The Random Thought Thread

[rmcjacket23]

Blackmailers or terrorists really doesn't make a difference, the point is the same. If you think it's fine for a journalist to question the motives of alleged victims of rape then that's your choice. When it's been well documented that rapists escape prosecution and go on to rape further victims because of a victims fear of being further attacked than I'd rather be on the side doing something to reduce the prevalence of rape in todays society by callingthat shit out. If that makes me part of the so called cancel culture then so be it, at least I'll be able to look my daughter in the eye and say I tried to affect change.

I listen to Colin Cowherd pretty much every day. While I get why a lot of people don't like him or his opinions, there are some on said topics that make a ton of sense. And here's a good synopsis of his view on this...

"I don't want to have the "first" opinion on this... I want to have the last". I don't want to be the guy who claimed Watson is a sex predator until I've seen the full view of evidence. Just like I don't want to be the guy who shames these women as "money grabbers" until I've seen the full view of evidence. If nothing else, the Duke lacrosse scandal really should have shined a light on just how badly the media can whiff on these things very quickly, and just how little accountability they have in the end when they do.

I would be telling my daughter (though luckily she's too young to understand anything) that its perfectly OK not to have an opinion on everything, and its especially OK to not have an opinion on a topic where you have, quite literally, so little factual information.

And the media would be exponentially more credible and trustworthy if they took the same stance. Report actual information. Don't give me 2 minutes of facts and 58 minutes of commentary. Its total garbage.

I want to be the last guy to have an opinion on this topic, not the first.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

Yeah except, in the current media landscape, its not a two way street. "Bad journalism" only equates to giving unpopular, bad opinions, as opposed to popular, bad opinions.

There are many, many, many journalists, both nationally and local to that area, who have convicted Deshaun Watson in the court of public opinion already, and they've used their platform to do it. Those people will keep their jobs, and Aaron Wilson will not.

It would literally be impossible to reconcile those two things as "fair" if "irresponsible journalism" is the "charge" that Wilson has been convicted of.

Wilson didn't get fired for irresponsible journalism. He got fired because he made unpopular statements, has an unpopular opinion on the subject, and used an analogy that may have offended a small portion of the population who clearly isn't very intelligent and can't think for themselves to begin with.

The idea that he's fired for "bad journalism" is just a smoke screen. Its just the PC way of saying "I don't like what he said, and neither do our readers, so he's out". Because if you admit the real reason why he got fired, then you look like a gigantic hypocrite.

I haven't heard really any of the coverage of this case in the states, but I would hope that anyone who is weighing in on guilty/not guilty in either direction instead of reporting the facts would be disciplined for their conduct. It's a serious issue, not a gossip column and it's totally inappropriate.

Of course, I'm well aware that what I hope for and what happens rarely align.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

it's perfectly OK not to have an opinion on everything, and its especially OK to not have an opinion on a topic where you have, quite literally, so little factual information.

This is really important and totally lost in the social media age.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I haven't heard really any of the coverage of this case in the states, but I would hope that anyone who is weighing in on guilty/not guilty in either direction instead of reporting the facts would be disciplined for their conduct. It's a serious issue, not a gossip column and it's totally inappropriate.

Of course, I'm well aware that what I hope for and what happens rarely align.

I mean... here's the ugly truth though. The average person doesn't care one bit about "facts". The reason media networks spend so much time doing commentary and trotting out people with useless, baseless opinions, is because that's what the public wants. The public has a dire need to be told what to think.

That's why, when somebody like Wilson gets fired, and somebody tries to sell anybody on the idea that he was fired for "irresponsible journalism", just roll your eyes and laugh. It's total bullshit. 90% of all analysts, anchors, reporters, etc. who practice on any major news outlet, from CNN/Fox News all the way to the ESPN spectrums, wouldn't last one year in the industry if they were forced to actually practice responsible journalism. These networks quite literally generate revenue from practicing irresponsible journalism.

The only time these people get "disciplined" for anything is a) when they make something up so egregious that the network gets sued for it or b) when they have an unpopular opinion that they can't substantiate and it offends people to a level that sponsors start calling.

I'll give an unpopular opinion about the media coverage of this story in totality from my perspective:
1. I'd say I'm surprised by the "lack of coverage" by ESPN and other sports outlets on this, but honestly, I don't think they know what to do. Normally I'd expect a lot of commentary on these situations, but something tells me after Duke lacrosse and some of the other scandals where the media whiffed badly, I think they're taking a surprising restrained stance on doing too much commentary at this point. Mildly refreshing in this age.
2. I would have expected much more national media coverage on this, but if you buy into the largely "liberal bias" that exists among many of the major networks, its not really in their best interest to try to tear down a black athlete at this stage either. I would dare say that if this were a typical white QB, like a Peyton Manning, who was facing the same accusations, I think coverage would be a bit different.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

I mean... here's the ugly truth though. The average person doesn't care one bit about "facts". The reason media networks spend so much time doing commentary and trotting out people with useless, baseless opinions, is because that's what the public wants. The public has a dire need to be told what to think.

That's why, when somebody like Wilson gets fired, and somebody tries to sell anybody on the idea that he was fired for "irresponsible journalism", just roll your eyes and laugh. It's total bullshit. 90% of all analysts, anchors, reporters, etc. who practice on any major news outlet, from CNN/Fox News all the way to the ESPN spectrums, wouldn't last one year in the industry if they were forced to actually practice responsible journalism. These networks quite literally generate revenue from practicing irresponsible journalism.

The only time these people get "disciplined" for anything is a) when they make something up so egregious that the network gets sued for it or b) when they have an unpopular opinion that they can't substantiate and it offends people to a level that sponsors start calling.

I'll give an unpopular opinion about the media coverage of this story in totality from my perspective:
1. I'd say I'm surprised by the "lack of coverage" by ESPN and other sports outlets on this, but honestly, I don't think they know what to do. Normally I'd expect a lot of commentary on these situations, but something tells me after Duke lacrosse and some of the other scandals where the media whiffed badly, I think they're taking a surprising restrained stance on doing too much commentary at this point. Mildly refreshing in this age.
2. I would have expected much more national media coverage on this, but if you buy into the largely "liberal bias" that exists among many of the major networks, its not really in their best interest to try to tear down a black athlete at this stage either. I would dare say that if this were a typical white QB, like a Peyton Manning, who was facing the same accusations, I think coverage would be a bit different.

Only edit I would make to this is that the public has a dire need to he told what they already believe, rather than what to think. And plenty of outlets across the political spectrum are happy to monetize that.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

That last line right there is the problem though. Put aside the words he used, this guy essentially used his platform to tell a large number of people that these women are lying because Watson is a nice guy. He doesn't know what happened. It's irresponsible to make that comment with the platform he has. Nice-seeming guys can easily do bad shit; it's the inverse of the AB conversation we had the other day. It's one thing all of us having opinions, but that kind of platform comes with responsibility and he fell short of it. Good chance that's why he was fired, not the words he used.

I get your point, he used his platform irresponsibly, but if he had worded it another way and was simply defending watsons character, he probably wouldnt have been fired. The guy was clearly hunting for the right words and obviously he never found the right words, but while I completely understand the point he was getting at, it seems the outrage crowd doesn’t, and are in fact being obtuse by saying he’s equating these women to terrorists

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Yeah except, in the current media landscape, its not a two way street. "Bad journalism" only equates to giving unpopular, bad opinions, as opposed to popular, bad opinions.

There are many, many, many journalists, both nationally and local to that area, who have convicted Deshaun Watson in the court of public opinion already, and they've used their platform to do it. Those people will keep their jobs, and Aaron Wilson will not.

It would literally be impossible to reconcile those two things as "fair" if "irresponsible journalism" is the "charge" that Wilson has been convicted of.

Wilson didn't get fired for irresponsible journalism. He got fired because he made unpopular statements, has an unpopular opinion on the subject, and used an analogy that may have offended a small portion of the population who clearly isn't very intelligent and can't think for themselves to begin with.

The idea that he's fired for "bad journalism" is just a smoke screen. Its just the PC way of saying "I don't like what he said, and neither do our readers, so he's out". Because if you admit the real reason why he got fired, then you look like a gigantic hypocrite.

This is exactly the point I’m trying to make, why is it ok for most of the media to convict Watson of rape when there hasn’t even been a shred of real evidence, but the second Aaron Wilson voices his differing opinion he’s fired.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

I mean... here's the ugly truth though. The average person doesn't care one bit about "facts". The reason media networks spend so much time doing commentary and trotting out people with useless, baseless opinions, is because that's what the public wants. The public has a dire need to be told what to think.

That's why, when somebody like Wilson gets fired, and somebody tries to sell anybody on the idea that he was fired for "irresponsible journalism", just roll your eyes and laugh. It's total bullshit. 90% of all analysts, anchors, reporters, etc. who practice on any major news outlet, from CNN/Fox News all the way to the ESPN spectrums, wouldn't last one year in the industry if they were forced to actually practice responsible journalism. These networks quite literally generate revenue from practicing irresponsible journalism.

The only time these people get "disciplined" for anything is a) when they make something up so egregious that the network gets sued for it or b) when they have an unpopular opinion that they can't substantiate and it offends people to a level that sponsors start calling.

I'll give an unpopular opinion about the media coverage of this story in totality from my perspective:
1. I'd say I'm surprised by the "lack of coverage" by ESPN and other sports outlets on this, but honestly, I don't think they know what to do. Normally I'd expect a lot of commentary on these situations, but something tells me after Duke lacrosse and some of the other scandals where the media whiffed badly, I think they're taking a surprising restrained stance on doing too much commentary at this point. Mildly refreshing in this age.
2. I would have expected much more national media coverage on this, but if you buy into the largely "liberal bias" that exists among many of the major networks, its not really in their best interest to try to tear down a black athlete at this stage either. I would dare say that if this were a typical white QB, like a Peyton Manning, who was facing the same accusations, I think coverage would be a bit different.

I don’t wanna word this the wrong way, but there’s no other way to word it really so I’ll just be blunt... in 2021, what is a network to do when you have the #metoo movement on one side, and a prominent black athlete of formerly exceptional character on the other? Seems the few who have chosen to speak up have chosen to convict Watson, and the ones who disagree just get fired

 

[SepticeyePoe]

 

[rmcjacket23]

I don’t wanna word this the wrong way, but there’s no other way to word it really so I’ll just be blunt... in 2021, what is a network to do when you have the #metoo movement on one side, and a prominent black athlete of formerly exceptional character on the other? Seems the few who have chosen to speak up have chosen to convict Watson, and the ones who disagree just get fired

Well, reporting only what information you have would be a good first step. It's more or less just pointing out the hypocrisies and biases that already exist.

I think the media, generally, has done well with this story. Not nearly as much commentary as one would expect, and they're largely just letting it "play out" in a lot of cases. I'm mostly pointing out the obvious (at least to me), which is that some levels of said restraint are being driven entirely by the skin color of the person being accused.

I think if you're going to be a network who has an opinion on seemingly all topics, and especially topics that involve racial divide, it seems somewhat cowardly to take a somewhat silent stance on a topic like this, which involves a prominent, powerful, rich black person being accused of what I would consider to be very "white person" crimes.

Remember, ESPN and other major news outlets were suggesting that Bob Kraft should be forced to sell the Patriots because he paid a masseuse for consensual sexual favors.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Greenman!

 

[QuothTheRaven]

This popped up on my Facebook feed. Always worth a share.

 

[rossihunter2]

Comparing isnt equating.

he’s drawing an analogy by the situation, it was a saying that is commonly understood and everyone knows the context. If he were to not use a commonly understood phrase and instead say “you don’t give in to blackmailers” would that make everyone happy? Because that is what he was trying to say, but instead of saying that, he used a commonly understood expression, which is something people do A LOT in the English language, we use figures of speech all the time.

Oh and the answer to “would that make everyone happy?” is no, the fact that this reporter isn’t condemning deshaun Watson is all it will take to get anyone in an uproar. He probably wouldn’t have been fired had he used more direct words and not a figure of speech, hell who am I kidding yes he would have, but again, that’s cancel culture, irrational and driven by outrage and nothing more.

my issue is not honestly with the use of the word terrorist but with the analogy in stead - i'd have just as much of a problem with him insinuating they were blackmailers too

as others have said it's poor journalism to make those sorts of claims without some sort of backing behind them

 

[rossihunter2]

It’s also been well documented that false accusations of rape has ruined lives and the accusers face no repercussions even after innocence has been proven. Literally everything you’re saying can be argued for the opposite side of your argument, wanna know why? Because there are 2 sides and nobody knows the truth.

but the statistics say the complete opposite of this - false accusations make up a minuscule number of sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape cases - an almost negligible number are affected by those false accusations - it's incredibly unlikely for a false accusation to ever succeed in a case because it's already immensely difficult for actual survivors of sexual violence to even get to court in the first place...

on the other hand, the number of incidents of sexual violence that are successfully tried is a ridiculously low number - the amount of hurdles that survivors have to jump through just to get to court let alone actually win is immense and leads to under-reporting, lack of trust in the justice system and accusations of being a "false accuser" when convictions don't happen...

for a case to actually make it to some sort of legitimate criminal charge or court appearance is so difficult

so while you're right that it's possible all these things could be happening - the statistics are very much more in his favour than yours and to assume the women are blackmailing him in some way is fine if that's how you personally want to go about it but as a journalist it's irresponsible and ignores the wider issues of rape culture

at some point, sports journalism and sports in general has to catch up to other industries that have somewhat changed after "me too" (albeit nowhere near enough) - but sports has largely escaped that shift

 

[rossihunter2]

That last line right there is the problem though. Put aside the words he used, this guy essentially used his platform to tell a large number of people that these women are lying because Watson is a nice guy. He doesn't know what happened. It's irresponsible to make that comment with the platform he has. Nice-seeming guys can easily do bad shit; it's the inverse of the AB conversation we had the other day. It's one thing all of us having opinions, but that kind of platform comes with responsibility and he fell short of it. Good chance that's why he was fired, not the words he used.

especially important as upwards of 90% of women and girls have experienced some form of sexual harassment or assault or rape and the most likely perpetrators of those crimes are most often someone they know

likely someone who seemed nice

 

[JAAM]

Did I turn on light mode for the forums

 

[purplepittabread88]

Did I turn on light mode for the forums

No sorry about that, It's turned on for default right now. It should be whatever you have set as default when you login to your account no?

 

[JAAM]

No sorry about that, It's turned on for default right now. It should be whatever you have set as default when you login to your account no?

Haha I actually don’t mind! Just took me by surprise. I like the change. I’ll probably keep it for a while

 

[Dom McRaven]

Haha I actually don’t mind! Just took me by surprise. I like the change. I’ll probably keep it for a while

I kept it for awhile and by awhile, I mean by 10 seconds.

 

[BoredMarine13]

especially important as upwards of 90% of women and girls have experienced some form of sexual harassment or assault or rape and the most likely perpetrators of those crimes are most often someone they know

likely someone who seemed nice

Where are those numbers coming from ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk