.”

 

[-X-]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

In effect, yesterday, I gave up a sure thing, to do what myself and many other parents would consider the right thing.

That's the principles thing I was talking about. If I'm understanding that right, he gave up monetary gain for completion of that documentary/film, to put the audio out and let everyone judge the content for themselves. Would it have been scrapped in the completed documentary? I dunno. Something to ponder. Did he release it in concert with the appeals process in order to block Payton and Loomis from garnering additional considerations from Goodell? I dunno. I doubt it. This, again, was all about Williams (who isn't appealing anything). Does he stand to gain anything financially from the release of this audio? I dunno. We'll see I guess. Clearly that's something everyone is going to monitor (those who care, anyway) to see if his words here are sincere.

 

[Stranger]

Pamphilon is such a punk. I hope Gleason sues his pants off. Would love to find out, via Discovery, who are the 'interests" behind Pamphilon, and why they're seeking to attack NFL.

Gleason should publicly post their contract. so we can see for ourselves just how forthright Pamphilon is.

 

[-X-]

Re:

Pamphilon is such a punk. I hope Gleason sues his pants off. Would love to find out, via Discovery, who are the 'interests" behind Pamphilon, and why they're seeking to attack NFL.

Gleason should publicly post their contract. so we can see for ourselves just how forthright Pamphilon is.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how we view this. I don't think he's a punk at all. I just think he was acting on something he believes in. Right or wrong, he's standing behind his principles, and if he becomes the pariah of the internet and/or film industry (and that's very likely given the course of these discussions), then he will have lost a lot. And I'm SURE he was aware of the ramifications of what he was doing. That actually makes him the opposite of a punk (IMO).

 

[Stranger]

You view him as a principled filmmaker doing what he thinks is right.

I see him as a willing (smooth talking) front man for some high net worth individual or foundation with an agenda.

Maybe a Gleason lawsuit will reveal which perspective is closer to reality.

 

[SunTzu.v.Camus]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

In effect, yesterday, I gave up a sure thing, to do what myself and many other parents would consider the right thing.

That's the principles thing I was talking about. If I'm understanding that right, he gave up monetary gain for completion of that documentary/film, to put the audio out and let everyone judge the content for themselves. Would it have been scrapped in the completed documentary? I dunno. Something to ponder. Did he release it in concert with the appeals process in order to block Payton and Loomis from garnering additional considerations from Goodell? I dunno. I doubt it. This, again, was all about Williams (who isn't appealing anything). Does he stand to gain anything financially from the release of this audio? I dunno. We'll see I guess. Clearly that's something everyone is going to monitor (those who care, anyway) to see if his words here are sincere.

This is a tough ethical situation. I can see both sides.
However, the fact that the filmmaker was given access to any of the Saints was ONLY due to Gleason vouching for him.
Otherwise, he's on the outside shooting in. He also knew that Gleason would've said "NO" if asked if he could release the audio to the world.
Just as far as the social contract of trust, I think it was a bit disrespectful to release it without Gleason's approval.

I say this because if the filmmaker really wanted to have this evidence be included to help the case against Williams...
he could've sent it directly to Goodell's office. Would Goodell have shared the evidence with the world?? Nope.
But that didn't stop him from dishing out justice in the form of severe penalties to the parties involved.
Goodell probably has evidence that may be even more damning against Williams but will not release it.

Goodell's memo to the privacy of the Wonderlic tests is to be commended. imo
The leaking of those tests damage a draft prospects reputation unfairly(see Claiborne).
I just think privacy of some info is fine as long as there is confidence that justice is being served.
And with regards to the Bounty case, anyway, it looks like it is with all the severe suspensions.

So, if the filmmaker released the audio privately to Goodell as evidence.....
he'd be able to keep his word to Gleason(honorably) AND not betray the Saint's trust in allowing Gleason full access.
The best of both worlds....well, maybe just the lesser of two transgressions.

Releasing the evidence to the court of public opinion & PR circus that always ensues....
usually, elevates one's prominence in the public eye....
whether his reasons are noble or not...or BOTH!

btw
I feel bad for the damaged relationship between Gleason & the Saints.
Said Pamphillon, "If this story hadn't broken and been made public, I would not have shared this," wrote Pamphilon, who didn't explain why he chose to release the audio just hours before the Saints' appeals of their "bounty"-related punishments. "I would not have compromised my personal relationships and risked damaging Steve Gleason's relationship with the Saints. I would have crafted these words and sentiments for another forum, perhaps years down the road." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...gg-williams-speech?module=HP11_content_stream

No team will allow these behind the scenes expose films to be shot anymore because of situations just like this.
Teams have nothing to gain & EVERYTHING to LOSE from documentaries like this and know that even if a player is honorable......
the filmmaker may not be.

 

[Stranger]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

In effect, yesterday, I gave up a sure thing, to do what myself and many other parents would consider the right thing.

That's the principles thing I was talking about. If I'm understanding that right, he gave up monetary gain for completion of that documentary/film, to put the audio out and let everyone judge the content for themselves. Would it have been scrapped in the completed documentary? I dunno. Something to ponder. Did he release it in concert with the appeals process in order to block Payton and Loomis from garnering additional considerations from Goodell? I dunno. I doubt it. This, again, was all about Williams (who isn't appealing anything). Does he stand to gain anything financially from the release of this audio? I dunno. We'll see I guess. Clearly that's something everyone is going to monitor (those who care, anyway) to see if his words here are sincere.

I would argue that doing the "right thing" would have been to release this audio tape to the NFL investigating committee while the investion was ongoing and before Williams et al were penalized. I mean, wouldn't you want the NFL jury to have as much evidence as possible when deciding what to do about the matter?

This is a tough ethical situation.

I like your post and agree with much of it, but I don't see this as a "tough ethical situation" at all. I realize that you point some of the following out, but I'd like to summarize what I believe were the choices that Pamphilon faced, which were to:

1. respect Gleason's wishes, and respect the N.O. Saints privacy, and to provide evidence to the NFL while the investigation was ongoing,

2. OR he could release this audio publicly on the day that would garner the most PR for him personally, disprespect Gleason's wishes, disrespect the Saints organization that had given him inside access, and to throw kerosene on a fire where the accused had already been given a lifetime suspension.

Given that he chose the latter, i believe that this smells to high heaven of alterior motives. At a minimum, Pamphilon was seeking self-promotion. However, as I alluded to earlier, I can also see this to be part of a larger attack on the NFL and professional football in America. Time might just tell us more.

btw
I feel bad for the damaged relationship between Gleason & the Saints.
Said Pamphillon, "If this story hadn't broken and been made public, I would not have shared this," wrote Pamphilon, who didn't explain why he chose to release the audio just hours before the Saints' appeals of their "bounty"-related punishments. "I would not have compromised my personal relationships and risked damaging Steve Gleason's relationship with the Saints. I would have crafted these words and sentiments for another forum, perhaps years down the road." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...gg-williams-speech?module=HP11_content_stream

Pamphilon had a month or so to share this audio once this story broke. He could have chosen to share it directly with NFL security at anytime during this month. He could have allow Gleason to share it internally with the NFL. Pamphilon had lots of choices ... numerous options. Why did Pamphilon decide to take the path that would obliterate the trust of the former injured NFL player (Gleason) who entrusted Pamphilon to create a documentary that would show the plight of former players who are injured, not sensationalize a story where the participants had already been tried internally by the NFL and severely penalized.

Pamphilon has a lot to answer for, and has done a huge disservice to former and existing players attempting to make public (in a responsible way) anything about the inner workings of the NFL. As said in the quoted post, what former injured player is ever going to trust a filmmaker again.

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Yeah - I fear the worst outcome of this might be that the only stuff we will ever again see about the "inner workings of the NFL" will be put out BY the NFL - not just "approved by the NFL".

Oh well. I want this story to be over anyway. I would like to just go back to being a Rams FOOTBALL fan. I don't relish in the thought of anything that can taint my favorite team and sport to watch.

 

[-X-]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Oh well. I want this story to be over anyway. I would like to just go back to being a Rams FOOTBALL fan. I don't relish in the thought of anything that can taint my favorite team and sport to watch.

Agree. I'm already bored with this "saga", and am ready to move forward to what REALLY matters. This isn't even directly affecting us anymore. Williams didn't meet with any of the players yet, he's not appealing anything, and we're still basically running the Ryan defense without him anyway.

Come back, stay away, whatever. Let's just play some ball.

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

We preempt this program with the following special broadcast.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Pamphilon has a lot to answer for, and has done a huge disservice to former and existing players attempting to make public (in a responsible way) anything about the inner workings of the NFL. As said in the quoted post, what former injured player is ever going to trust a filmmaker again.

#1. So what if no injured player ever trusts a filmmaker again. That's like saying no german shepherd from Montana will ever trust a Kia again. The world would go on.

#2. That aside, the truth is, I really doubt the entire world of NFL players is now at odds with the entire world of present and future filmmakers. I mean...what are the odds.

#3. What the hell does Pamphilon "have to answer for"? He released an audio of a coach who knew the film was running, knew the league had already said no more bounties and was investigating, and then proceded to call for re-injuring ACLs, offered bounties, actually paid some bounties, and advocated hitting players in the pile. All that happens and you are worried about the filmmaker? So a bank gets robbed at gunpoint and all you notice is that the guy who put the film in the security cam is wearing the wrong colored shirt?

#4. It's a free country and the coach knew the tape was running. So now we curtail american freedoms regarding who gets to release what info to the world?

Williams is the culprit. If he does not say the things he says in front of a camera about going for knees and paying bounties WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION by the league (!!!!) then there is no story.

Let's try not to forget that. Trying to deflect all that is just not going to work.

 

[Stranger]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Williams is the culprit. If he does not say the things he says in front of a camera about going for knees and paying bounties WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION by the league (!!!!) then there is no story.

Let's try not to forget that. Trying to deflect all that is just not going to work.

This topic is layered with various hidden agendas. For example, the filmmaker clearly has his own agenda, otherwise he would have not so eggregiously breached Gleason's trust in order to maximize the PR value of the audio. Let's not simplify this down to the black/white world rammed down the throats of the lowest common denominator fan base.

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Ahem.... GUYS???? WTF?

We preempt this program with the following special broadcast.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Williams is the culprit. If he does not say the things he says in front of a camera about going for knees and paying bounties WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION by the league (!!!!) then there is no story.

Let's try not to forget that. Trying to deflect all that is just not going to work.

This topic is layered with various hidden agendas. For example, the filmmaker clearly has his own agenda, otherwise he would have not so eggregiously breached Gleason's trust in order to maximize the PR value of the audio. Let's not simplify this down to the black/white world rammed down the throats of the lowest common denominator fan base.

That's a lot of mindreading there.

And I don't agree that he breached anything. Gleason did not direct him to withhold tape of anything. And Gleason does not own that tape.

I think that the real culprit is still williams and any discussions of the filmmaker just strike me as efforts to avoid that fact.

 

[-X-]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Williams is the culprit. If he does not say the things he says in front of a camera about going for knees and paying bounties WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION by the league (!!!!) then there is no story.

Let's try not to forget that. Trying to deflect all that is just not going to work.

This topic is layered with various hidden agendas. For example, the filmmaker clearly has his own agenda, otherwise he would have not so eggregiously breached Gleason's trust in order to maximize the PR value of the audio.

Let's assume that's true just to get it out of the way.

So what?

What's the core issue? Is the league office currently spearheading a safety campaign to rid the league of rogue documentarians? Or are they primarily interested in changing the culture of the game in order to make player safety synonymous with The Shield? Maybe that purpose is working in concert to further an agenda (18 game schedule or increased revenue due to higher scoring games), but even THAT isn't the core issue. Potential lawsuits due to a blatant disregard for the health and welfare of players who USED to play the game? Nope. It's a layer for sure, but it's not the core issue. Neither is lying.

As a coach, (or any other piece of the hierarchy of an Organization) you simply can't promote purposefully injuring another player, and you simply can't offer incentives that revolve around the same exact thing. Not in today's game. They did, were told to stop, did it anyway, got caught, and we're pointing the finger at a documentarian. C'mon...

 

[Stranger]

Williams is the culprit. If he does not say the things he says in front of a camera about going for knees and paying bounties WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION by the league (!!!!) then there is no story.

Let's try not to forget that. Trying to deflect all that is just not going to work.

This topic is layered with various hidden agendas. For example, the filmmaker clearly has his own agenda, otherwise he would have not so eggregiously breached Gleason's trust in order to maximize the PR value of the audio.

Let's assume that's true just to get it out of the way.

So what?

What's the core issue? Is the league office currently spearheading a safety campaign to rid the league of rogue documentarians? Or are they primarily interested in changing the culture of the game in order to make player safety synonymous with The Shield? Maybe that purpose is working in concert to further an agenda (18 game schedule or increased revenue due to higher scoring games), but even THAT isn't the core issue. Potential lawsuits due to a blatant disregard for the health and welfare of players who USED to play the game? Nope. It's a layer for sure, but it's not the core issue. Neither is lying.

As a coach, (or any other piece of the hierarchy of an Organization) you simply can't promote purposefully injuring another player, and you simply can't offer incentives that revolve around the same exact thing. Not in today's game. They did, were told to stop, did it anyway, got caught, and we're pointing the finger at a documentarian. C'mon...

My point is:

1. there are a myriad of issues and agendas at play here, and we really can only speculate n what those are
2. there is no core issue
3. that Williams & Bountygate are merely convenient narratives for public consumption, meant to mask other issues not presented
4. oh, and that this filmmaker is one more party who has an agenda and is attempting to mask it with yet another simple storyline for public consumption
5. the NFL establishment couldn't give a damn about player safety, except where that may impact their longterm bottom line

 

[SunTzu.v.Camus]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

........and we're pointing the finger at a documentarian. C'mon...

The documentary thing is a separate issue. imo
I was just commenting that situation.

It just seemed a bit disingenuous for the filmmaker to leak the audio...in THAT way.
When there were other ways that could have been less inflammatory(quietly give it to Goodell)
while not compromising the Gleason/Saints trusted relationship.

The filmmaker was very willing to cast aside his relationship with Gleason -
he was fine with that!! lol

The filmmakers justification for all of it was that he was more concerned with the future health of all players.
That's fine, but he didn't have to thrash the trusted relationships he cultivated to do it.

that's all I'm saying.

The Williams stuff is what it is. He DID it and will pay the price....just like Vick!
I just hope they re-instate him in a year or two.

 

[-X-]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

........and we're pointing the finger at a documentarian. C'mon...

The documentary thing is a separate issue. imo
I was just commenting that situation.

It just seemed a bit disingenuous for the filmmaker to leak the audio...in THAT way.
When there were other ways that could have been less inflammatory(quietly give it to Goodell)
while not compromising the Gleason/Saints trusted relationship.

The filmmaker was very willing to cast aside his relationship with Gleason -
he was fine with that!! lol

The filmmakers justification for all of it was that he was more concerned with the future health of all players.
That's fine, but he didn't have to thrash the trusted relationships he cultivated to do it.

that's all I'm saying.

The Williams stuff is what it is. He DID it and will pay the price....just like Vick!
I just hope they re-instate him in a year or two.

I understand. It can appear that he has an agenda to glorify himself, but after reading the entire article he wrote in conjunction with his release of that audio, I just don't get that impression. He basically got tired of everyone casting aside the serious nature of the issue, got sick of digesting (what he deemed to be) the repulsiveness of those 'speeches' and decided to set the record straight. Giving the audio to Goodell likely wouldn't have accomplished that. He wanted to let EVERYONE know. "You don't think this goes on? You think the league is being unjust? Okay then. Have a listen to this." Primarily though, I think, he was just repulsed and it ate at his conscience. That's why I keep saying he was acting on his principles. I don't know that for sure either - it's just what I believe. I don't even 100% share his beliefs on this either. This is just my view of *his*.

He may have lost a friend, and he may have slammed the door shut on his affiliation with not just the NFL, but also any other large corporation that would have been interested in granting him special permissions. Like I said, he lost a lot. People don't typically burn bridges like that for temporary gain. You know, in my opinion and all. Whatever that's worth. =D

 

[SunTzu.v.Camus]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

Like I said, he lost a lot.
People don't typically burn bridges like that for temporary gain.

Yeah, I hear ya.
I think you're very possibly right in his motives. He seemed passionate & sincere.
Which is all the more puzzling he didn't appear to find a way to release the evidence and NOT Burn Bridges.
Goodell would have NOT released it, most likely but it would have played out very strongly in Goodell's reasoning, I suspect.

I just feel bad that Gleason, the Saints, Gleason & the filmmaker's bonds of trust were dashed by releasing the tapes publicly.
He didn't even run it by Gleason at all, it appears.

But I can understand the loneliness of the whistle-blower in situations like this.
The filmmaker thought he was doing the right thing and there's always casualties when speaking truth.
I can sympathize with everyone involved.

 

[Stranger]

Re: Filmmaker denies claim that he unfairly released damning

The public is basically a huge sledgehammer, & the PR industry (whether manipulated by the NFL, class action attorneys, or a filmmaker) is the hand that swings it.

PS. Ever think that this filmmaker could be acting on behalf of a large class action law firm?