Author Topic: Journalists nowadays  (Read 3462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2022, 06:15:18 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1705
  • Tommy Points: 144
  • International Superstar
"It started as a term for liberalism. Stay woke."

Thanks for making my point. Liberal-minded folks invented the term - proudly I might add.

My use of the word to describe Stevens in my original comment was not intended as critical, anyway. It was used only to make the larger point that the idea of the Celtics handing down a harsh punishment because Udoka is black was implausible. You turned it into an insult.

Just trying to follow along - since Stevens is woke, it’s unlikely that the Celtics would have given Udoka a harsh punishment (edit: or a harsher punishment than is absolutely necessary) because Ime is black?


Does this mean that, because Stevens is woke, we would expect him to give out a harsher punishment to a white head coach, all else being equal?

Again - just trying to figure out what “woke” means in the context that you used it.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2022, 06:23:39 PM by Kernewek »
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2022, 06:27:00 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8792
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
"It started as a term for liberalism. Stay woke."

Thanks for making my point. Liberal-minded folks invented the term - proudly I might add.

My use of the word to describe Stevens in my original comment was not intended as critical, anyway. It was used only to make the larger point that the idea of the Celtics handing down a harsh punishment because Udoka is black was implausible. You turned it into an insult.
And thanks for making mine. You know, the part you edited out:

Quote
But over the last 3-4 years it's been b(a)stardized into it's current use by conservatives to be insultingly divisive

Whether intended or not, given you are a conservative, your use was used in the insulting manner conservatives use it.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2022, 06:34:02 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18496
  • Tommy Points: 1797
"It started as a term for liberalism. Stay woke."

Thanks for making my point. Liberal-minded folks invented the term - proudly I might add.

My use of the word to describe Stevens in my original comment was not intended as critical, anyway. It was used only to make the larger point that the idea of the Celtics handing down a harsh punishment because Udoka is black was implausible. You turned it into an insult.

Just trying to follow along - since Stevens is woke, it’s unlikely that the Celtics would have given Udoka a harsh punishment (edit: or a harsher punishment than is absolutely necessary) because Ime is black?


Does this mean that, because Stevens is woke, we would expect him to give out a harsher punishment to a white head coach, all else being equal?

Again - just trying to figure out what “woke” means in the context that you used it.

I think his point is that the media has been making Udoka being punished for "this", whatever "this" is, because he's black (aka Stevens/Celtics being racist). And tenn finds it hard to believe considering that Stevens is "woke" he wouldn't punish Udoka for "this" for him being black. He's being punished for "this", just the same as a white employee would.

Further more, Stevens being "woke", and considering today's climate, it is far more likely that Stevens would've tried to be more lenient with his punishment than the punishment being too severe (if race was a factor).

Not that he did this, but just an illustration to show that it is highly unlikely that we got to this point because Udoka was black. Just the opposite if anything, at least as far as Stevens is concerned.

In other words, for those thinking this was too severe or worthy of punishment at all, it is highly unlikely that race played a role.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2022, 06:39:16 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20712
  • Tommy Points: 2226
"It started as a term for liberalism. Stay woke."

Thanks for making my point. Liberal-minded folks invented the term - proudly I might add.

My use of the word to describe Stevens in my original comment was not intended as critical, anyway. It was used only to make the larger point that the idea of the Celtics handing down a harsh punishment because Udoka is black was implausible. You turned it into an insult.

Just trying to follow along - since Stevens is woke, it’s unlikely that the Celtics would have given Udoka a harsh punishment (edit: or a harsher punishment than is absolutely necessary) because Ime is black?


Does this mean that, because Stevens is woke, we would expect him to give out a harsher punishment to a white head coach, all else being equal?

Again - just trying to figure out what “woke” means in the context that you used it.

Bingo as to why it is used ALWAYS as an insult by the right.  The assumption isn’t so much that the woke crowd would be liberal in a positive, respectful sense, the assumption is that the woke crowd would make ignorant decisions based on a hyperbolic view of left mindset.   

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2022, 06:41:09 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1705
  • Tommy Points: 144
  • International Superstar
"It started as a term for liberalism. Stay woke."

Thanks for making my point. Liberal-minded folks invented the term - proudly I might add.

My use of the word to describe Stevens in my original comment was not intended as critical, anyway. It was used only to make the larger point that the idea of the Celtics handing down a harsh punishment because Udoka is black was implausible. You turned it into an insult.

Just trying to follow along - since Stevens is woke, it’s unlikely that the Celtics would have given Udoka a harsh punishment (edit: or a harsher punishment than is absolutely necessary) because Ime is black?


Does this mean that, because Stevens is woke, we would expect him to give out a harsher punishment to a white head coach, all else being equal?

Again - just trying to figure out what “woke” means in the context that you used it.

I think his point is that the media has been making Udoka being punished for "this", whatever "this" is, because he's black (aka Stevens/Celtics being racist). And tenn finds it hard to believe considering that Stevens is "woke" he wouldn't punish Udoka for "this" for him being black. He's being punished for "this", just the same as a white employee would.

Further more, Stevens being "woke", and considering today's climate, it is far more likely that Stevens would've tried to be more lenient with his punishment than the punishment being too severe (if race was a factor).

Not that he did this, but just an illustration to show that it is highly unlikely that we got to this point because Udoka was black. Just the opposite if anything, at least as far as Stevens is concerned.

In other words, for those thinking this was too severe or worthy of punishment at all, it is highly unlikely that race played a role.

Ah ok -  i haven’t really seen any of the media stuff that you’re talking about, but I don’t doubt that it’s out there.

Edit: pushed the button too early: to the bolded that’s basically what I said, no?
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2022, 07:09:30 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30274
  • Tommy Points: 1404
Unwanted and inappropriate comments do not make the relationship non consensual
Nobody is saying that they do, but it's obviously not the full picture to just describe it as a consensual relationship.
read the long post right before mine basically saying Woj and Shams were incorrect by reporting it was consensual.  That is basically this entire thread so I felt my post was needed.
That doesn't seem to be anybody's problem. The issue people are having is attributing the suspension to a consensual relationship, which is incorrect.
I just disagree with that idea.  It was utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe the Celtics were going to suspend their coach for a full season because he had a consensual relationship.  It was clear a lot more had to go on, but the reporters can only report what they learn through reliable sources and there is nothing in the reporting that was inaccurate.  We still don't have a complete picture of what happened and we probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean the reporters shouldn't report what they have learned.  They absolutely should.  That is their job.

"Full season" was a later development. And by the time that came to be, the idea of punishment for a consensual relationship was already ingrained in the discussion, so much so that it is precisely this why most talking heads have taken the position they have on this matter and disregarding all else.
No it wasn't. Woj's first post said significant and the first time Woj mentioned they were considering a full season ban was the first time he mentioned a relationship.  At that time I believe Shams or others had also already mentioned the year. 
I was finally wrong. Boston not only didn't win in 5, but didn't win at all.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2022, 07:30:52 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4804
  • Tommy Points: 550
Thank You Budweiser, and JSD, for attempting to bring some sanity to this discussion.

Now, can the rest of you put aside, for now, your obsession with politics or me or whatever it is and get back to the Celtics issue.

Lord, you are exhausting - like a dog with a bone.
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2022, 07:38:20 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28702
  • Tommy Points: 1483
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
"It started as a term for liberalism. Stay woke."

Thanks for making my point. Liberal-minded folks invented the term - proudly I might add.

My use of the word to describe Stevens in my original comment was not intended as critical, anyway. It was used only to make the larger point that the idea of the Celtics handing down a harsh punishment because Udoka is black was implausible. You turned it into an insult.

Just trying to follow along - since Stevens is woke, it’s unlikely that the Celtics would have given Udoka a harsh punishment (edit: or a harsher punishment than is absolutely necessary) because Ime is black?


Does this mean that, because Stevens is woke, we would expect him to give out a harsher punishment to a white head coach, all else being equal?

Again - just trying to figure out what “woke” means in the context that you used it.

I think his point is that the media has been making Udoka being punished for "this", whatever "this" is, because he's black (aka Stevens/Celtics being racist). And tenn finds it hard to believe considering that Stevens is "woke" he wouldn't punish Udoka for "this" for him being black. He's being punished for "this", just the same as a white employee would.

Further more, Stevens being "woke", and considering today's climate, it is far more likely that Stevens would've tried to be more lenient with his punishment than the punishment being too severe (if race was a factor).

Not that he did this, but just an illustration to show that it is highly unlikely that we got to this point because Udoka was black. Just the opposite if anything, at least as far as Stevens is concerned.

In other words, for those thinking this was too severe or worthy of punishment at all, it is highly unlikely that race played a role.
Is that what he's really implying?

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2022, 08:09:40 PM »

Offline Kernewek

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1705
  • Tommy Points: 144
  • International Superstar
Thank You Budweiser, and JSD, for attempting to bring some sanity to this discussion.

Now, can the rest of you put aside, for now, your obsession with politics or me or whatever it is and get back to the Celtics issue.

Lord, you are exhausting - like a dog with a bone.

So you do think Stevens would punish non-black employees more severely?
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.

But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2022, 08:17:11 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18496
  • Tommy Points: 1797
Unwanted and inappropriate comments do not make the relationship non consensual
Nobody is saying that they do, but it's obviously not the full picture to just describe it as a consensual relationship.
read the long post right before mine basically saying Woj and Shams were incorrect by reporting it was consensual.  That is basically this entire thread so I felt my post was needed.
That doesn't seem to be anybody's problem. The issue people are having is attributing the suspension to a consensual relationship, which is incorrect.
I just disagree with that idea.  It was utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe the Celtics were going to suspend their coach for a full season because he had a consensual relationship.  It was clear a lot more had to go on, but the reporters can only report what they learn through reliable sources and there is nothing in the reporting that was inaccurate.  We still don't have a complete picture of what happened and we probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean the reporters shouldn't report what they have learned.  They absolutely should.  That is their job.

"Full season" was a later development. And by the time that came to be, the idea of punishment for a consensual relationship was already ingrained in the discussion, so much so that it is precisely this why most talking heads have taken the position they have on this matter and disregarding all else.
No it wasn't. Woj's first post said significant and the first time Woj mentioned they were considering a full season ban was the first time he mentioned a relationship.  At that time I believe Shams or others had also already mentioned the year.

Again, by the time "Full season" was mentioned..."consensual relationship" was already running. Something that Woj later affirmed.

"Significant" is meaningless descriptor without context.

REGARDLESS, the notion that he's being punished for a consensual relationship is inaccurate.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2022, 08:37:15 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20712
  • Tommy Points: 2226
Unwanted and inappropriate comments do not make the relationship non consensual
Nobody is saying that they do, but it's obviously not the full picture to just describe it as a consensual relationship.
read the long post right before mine basically saying Woj and Shams were incorrect by reporting it was consensual.  That is basically this entire thread so I felt my post was needed.
That doesn't seem to be anybody's problem. The issue people are having is attributing the suspension to a consensual relationship, which is incorrect.
I just disagree with that idea.  It was utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe the Celtics were going to suspend their coach for a full season because he had a consensual relationship.  It was clear a lot more had to go on, but the reporters can only report what they learn through reliable sources and there is nothing in the reporting that was inaccurate.  We still don't have a complete picture of what happened and we probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean the reporters shouldn't report what they have learned.  They absolutely should.  That is their job.

"Full season" was a later development. And by the time that came to be, the idea of punishment for a consensual relationship was already ingrained in the discussion, so much so that it is precisely this why most talking heads have taken the position they have on this matter and disregarding all else.
No it wasn't. Woj's first post said significant and the first time Woj mentioned they were considering a full season ban was the first time he mentioned a relationship.  At that time I believe Shams or others had also already mentioned the year.

Again, by the time "Full season" was mentioned..."consensual relationship" was already running. Something that Woj later affirmed.

"Significant" is meaningless descriptor without context.

REGARDLESS, the notion that he's being punished for a consensual relationship is inaccurate.

If a reporter believes that a full season suspension would be too harsh for a consensual relationship maybe that reporter would be smart (ethical) to wait for information to come out that would make the crime and punishment seem congruent.  Instead, the initial report is announced quickly, which turns out to be inaccurate, and the speculation floodgates begin.  Per the thread title, that is journalism nowadays.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2022, 11:15:10 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30274
  • Tommy Points: 1404
Unwanted and inappropriate comments do not make the relationship non consensual
Nobody is saying that they do, but it's obviously not the full picture to just describe it as a consensual relationship.
read the long post right before mine basically saying Woj and Shams were incorrect by reporting it was consensual.  That is basically this entire thread so I felt my post was needed.
That doesn't seem to be anybody's problem. The issue people are having is attributing the suspension to a consensual relationship, which is incorrect.
I just disagree with that idea.  It was utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe the Celtics were going to suspend their coach for a full season because he had a consensual relationship.  It was clear a lot more had to go on, but the reporters can only report what they learn through reliable sources and there is nothing in the reporting that was inaccurate.  We still don't have a complete picture of what happened and we probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean the reporters shouldn't report what they have learned.  They absolutely should.  That is their job.

"Full season" was a later development. And by the time that came to be, the idea of punishment for a consensual relationship was already ingrained in the discussion, so much so that it is precisely this why most talking heads have taken the position they have on this matter and disregarding all else.
No it wasn't. Woj's first post said significant and the first time Woj mentioned they were considering a full season ban was the first time he mentioned a relationship.  At that time I believe Shams or others had also already mentioned the year.

Again, by the time "Full season" was mentioned..."consensual relationship" was already running. Something that Woj later affirmed.

"Significant" is meaningless descriptor without context.

REGARDLESS, the notion that he's being punished for a consensual relationship is inaccurate.
I laid out the Woj tweets and articles in this thread.  Woj never said it was a consensual relationship until he also mentioned they were considering a year suspension.  Any one that thought the Celtics were considering a year suspension for a consensual relationship, has lost touch with reality.

Shams initial tweet said on the subject said that Udoka had "an inappropriate and consensual relationship".  If people don't want to read the inappropriate, that is on them.  It doesn't make the reporting inaccurate though. 
I was finally wrong. Boston not only didn't win in 5, but didn't win at all.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #72 on: September 26, 2022, 04:18:52 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18496
  • Tommy Points: 1797
Unwanted and inappropriate comments do not make the relationship non consensual
Nobody is saying that they do, but it's obviously not the full picture to just describe it as a consensual relationship.
read the long post right before mine basically saying Woj and Shams were incorrect by reporting it was consensual.  That is basically this entire thread so I felt my post was needed.
That doesn't seem to be anybody's problem. The issue people are having is attributing the suspension to a consensual relationship, which is incorrect.
I just disagree with that idea.  It was utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe the Celtics were going to suspend their coach for a full season because he had a consensual relationship.  It was clear a lot more had to go on, but the reporters can only report what they learn through reliable sources and there is nothing in the reporting that was inaccurate.  We still don't have a complete picture of what happened and we probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean the reporters shouldn't report what they have learned.  They absolutely should.  That is their job.

"Full season" was a later development. And by the time that came to be, the idea of punishment for a consensual relationship was already ingrained in the discussion, so much so that it is precisely this why most talking heads have taken the position they have on this matter and disregarding all else.
No it wasn't. Woj's first post said significant and the first time Woj mentioned they were considering a full season ban was the first time he mentioned a relationship.  At that time I believe Shams or others had also already mentioned the year.

Again, by the time "Full season" was mentioned..."consensual relationship" was already running. Something that Woj later affirmed.

"Significant" is meaningless descriptor without context.

REGARDLESS, the notion that he's being punished for a consensual relationship is inaccurate.
I laid out the Woj tweets and articles in this thread.  Woj never said it was a consensual relationship until he also mentioned they were considering a year suspension.  Any one that thought the Celtics were considering a year suspension for a consensual relationship, has lost touch with reality.

Shams initial tweet said on the subject said that Udoka had "an inappropriate and consensual relationship".  If people don't want to read the inappropriate, that is on them.  It doesn't make the reporting inaccurate though.

Regarding Woj, you're moving the goalpost. Your initial breakdown of Woj reports omitted the time he used "consensual". Now it is that he only said it when he mentioned the year long potential suspension. Which again, is meaningless considering what other reports have mentioned in the meantime. Woj's reports aren't introduced in a vacuum, more so when he affirms them with his own take.

As for "inappropriate"? That has ZERO meaning in the context of a workplace environment.

REGARDLESS, we are still left with both these reporters trying to make it seem as if Udoka was being punished for a consensual relationship. Again, that is inaccurate.

But whatever, if you want to defend shoddy reporting, that's on you. I wasted enough time on this as it is.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2022, 04:30:12 AM by BudweiserCeltic »

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #73 on: September 26, 2022, 06:19:47 AM »

Online SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35127
  • Tommy Points: 2808
I’m now waiting to hear the “Rest of the Story “,   maybe he got off too easy,  seemed too harsh at first,  but then I don’t call myself a journalist.   

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #74 on: September 26, 2022, 07:55:45 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30274
  • Tommy Points: 1404
Unwanted and inappropriate comments do not make the relationship non consensual
Nobody is saying that they do, but it's obviously not the full picture to just describe it as a consensual relationship.
read the long post right before mine basically saying Woj and Shams were incorrect by reporting it was consensual.  That is basically this entire thread so I felt my post was needed.
That doesn't seem to be anybody's problem. The issue people are having is attributing the suspension to a consensual relationship, which is incorrect.
I just disagree with that idea.  It was utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe the Celtics were going to suspend their coach for a full season because he had a consensual relationship.  It was clear a lot more had to go on, but the reporters can only report what they learn through reliable sources and there is nothing in the reporting that was inaccurate.  We still don't have a complete picture of what happened and we probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean the reporters shouldn't report what they have learned.  They absolutely should.  That is their job.

"Full season" was a later development. And by the time that came to be, the idea of punishment for a consensual relationship was already ingrained in the discussion, so much so that it is precisely this why most talking heads have taken the position they have on this matter and disregarding all else.
No it wasn't. Woj's first post said significant and the first time Woj mentioned they were considering a full season ban was the first time he mentioned a relationship.  At that time I believe Shams or others had also already mentioned the year.

Again, by the time "Full season" was mentioned..."consensual relationship" was already running. Something that Woj later affirmed.

"Significant" is meaningless descriptor without context.

REGARDLESS, the notion that he's being punished for a consensual relationship is inaccurate.
I laid out the Woj tweets and articles in this thread.  Woj never said it was a consensual relationship until he also mentioned they were considering a year suspension.  Any one that thought the Celtics were considering a year suspension for a consensual relationship, has lost touch with reality.

Shams initial tweet said on the subject said that Udoka had "an inappropriate and consensual relationship".  If people don't want to read the inappropriate, that is on them.  It doesn't make the reporting inaccurate though.

Regarding Woj, you're moving the goalpost. Your initial breakdown of Woj reports omitted the time he used "consensual". Now it is that he only said it when he mentioned the year long potential suspension. Which again, is meaningless considering what other reports have mentioned in the meantime. Woj's reports aren't introduced in a vacuum, more so when he affirms them with his own take.

As for "inappropriate"? That has ZERO meaning in the context of a workplace environment.

REGARDLESS, we are still left with both these reporters trying to make it seem as if Udoka was being punished for a consensual relationship. Again, that is inaccurate.

But whatever, if you want to defend shoddy reporting, that's on you. I wasted enough time on this as it is.
no moving of the goalposts at all.  I posted his actual tweets.  You can read them.  The post you initially responded to of mine clearly said the first time Woj mentioned a relationship he also mentioned they were considering a year.  The fact that you fell for a mouthpiece like Stephen A Smith is on you, it doesn't make the actual reports of Woj or Shams inaccurate though. 
I was finally wrong. Boston not only didn't win in 5, but didn't win at all.