There is this cult of moral outrage that exists today, where people turn even the slightest indiscretion into a huge scandal.Yes, let's dig much more deeply into the etiology of sports-team ownership. Don't over-focus on Sterling, who's already toast. What about the rest of them? And it's not just about race, it's about sex.
Because it’s easy, and there’s no time for thought.
Take the Donald Sterling thing. Racist old guy, with a mistress…
…in a league which has tolerated this, systemically, over a decade—and not just from him, but other asshole owners. If you’re attracted to owning a sports team, there is something very sinister about you. There is a much deeper problem. It’s pathetic.
Notice how in Oliver's answers to the prompts — they're not really questions — he's complaining both about using scandals because they are so easy and the newsfolk don't have to think much, but also saying that the same material that is so titillating deserves more attention, more investigation, more broad-ranging thought.
I think I agree with that. If you're going to latch onto Sterling and demonize and destroy him in a few days, you're setting a standard that you have to be willing to apply in a principled, across-the-board manner. You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied.
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
I think most sports owners try to keep a low profile.
The sports owners known outside the town their teams are in are usually obnoxious: Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban come off as douche bags. And Ted Turner back when he owned the Braves (he even managed one game). I liked a lot of the Braves players but was ecstatic when the Twins won the '91 Works Series because watching Ted Turner and Jane Fonda do the tomahawk chop was excruciating.
You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied.
Lefties do it all the time.
And yet, Rush Limbaugh wanted to buy into the L.A. Rams, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, a thousand times NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
and should mr sterling be forced to sell, he'll make between $700M-$900M PROFIT. Not vindication, but it makes the $2.5M fine easy to take. Do we get to start going after the NBA -players- for racist remarks now?
He's right, but it's more like three decades. Sterling was a douche when he bought the team and everyone knew it, but it didn't matter at a time when the NBA Finals were being televised on tape delay.
Personally, my favorite part of the whole fiasco is how the NAACP has been exposed as a bunch of money grabbing hypocrites.
George W. Bush owned our local Rangers baseball team here in North Texas. I think this weakens Oliver's proposition, but I'll bet others would disagree!
My guess after reviewing Mr Sterlings legal history is that he and his legal team will be happy to help the bulldog media expose the failings of the rest of the NBA ownership.
Ethics are to journalism as love is to a whorehouse.
If you're going to latch onto Sterling and demonize and destroy him in a few days, you're setting a standard that you have to be willing to apply in a principled, across-the-board manner.
I would normally agree with this...but we're now in the era of asymmetric morals....you don't have mine, ergo, you're evil. If I do the same thing, all's well! How? Under the principle of "I like me better than you."
"If you’re attracted to owning a sports team, there is something very sinister about you. There is a much deeper problem. It’s pathetic."
How pompously judgemental. For all the criticisms NFL fans have thrown at him, does John Oliver remember Raiders owner Al Davis, who was very much involved in the Civil Rights movement? Or Branch Rickey, who was famous for signing the first African American major league baseball player?
This guy's a jerk.
Demonizing and destroying in an across the board manner is the ethical way to do it? Its the fair way to be unfair?
We're talking about how we, as a society, need to punish an individual for making offensive remarks, offensive remarks!... in a private, emotionally charged conversation. Who hasn't said something that someone could deem offensive at some point in their life?
There is nothing ethical about any of this.
Political Correctness, like Puritanism, isn't about ethics its about that sweet feeling of moral superiority.
Sterling is guilty of a thought crime. I'm told that California requires both parties to consent to a recorded conversation. I hope he takes the NBA to court.
So he seems to be implying that there's a bunch of old white guys who are getting a charge out of "owning" a bunch of black people? And that people who might want to own a sports team really want to be plantation owners? That certainly seems like a very harsh interpretation of stuff. Or am I misinterpreting? There's no other possible reason why someone might want to own a professional sports team?
AA: " If you're going to latch onto Sterling and demonize and destroy him in a few days, you're setting a standard that you have to be willing to apply in a principled, across-the-board manner."
Wrong.
These types of "standards" have not and will not be applied in any sort of "principled" manner.
We have legions of examples of this everywhere we look in our culture today.
Why would you think that "principles" would "have to be" applied in an even manner in this circumstance? And just who the hell would be in place to complain about the unevenness in the application of standards? The media? The one that is busy explaining away the Benghazi email today?
Too funny.
AA: "You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied."
So, they'll do it unethically.
As always.
Next topic.
Shorten that to being a rich alpha male. Where else does the successful male get to show off? Politics is half women.
Since we may now ban people from the NBA for life out of nothing more than outrage, I nominate Shaq. http://nypost.com/2014/04/30/shaq-apologizes-for-mocking-disabled-fans-selfie/
Or how about this guy? Is Sterling worse than him? It is debatable. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/brooklyn-nets-owner-wants-move-team-control-russia-protest-u-s-sanctions/
Others...that have actually listened to the entire 1.5 hour tape (many, many hours have been recorded), make the point Sterling seemed more interested in what "his friends" thought about his "girlfriend" hanging out with *blacks than anything else..
I wonder who his friends are, and if they own anything-
Others, still, mainly sports websites, wonder why he's being demonized for something they agree with--that, as a white guy, don't want their friends to know the girlfriend is hanging out/banging black guys.
*African American/Afro-American/Negro/Colored....or whatever "they" decide is not acceptable when the winds shift....ever so slightly, suddenly.
You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied.
Oh yes you can, especially if you're a leftist.
"If you’re attracted to owning a sports team, there is something very sinister about you."
Says the guy who will never be rich enough to own a sports franchise.
Also, George W. Bush was general manager of the Rangers, with a fairly small percentage of ownership. He didn't "own" the team.
sinsiter?
jeez, c'mon
This reminds me of the Fiesta Bowl/John Junker fall out from a few years ago. The media went crazy on the campaign finance violation and the salacious manner in which Junker spent Fiesta Bowl money. The BCS and other big bowls did a great job keeping the spot light on Junker. But I guarantee that behind the scenes they were all quaking in their boots that the spot light would turn on them. Lucky for them the public outrage died out and the self-muzzled media kept the story localized.
You can see this also when a reporters lose their perspective on who butters their bread when they report a bit too much on athletes' activities off the field. They are quickly slapped down before the stories get too big or spread too far (Lebron).
Probably something to do with media in bed with sports. Same goes for media and politicians.
You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied.
....Thanks Ann for being THE ETHICAL COMPASS of the mainstream media and entertainment complex.
Yep, can't wait for our media darlings to expose Michael Jordan's past.
The best owners are the ones you hear about the least--they sit back, let the professionals run the team, occasionally have to change management, but do everything quietly and efficiently. Major league professional sports teams are almost always profitable, like any protected monopoly--they're great toys for the rich to park their money into. It's just the egomaniacs and nutjobs (e.g., Dan Snyder, George Steinbrenner) who end up in the news for their various levels of crappulence.
Well heck, I thought that allowing a serial dog torturer and killer back in the NFL constituted a new standard of lax accountability but I guess not.
But then Sterling made some rich black athletes feel bad which, I now gather, is WAY worse.
Think Herb Kohl. They are not all assholes.
There was a similar brouhaha a couple of decades ago when Marge Shott (a woman!) who owned the Cincinnati Reds made some racist remarks. I remember there was a lot of media shaming directed towards her, but I don't remember if she was officially censured by the Baseball Commissioner. Meade, this was in your old stomping grounds. Whatever happened to her?
"If you’re attracted to owning a sports team, there is something very sinister about you. There is a much deeper problem. It’s pathetic."
If only he could have said anything at all about why he believes that.
But, nope. Next paragraph, entirely new topic.
(Could be the interviewer or editor's fault, I suppose, but same effect.
We're left with a context-free judgment of an entire varied class of people who own teams in entirely different sports, by the mere fact of wanting to.
Mark Cuban is "very sinister".
Guys who own soccer teams are "very sinister".
Please.
Spare me the blanket condemnation of anyone who owns a sports team - and I say this as someone entirely ambivalent to team sports.
"You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied.
'Lefties do it all the time.'"
But they don't. They are rarely satisfied. Here is a good theory as to why that is so.
I'm thinking that Herb Kohl has owned a few assholes in his time.
I agree with a lot of what Jason Whitlock had to say about it:
Link
Larry Davis said...
I agree with a lot of what Jason Whitlock had to say about it:
Specifically?
"If you’re attracted to owning a sports team, there is something very sinister about you. There is a much deeper problem. It’s pathetic."
The thing is I'm not sure if he's saying it because that's how he feels or that he wants to get a rise out of people. You can't tell with these douche bags cranked out of the Daily Show factory.
It used to be said that it was nice to have people who owned sports teams: it was a good way to identify the stupid rich people in the country.
But for a couple of decades now owning a sports team is a good way to mint money, so that's no longer true.
(It is still true of BMW owners, though.)
"If you’re writing for the Daily Beast or ever worked for the Daily Show, there is something very sinister about you. There is a much deeper problem. It’s pathetic.”
FIFY
I think I agree with that. If you're going to latch onto Sterling and demonize and destroy him in a few days, you're setting a standard that you have to be willing to apply in a principled, across-the-board manner
Good. Let's start with a serious investigation as to how many, if not most, of these current NBA players made it into the college ranks, from where they jumped to the NBA.
Have you heard some of them speak? No fucking way they were academically eligible for acceptance to a college.
People in glass houses . . .
You can't tell with these douche bags cranked out of the Daily Show factory.
You can tell some things. My understanding is he's planning on having a show that's similar to an existing news show, but his innovation will be to inject humor and leftism.
Sterling's wife, when he was working on his first billion, helped him oppress blacks and Latinos. There's an article in the Daily Beast about how she posed as a city inspector in order to harass such tenants. This doesn't look like a lovable family......Remember the Simpson trial.. Everybody connected with it turned out to vain, self indulgent, and foolish. This case looks similar. Can you point to anyone who looks good in this entire affair?
"People need to get their heads out their klavans and realize that this here is fun to talk about, but this is nothing, the real stuff that happened was [the Sterling's record of housing discrimination]. So when all these guys get up here and stand on their soapbox and wag their fingers and start talking about 'Oh, we won't tolerate this racism! We won't tolerate what Donald Sterling said!' What they're not tolerating about Donald Sterling is the fact that what he said was impolite. And what he said was gauche. That's what their problem is. But when Donald Sterling was out here, toying with people's lives, on things that really matter, as matters of life and death, the media, the NBA, these sponsors, and all these people now who want to be patted on the back for what good people they are, didn't say a mumbling word. They can all kiss my behind. Every single one of them."
I mean, SomeoneHasToSayIt DID mention "People in glass houses . . ."
Have you heard some of them speak?
ahhh....they majored in basketball.
Speaking, and writing just weren't part of the curriculum.
Wally Kalbacken said...
I'm thinking that Herb Kohl has owned a few assholes in his time.
You, sir, are certainly unlike Herb Kohl. Senator Kohl is a decent thoughtful man who has acted honorably throughout his life in all of his business, political and personal dealings. He is a wealthy man who has lived a life marked by humility and civic concern. While I am sure he has not been perfect, I can not recall a single instance in his long life where he engaged in personal attacks to further his interests. He certainly never did so for the fun of it, as you have just done.
I strongly disagree with most of Herb Kohl's political outlook. But I recognize a good man when I see one. And nasty ones too, Mr. Wally Kalbacken.
Thought I might like Oliver - but he's sounding more like classic eurotrash...
Let's start with a serious investigation as to how many, if not most, of these current NBA players made it into the college ranks, from where they jumped to the NBA.
After everyone's done pretending to give a crap... then what? The only people who are arguably entitled to collect damages are the players themselves, since they made major cash for universities that had no interest in actually educating them.
Crack
He has that exactly right. The smug brigade out for a parade and a party for themselves. Ignored this asshole for decades.
Revenant said...
The only people who are arguably entitled to collect damages are the players themselves, since they made major cash for universities that had no interest in actually educating them.
I think you meant to write:
" . . . , since they made major cash for universities that had no [business] actually [admitting] them."
Low profile? Sports team owners? What other reason is there to buy a team?
Baseball learned its lesson with Marge Schott. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and another of our creepy billionaire class, has wanted to buy a baseball team for years. Shut out.
Basketball now has to face the music. A Russian oligarch is the owner of the Brooklyn team. How savory is that?
Lie down with dogs....
Donald Sterling looks like Mr. Toad, then he's a billionaire who looks like Mr. Toad, then he's a billionaire who looks like Mr. Toad who's bought this gold-digger girlfriend who won't stay bought. Then he's a racist who was buying the NAACP's silence. It all crashes down and who's is going to pick through the sleaze and defend him? The NBA can't really tell him to sell the team but he's wrecking the team's hard work and he's just so ...
"People need to get their heads out their klavans and realize that this here is fun to talk about, but this is nothing, the real stuff that happened was [housing discrimination]. So when all these guys get up here and stand on their soapbox and wag their fingers and start talking about 'Oh, we won't tolerate this racism! We won't tolerate what Donald Sterling said!' What they're not tolerating about Donald Sterling is the fact that what he said was impolite. And what he said was gauche. That's what their problem is. But when Donald Sterling was out here, toying with people's lives, on things that really matter, as matters of life and death, the media, the NBA, these sponsors, and all these people now who want to be patted on the back for what good people they are, didn't say a mumbling word. They can all kiss my behind. Every single one of them."
This.
Sometimes even scum deserve to be defended. Sterling made comments in a private conversation with his mistress.
So now, anything we say in private can be tape recorded and made public? And we can be held responsible for it?
Not in my world. This has me divided. On one hand, liberal Sterling, Mr. Anti-racism, got hoisted on his petard. On the other hand, I don't like people getting destroyed because of what they say in private.
I can not recall a single instance in his long life where he engaged in personal attacks to further his interests.
Can you recall a single instance in his long life where he had a word of complaint about the vicious personal attacks other members of his party engaged in?
Crack is right: Bomani Jones has been on this for a long time. Thing is, people have wanted Sterling out of the NBA for a long time - not because he was/is a racist - because he did a terrible job running the Clippers. Up until the last few years, the Clippers have been an NBA joke. If an owner of the Spurs, Heat, Lakers, Celtics, or Bulls has said something as "impolite and gauche" (Jones nailed it there as well) there would have been a fine and 15 minutes of tut-tutting, and it would have been all over. Sterling had been a pox on the league and the additional history of racism didn't hurt. Out he goes. (The owner of the Knicks should sweep for bugs everywhere he goes.)
Sometimes even scum deserve to be defended. Sterling made comments in a private conversation with his mistress.
So now, anything we say in private can be tape recorded and made public? And we can be held responsible for it?
Not in my world. This has me divided. On one hand, liberal Sterling, Mr. Anti-racism, got hoisted on his petard. On the other hand, I don't like people getting destroyed because of what they say in private.
This. I kind of hope that the recording was illegal in the jurisdiction it was made in and the girlfriend not only gets prosecuted but Sterling sues her for damages. Not that he’d collect much but this is one case where I wouldn’t mind seeing the defendant being ruined by legal fees and a hefty judgment.
"I think I agree with that. If you're going to latch onto Sterling and demonize and destroy him in a few days, you're setting a standard that you have to be willing to apply in a principled, across-the-board manner. You can't ethically take your fill of Sterling, then walk away satisfied."
for example, take spike Lee. He demands action be taken for what sterling said, but he's the same guy that doesn't want white folks moving into his neighborhood. And who says when he sees interracial couples he throws visual daggers their way. If it's good enough to oust Sterling, surely something should be done about the Lee's if the world too. Right?
When Al Sharpton finally owns a pro sports team, will he be subject to the same treatment as his fellow racist Mr. Sterling?
The next step is perfectly illegal taps being accepted by the court of public opinion. Bells are not unrung.
What would be useful (and what would happen if Sterling were desirable to the left), would be demonization of the girl, the woman, the whore, the pig, the Jezebel, the Judas, whatever you call this Stiviano. Cheaters must not prosper.
Perhaps if she is torn apart it will provide a disincentive for such betrayals in future. It is extremely dangerous to our public life for this sort of thing to go on. I firmly believe that blackmailers should be shot and traitors go to the ninth circle of hell. It's hard to imagine something happening to her that would be worse than she deserves.
"It's like you can't even trust your gold-digging, openly flaunted mistress these days. What is the world coming to?"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा