Author Topic: Journalists nowadays  (Read 5345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2022, 07:31:15 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23415
  • Tommy Points: 2523
In today's social climate, if anything regarding race was considered by the organization, the Celtics would have bent over backwards to give Udoka the lightest consequence they could manage, not the other way around. Brad Stevens is about as woke as they come and he would have never signed off on the year-long suspension if he did not think it was warranted. There is so much about this situation that we do not know at this point. Eventually, it will all come out.
There has never been a better way to display an inability to come up with any kind of original thought than using the term 'woke'

Couldn’t agree more.  It’s about as lazy as it gets. A sweeping characterization based on the perception that someone has a liberal seeming view - hurl “woke” and job done.  It’s a stereotype that carries the effect of a blanket dismissal of the person (regardless of the totality of their views).  Just wave them away with a word. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2022, 08:06:36 AM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2022, 08:20:36 AM »

Online tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8163
  • Tommy Points: 550
In today's social climate, if anything regarding race was considered by the organization, the Celtics would have bent over backwards to give Udoka the lightest consequence they could manage, not the other way around. Brad Stevens is about as woke as they come and he would have never signed off on the year-long suspension if he did not think it was warranted. There is so much about this situation that we do not know at this point. Eventually, it will all come out.
There has never been a better way to display an inability to come up with any kind of original thought than using the term 'woke'

Couldn’t agree more.  It’s about as lazy as it gets. A sweeping characterization based on any perception of someone who espouses a liberal seeming view - hurl “woke” and job done.  It’s a stereotype that carries the effect of a blanket dismissal of the person (regardless of the totality of their views).  Just wave them away with a word.
Liberals do the same thing but they use terms like racist to do so. 

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2022, 09:13:18 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23415
  • Tommy Points: 2523
In today's social climate, if anything regarding race was considered by the organization, the Celtics would have bent over backwards to give Udoka the lightest consequence they could manage, not the other way around. Brad Stevens is about as woke as they come and he would have never signed off on the year-long suspension if he did not think it was warranted. There is so much about this situation that we do not know at this point. Eventually, it will all come out.
There has never been a better way to display an inability to come up with any kind of original thought than using the term 'woke'

Couldn’t agree more.  It’s about as lazy as it gets. A sweeping characterization based on any perception of someone who espouses a liberal seeming view - hurl “woke” and job done.  It’s a stereotype that carries the effect of a blanket dismissal of the person (regardless of the totality of their views).  Just wave them away with a word.
Liberals do the same thing but they use terms like racist to do so.

So you agree that it’s lazy and inappropriate.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2022, 09:30:45 AM »

Offline td450

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2330
  • Tommy Points: 254
In today's social climate, if anything regarding race was considered by the organization, the Celtics would have bent over backwards to give Udoka the lightest consequence they could manage, not the other way around. Brad Stevens is about as woke as they come and he would have never signed off on the year-long suspension if he did not think it was warranted. There is so much about this situation that we do not know at this point. Eventually, it will all come out.
There has never been a better way to display an inability to come up with any kind of original thought than using the term 'woke'

Couldn’t agree more.  It’s about as lazy as it gets. A sweeping characterization based on any perception of someone who espouses a liberal seeming view - hurl “woke” and job done.  It’s a stereotype that carries the effect of a blanket dismissal of the person (regardless of the totality of their views).  Just wave them away with a word.
Liberals do the same thing but they use terms like racist to do so.

Perhaps you could give us some examples.

The term "racist" is much more concise than "woke" is, and is generally used in much more targeted ways. When used by opposing sides, they represent the two extremes of racism: embracing racial inequity, or being so focused with achieving racial equity that you hurt people.

Today's Democrats are absolutely required to be able to discuss and acknowledge race, but they cannot be successful if that is their defining issue. Republicans are finding that their base loves it when their candidates are primarily defined by opposition to "wokeism".


Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2022, 10:43:50 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33628
  • Tommy Points: 1546
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Because the Celtics were very clear today they weren’t going to talk about those details, and never in any article did he say either quote the Celtics or say they offered no comment.  If he Woj were working for the Washington Post, they’d absolutely have required that be included in an article.
Except it was a consensual relationship.  And you have no idea who the source is.  That was the point I was making.  I guarantee you Woj had sources that he trusted or he wouldn't have run with the story.  And since everything he said has been confirmed, he wasn't wrong. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2022, 10:53:56 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23415
  • Tommy Points: 2523
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Because the Celtics were very clear today they weren’t going to talk about those details, and never in any article did he say either quote the Celtics or say they offered no comment.  If he Woj were working for the Washington Post, they’d absolutely have required that be included in an article.
Except it was a consensual relationship.  And you have no idea who the source is.  That was the point I was making.  I guarantee you Woj had sources that he trusted or he wouldn't have run with the story.  And since everything he said has been confirmed, he wasn't wrong.

He was inaccurate as result of a rush to report. Someone reports a consensual relationship and stops there, and someone else reports a consensual relationship followed by harassment.  The reports tell completely different stories. Accurate story telling is the job of a journalist. 

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2022, 10:56:21 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8826
  • Tommy Points: 289
It's definitely an issue to report something you don't get multiple sources and points of view on. But that's the nature of scoop reporting and hot takes today. Just put out content as quickly and loudly as possible.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2022, 11:37:44 AM »

Offline konkmv

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1518
  • Tommy Points: 104
So they are not reporters... journalists.. just entertainers

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2022, 11:47:17 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33628
  • Tommy Points: 1546
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Because the Celtics were very clear today they weren’t going to talk about those details, and never in any article did he say either quote the Celtics or say they offered no comment.  If he Woj were working for the Washington Post, they’d absolutely have required that be included in an article.
Except it was a consensual relationship.  And you have no idea who the source is.  That was the point I was making.  I guarantee you Woj had sources that he trusted or he wouldn't have run with the story.  And since everything he said has been confirmed, he wasn't wrong.

He was inaccurate as result of a rush to report. Someone reports a consensual relationship and stops there, and someone else reports a consensual relationship followed by harassment.  The reports tell completely different stories. Accurate story telling is the job of a journalist.
He wasn't inaccurate though and that wasn't his first report on the story.  His first tweet was
Quote
ESPN Sources: Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka is facing possible disciplinary action – including a significant suspension – for an unspecified violation of organizational guidelines. Discussions are ongoing within the Celtics on a final determination.

That was his first tweet. 

This was his 2nd one.

Quote
Ime Udoka’s job isn’t believed to be in jeopardy, but a suspension is looming and a final determination on that length could come as soon as Thursday, sources tell ESPN.

Then ESPN put up this story

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/34639780/boston-celtics-coach-ime-udoka-facing-potential-disciplinary-action-team-violation-sources-say

Quote
Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka is likely facing a suspension for the entire 2022-23 season for his role in an intimate relationship with a female member of the franchise's staff, sources told ESPN on Thursday.

None of that is inaccurate.  Udoka violated rules and did participate in an intimate relationship with a staff member. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2022, 11:51:47 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6227
  • Tommy Points: 823
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Because the Celtics were very clear today they weren’t going to talk about those details, and never in any article did he say either quote the Celtics or say they offered no comment.  If he Woj were working for the Washington Post, they’d absolutely have required that be included in an article.
Except it was a consensual relationship.  And you have no idea who the source is.  That was the point I was making.  I guarantee you Woj had sources that he trusted or he wouldn't have run with the story.  And since everything he said has been confirmed, he wasn't wrong.

He was inaccurate as result of a rush to report. Someone reports a consensual relationship and stops there, and someone else reports a consensual relationship followed by harassment.  The reports tell completely different stories. Accurate story telling is the job of a journalist.
He wasn't inaccurate though and that wasn't his first report on the story.  His first tweet was
Quote
ESPN Sources: Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka is facing possible disciplinary action – including a significant suspension – for an unspecified violation of organizational guidelines. Discussions are ongoing within the Celtics on a final determination.

That was his first tweet. 

This was his 2nd one.

Quote
Ime Udoka’s job isn’t believed to be in jeopardy, but a suspension is looming and a final determination on that length could come as soon as Thursday, sources tell ESPN.

Then ESPN put up this story

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/34639780/boston-celtics-coach-ime-udoka-facing-potential-disciplinary-action-team-violation-sources-say

Quote
Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka is likely facing a suspension for the entire 2022-23 season for his role in an intimate relationship with a female member of the franchise's staff, sources told ESPN on Thursday.

None of that is inaccurate.  Udoka violated rules and did participate in an intimate relationship with a staff member.

TP.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2022, 11:56:55 AM »

Offline sgrogan

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 744
  • Tommy Points: 25
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Because the Celtics were very clear today they weren’t going to talk about those details, and never in any article did he say either quote the Celtics or say they offered no comment.  If he Woj were working for the Washington Post, they’d absolutely have required that be included in an article.
Except it was a consensual relationship.  And you have no idea who the source is.  That was the point I was making.  I guarantee you Woj had sources that he trusted or he wouldn't have run with the story.  And since everything he said has been confirmed, he wasn't wrong.

He was inaccurate as result of a rush to report. Someone reports a consensual relationship and stops there, and someone else reports a consensual relationship followed by harassment.  The reports tell completely different stories. Accurate story telling is the job of a journalist.
I think that was Sham's
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/woj-clumsily-scooped-the-ime-udoka-story-allowing-shams-to-clean-up-the-mess/ar-AA128tIe

I guess we could have waited until Udoka wasn't at media day.

I understand things get out of control these days but even Watergate wasn't a complete story when it broke.
The talking heads pontificating are a different story, but there has always been a rush to break the story. It used to be thousands of words in the next days paper. Now its 150 characters, NOW.

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2022, 02:09:42 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7508
  • Tommy Points: 742
I'm still seeing people who seem to think the Celtics leaked this story.

What possible reason would the Celtics have for leaking this to Woj and/or Shams before their own announcement? I can't make any sense of that take.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2022, 04:24:37 PM »

Offline ozgod

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16942
  • Tommy Points: 1372
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Occam’s razor: the source is someone in Ime’s camp to 1) get ahead of the story and 2) muddy the waters and force the C’s into a tricky position where a “technically correct” statement isn’t possible to reply to during an expected media cycle because it might compromise future action.

I've mentioned this before. Who would have most to gain from leaking this story to Woj at 10pm on Wed night, the day that the law firm the Cs commissioned came down with their finding? And how was the story leaked? This is the exact wording of Woj's bomb:



"Suspension" for a "consensual relationship". First thing people think is that Ime is being suspended for a workplace affair. But for a year! Obviously the first response is, why? Why's he being suspended for something that two consenting adults did, that happens in every workplace in America? So the narrative is set by then. Ime is being harshly treated.

Then we find out more, from Shams, the next day:



But this report is in the Athletic, behind a paywall. So much fewer people see it. Shams didn't make reference to the "unwanted comments" in his tweet about the article:



So there were a number of leaks, the first one was to Woj, the second to Shams. Who benefited from the initial leak to Woj that made Ime look like he was being hard done by? Would the Celtics gain from it? Or would Ime gain? Did Woj know about the non-consensual part, or did he not bother to ask because he wanted to be the first to drop the story?

The second leak to Shams provides more clarity and details, but Shams put it behind the Athletic paywall.

Then Brad and Wyc hold a presser on Friday but they don't share any details, other than that it was a violation of rules, there was more than one violation, there was nobody other than Ime who committed the violations, that it was serious enough to deem a year punishment appropriate, and that Ime accepted the gravity of the punishment.

I really can't see how the initial leak benefited the Cs. I think Ime had the most to gain by doing that. It's more likely that the leak to Shams came from someone in the Cs organization, to defend the length of the suspension without running afoul of NDAs or other legal restraints on disclosing information. But they took too long to have their press conference to clarify certain details that they could publicly disclose. By letting a day lapse their female employees bore the brunt of social media and media speculation about who it was. Even now many people probably don't know that Ime was punished for something that appears to be non-consensual, you can tell from the comments on this site alone that not everyone has an Athletics sub and they don't know what details to believe.
Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2022, 05:36:42 PM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1761
  • Tommy Points: 349
Not sure why we would put Woj in the same bucket with SAS. Smith is an opinion machine. It’s his bit. Say something so extreme it starts a conversation. There are no “Smith bombs”. When I see a Woj bomb I can pretty much take to the bank that thewhat he said is going to happen is going to happen. Seems like reporting to me.
This is what I was thinking. What our opinions are of Woj, he's a reporter who created a brand based on being first at reporting. Shams is similar.

SAS and most of the rest of ESPN is just hot take, talking head bs. I can't stand it and wish fewer people tuned in for the crap.

Fixed that for you.

Woj does get points for being able to finish a sentence that doesn’t read like an AI trained on Bleacher Report articles run through Google translate.

But both of them are just access merchants.

There is value in knowing what is real and what is chum put out by a player, a team, an agent to move a narrative. How many stories do you read speculating about this trade or that trade? Shams and Woj don’t let themselves be part of that. Maybe it’s not deep investigative journalism, but it is actually breaking news, with some judgement about what to broadcast. We’d be a lot better off if everybody had the same filter.

At the same time, there is also value in not rushing to break every story and actually seeking to confirm with sources.  Woj is the one who first reported a consensual relationship, which is what started the rampant speculation, and at best it was more complicated than that.  Reaching out to the Celtics first for comment, rather than tweeting, would be a much better journalistic practice in this instance, and is how news organizations would function.
how do you know he didn't and how do you know who is source is?

Occam’s razor: the source is someone in Ime’s camp to 1) get ahead of the story and 2) muddy the waters and force the C’s into a tricky position where a “technically correct” statement isn’t possible to reply to during an expected media cycle because it might compromise future action.

I've mentioned this before. Who would have most to gain from leaking this story to Woj at 10pm on Wed night, the day that the law firm the Cs commissioned came down with their finding? And how was the story leaked? This is the exact wording of Woj's bomb:



"Suspension" for a "consensual relationship". First thing people think is that Ime is being suspended for a workplace affair. But for a year! Obviously the first response is, why? Why's he being suspended for something that two consenting adults did, that happens in every workplace in America? So the narrative is set by then. Ime is being harshly treated.

Then we find out more, from Shams, the next day:



But this report is in the Athletic, behind a paywall. So much fewer people see it. Shams didn't make reference to the "unwanted comments" in his tweet about the article:



So there were a number of leaks, the first one was to Woj, the second to Shams. Who benefited from the initial leak to Woj that made Ime look like he was being hard done by? Would the Celtics gain from it? Or would Ime gain? Did Woj know about the non-consensual part, or did he not bother to ask because he wanted to be the first to drop the story?

The second leak to Shams provides more clarity and details, but Shams put it behind the Athletic paywall.

Then Brad and Wyc hold a presser on Friday but they don't share any details, other than that it was a violation of rules, there was more than one violation, there was nobody other than Ime who committed the violations, that it was serious enough to deem a year punishment appropriate, and that Ime accepted the gravity of the punishment.

I really can't see how the initial leak benefited the Cs. I think Ime had the most to gain by doing that. It's more likely that the leak to Shams came from someone in the Cs organization, to defend the length of the suspension without running afoul of NDAs or other legal restraints on disclosing information. But they took too long to have their press conference to clarify certain details that they could publicly disclose. By letting a day lapse their female employees bore the brunt of social media and media speculation about who it was. Even now many people probably don't know that Ime was punished for something that appears to be non-consensual, you can tell from the comments on this site alone that not everyone has an Athletics sub and they don't know what details to believe.

Woj and Udoka have the same agent

Re: Journalists nowadays
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2022, 06:00:16 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
In today's social climate, if anything regarding race was considered by the organization, the Celtics would have bent over backwards to give Udoka the lightest consequence they could manage, not the other way around. Brad Stevens is about as woke as they come and he would have never signed off on the year-long suspension if he did not think it was warranted. There is so much about this situation that we do not know at this point. Eventually, it will all come out.
There has never been a better way to display an inability to come up with any kind of original thought than using the term 'woke'

Couldn’t agree more.  It’s about as lazy as it gets. A sweeping characterization based on any perception of someone who espouses a liberal seeming view - hurl “woke” and job done.  It’s a stereotype that carries the effect of a blanket dismissal of the person (regardless of the totality of their views).  Just wave them away with a word.
Liberals do the same thing but they use terms like racist to do so.
False equivalency 101
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)