Bellichick, The Media and The Theater of Sports (warning: long read)

[PYPER]

Outstanding thread Wildo.

It's great to hear from like minded people. Sometimes I feel like the world has been taken over by talking monkeys and there are no intelligent thinkers left.

All your points are dead on.

I think a large part of the problem stems from our education system. We currently utilize an educational model based on regurgitation, rather than problem solving and creative thinking.

The end result are generations of people that don't know how to think. The masses don't like to think. They don't want to think. Depth and wisdom are two character traits on the brink of extinction.

It's a scary world...

Thanks for reminding me that there are still others like me out there.

 

[Wildo7]

Outstanding thread Wildo.

It's great to hear from like minded people. Sometimes I feel like the world has been taken over by talking monkeys and there are no intelligent thinkers left.

All your points are dead on.

I think a large part of the problem stems from our education system. We currently utilize an educational model based on regurgitation, rather than problem solving and creative thinking.

The end result are generations of people that don't know how to think. The masses don't like to think. They don't want to think. Depth and wisdom are two character traits on the brink of extinction.

It's a scary world...

Thanks for reminding me that there are still others like me out there.

Thank you, was that a MJK reference by any chance? If not nevermind, I just love the "talking monkeys" analogy.

 

[patchick]

I think the overriding problem in both sports and general media is that research has become an endangered species. It's not enough to want "facts" instead of "opinions" -- you have to want entire fact-gathering organizations. And you have to be willing to wait for the results of that fact gathering.

Investigative reporting is hard, time-consuming and resource-intensive. By the time you've completed your reporting, 25 other media outlets will have beaten you to the story with quick, easy sensationalism and commentary based on precious little information. By the time the facts would come out public interest has moved on, so why bother?

How can we expect in-depth reportage in sports when it's virtually dead in "serious" media? That, by the way, is why so many of us revere the NY Times despite its mistakes. It's definitely not a matter of liberal vs. conservative -- the Judith Miller scandal was about a bias toward the Bush administration, after all! It's because they operate the last real large-scale investigative reporting operation in America. The Times literally does more investigative reporting each week than the typical paper does in a year. If you don't see other papers making mistakes in their original, in-depth reporting it's because they don't do any.

Want to know how TV and radio news operations decide what to cover? They read the Times and the Wall St. Journal and recycle their topics the next day. No joke. I happen to be an expert on an odd little topic, and reporters call me for quotes and background fairly often. If that interview is with the NYT or WSJ, I'm guaranteed a flurry of calls from broadcast outlets right after. They never call me any other time. That's the state of "research" in broadcast journalism today.

 

[Wildo7]

I think the overriding problem in both sports and general media is that research has become an endangered species. It's not enough to want "facts" instead of "opinions" -- you have to want entire fact-gathering organizations. And you have to be willing to wait for the results of that fact gathering.

Investigative reporting is hard, time-consuming and resource-intensive. By the time you've completed your reporting, 25 other media outlets will have beaten you to the story with quick, easy sensationalism and commentary based on precious little information. By the time the facts would come out public interest has moved on, so why bother?

How can we expect in-depth reportage in sports when it's virtually dead in "serious" media? That, by the way, is why so many of us revere the NY Times despite its mistakes. It's definitely not a matter of liberal vs. conservative -- the Judith Miller scandal was about a bias toward the Bush administration, after all! It's because they operate the last real large-scale investigative reporting operation in America. The Times literally does more investigative reporting each week than the typical paper does in a year. If you don't see other papers making mistakes in their original, in-depth reporting it's because they don't do any.

Want to know how TV and radio news operations decide what to cover? They read the Times and the Wall St. Journal and recycle their topics the next day. No joke. I happen to be an expert on an odd little topic, and reporters call me for quotes and background fairly often. If that interview is with the NYT or WSJ, I'm guaranteed a flurry of calls from broadcast outlets right after. They never call me any other time. That's the state of "research" in broadcast journalism today.

That's an excellent point and I think the birth of 24 hour news coverage and the internet have played an enormous role in the erosion of investigative journalism. It is tough to blame Fox or CNN for example, when they have to compete with say, the Drudgereport for who will get the headline out there the fastest. Which is exactly why the 2000 election was such a debacle. But the front of the NY Times is usually impactful because investigative journalism lends itself to the long term, more deep-rooted story. It has the advantage of facts, sourcing and research, as you mentioned, while those other outlets can tell you what Hillary just said the moment after she said it. I think there's a place for both, but I don't think we have the balance right at all.

 

[WeBB15]

Well I really don't know what I'm disagreeing with either lol... i don't think I am.. idk

The point I was trying to make, was its not corporations and media outlets fault if they don't put out fact after fact news pieces all the time like they should be doing.. and that really is what news is(or was).

Its mostly our fault because once they started doing these speculation and opinion debates, segments, w/e on tv, the majority of us tuned in, and now that outlets know that, they will always implement it into there news segments because more viewers = more money.

Americans love opinions and comments and hearsay and gossip, etc. which is why you see opinionated news everywhere.... I mean look at the messageboard, why do we come here? Why is it so popular?... To hear others opinion and just get a feel what the other people like me and you are feeling, thinking, and going through. That's more interesting and more real to us americans than reading facts like a book. And media is taking what messageboards do(expect with single number of people), and putting in publicly in front of millions. And were loving it.(Majority of americans are)

Its not medias fault for doing what the majority of the people are interested in, that's their job... it is their fault for not providing any "real" 100%- only-factual news source like the BBC you mentioned., which I've never watched.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Wow this thread has taken an interesting turn. I fear I'm going to get flamed pretty soon.

I wouldn't say that Chomsky is in favor of doing away with Israel persay, he favors a two-state solution but not in the same way that Dershowitz claims to favor. Chomsky would argue that Israel has a disparate amount of power being largely dependant on the U.S. which aids it more than it does any other country. He has argued that Israel publicly claims to be working towards peace and making concessions for Israel while privately undermining it (i.e. pulling out of Gaza while expanding settlement projects). And anyone in Washington will tell you that the most influential foreign policy lobbying group is AIPAC. A President will never get elected without having their blessing/PAC money and thus American foreign policy will also coincide with the interests of Israel. The problem with wrapping a state and an ethnicity into one entity is that any criticism of the Israeli government and it's policies towards the Palestinian people is taken as a criticism of the jewish people, and thus the "anti-semite" label is a powerful tool in discrediting dissent, which is why you'll hear Dershowitz call Chomsky a "self-hating jew" which is pretty absurd if you think about it.

By the way, do you work in DC?

Yes, Wildo, I do work in DC - you?

By the way, I would like to say that the good Dr. Chomsky acquitted himself very well when faced with this cunning interviewer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro&mode=related&search=

Regardless, Dershowitz on Chomsky notwithstanding, Dershowitz on Israel is much more to the point than Chomsky on Israel, and I say this from the point of view of support for a two-state solution as well.

In your final sentence, your premise is that supporters of Israel have at their disposal the "antisemitism card," as I've heard it called here. Since it had not been previously brought up in this discussion, I would ask why bringing it up does not constitute playing the "antisemitism card card."

Was Vlaclav Hravel necessarily playing the "anti-Czech card" for supporting a Czech Republic? Is Vladimir Putin playing the "Russophobe" card, by being president of Russia rather than the old U.S.S.R.?

In short, why do we make this argument regarding Israel, but not other political entities which are defined in whole or in part by ethnicity?

Because we only call for the dismemberment of one ethnicity's nation-state, of all the ethnically defined nation-states in the world... Oh yes, of course kumbaya-singing multi-ethnic republics are the model! The US, of course, is the perfect model for such a republic, warts and all!

All the ethnic states can be brought down to make way for multiethnic perfect societies, all mutual antagonism and histories of bloodshed aside! Of course it can be done!

And just for a test case, let's use a... hmmmm... JEWISH state!

But on the slightly less inflammatory subject of US aid:

American direct aid to Israel is, in fact, disproportionate to Israel's size. The notion that Israel and the U.S. should talk about reducing it is not distasteful to me. Nor, surprisingly, is it distasteful to a group of Neocons (not my favs) who were meeting to discuss new directions for Israel. AIPAC reps were in attendance... Oddly enough, someone posted the procedings here, in an anti-Israel rant, claiming that the Israel Lobby had planned the invasion of Iraq, because that move was consistent with some Israelis' views at the time.

The same poster who led me to this, was trying to make the point about cutting US aid to Israel... he found himself tongue tied when he realized that this wasn't the "third rail" he imagined it to be, and that it was in discussion among Israel-backers as well.

The notion that all who disagree with an Israeli policy are anti-semites is absurd, and I don't know anyone who supports this notion. Dershowitz himself makes it quite clear that he does not.

The notion that disagreement with the founding of Israel is a sort of ex-post-facto anti-Semitism is also going too far; I do believe, however, that it is naive in the extreme.

But it is also going too far to jump to the conclusion that antisemitism is used primarily as a club, as Chomsky does. Dershowitz' point is that, when we judge Israel by the standards we use elsewhere, it is legit; but if we insist on different standards for Israel and Israel alone, one certainly has to ask why. And sometimes the answers are blatantly anti-Semitic.

By the way, you can never really be far enough Left: here's what became of the good Professor C when he had the timerity not to march in lockstep with Meirsheimer and Walt's recent controversial, and I would say laughable, essay on the the Zionist/AIPAC control of speech in America [sic]:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

A transform α indeed... (A transform א?)

PFnV

 

[Wildo7]

Yes, Wildo, I do work in DC - you?

By the way, I would like to say that the good Dr. Chomsky acquitted himself very well when faced with this cunning interviewer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro&mode=related&search=

Regardless, Dershowitz on Chomsky notwithstanding, Dershowitz on Israel is much more to the point than Chomsky on Israel, and I say this from the point of view of support for a two-state solution as well.

In your final sentence, your premise is that supporters of Israel have at their disposal the "antisemitism card," as I've heard it called here. Since it had not been previously brought up in this discussion, I would ask why bringing it up does not constitute playing the "antisemitism card card."

Was Vlaclav Hravel necessarily playing the "anti-Czech card" for supporting a Czech Republic? Is Vladimir Putin playing the "Russophobe" card, by being president of Russia rather than the old U.S.S.R.?

In short, why do we make this argument regarding Israel, but not other political entities which are defined in whole or in part by ethnicity?

Because we only call for the dismemberment of one ethnicity's nation-state, of all the ethnically defined nation-states in the world... Oh yes, of course kumbaya-singing multi-ethnic republics are the model! The US, of course, is the perfect model for such a republic, warts and all!

All the ethnic states can be brought down to make way for multiethnic perfect societies, all mutual antagonism and histories of bloodshed aside! Of course it can be done!

And just for a test case, let's use a... hmmmm... JEWISH state!

But on the slightly less inflammatory subject of US aid:

American direct aid to Israel is, in fact, disproportionate to Israel's size. The notion that Israel and the U.S. should talk about reducing it is not distasteful to me. Nor, surprisingly, is it distasteful to a group of Neocons (not my favs) who were meeting to discuss new directions for Israel. AIPAC reps were in attendance... Oddly enough, someone posted the procedings here, in an anti-Israel rant, claiming that the Israel Lobby had planned the invasion of Iraq, because that move was consistent with some Israelis' views at the time.

The same poster who led me to this, was trying to make the point about cutting US aid to Israel... he found himself tongue tied when he realized that this wasn't the "third rail" he imagined it to be, and that it was in discussion among Israel-backers as well.

The notion that all who disagree with an Israeli policy are anti-semites is absurd, and I don't know anyone who supports this notion. Dershowitz himself makes it quite clear that he does not.

The notion that disagreement with the founding of Israel is a sort of ex-post-facto anti-Semitism is also going too far; I do believe, however, that it is naive in the extreme.

But it is also going too far to jump to the conclusion that antisemitism is used primarily as a club, as Chomsky does. Dershowitz' point is that, when we judge Israel by the standards we use elsewhere, it is legit; but if we insist on different standards for Israel and Israel alone, one certainly has to ask why. And sometimes the answers are blatantly anti-Semitic.

By the way, you can never really be far enough Left: here's what became of the good Professor C when he had the timerity not to march in lockstep with Meirsheimer and Walt's recent controversial, and I would say laughable, essay on the the Zionist/AIPAC control of speech in America [sic]:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

A transform α indeed... (A transform א?)

PFnV

Yes I work in the Senate, you? We can move this to the political discussion forum because I fear when other see this we're going to get ripped apart.

I brought up the anti-semitism card as evidence for the point that I was making which is that criticism of Israel is far out of the realm of acceptable political discussion in this country. The difference between the "anti-semitism card" and those other examples you've listed is that anyone who criticizes Israel is labelled an antisemite, even jews such as Chomsky. If you can name me someone who criticizes Israel that has been called an anti-semite by Dershowitz etc. I'd be very surprised. Dershowitz has used this "anti-semite" accusation against Chomsky before, calling him a "self-hating jew" and similarly used it to discount Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" which was a line-by-line critique of Dershowitz' work.

Here's a good example of the power of AIPAC:

http://alternet.org/story/64833/

Israel has a unique history and cannot be held to the same standards as other countries as it has an extreme amount of military and political power and was formed at the expense of many who lived there and who are currently living in inhuman conditions as a result of settlement projects etc. The U.S. is culpable in much the same way for it's treatment of Native Americans and their subsequent relegation to reservations and extreme poverty.

Of course you cannot be too far left, that's where the truth lies, and where we discover the nature of power and those who wield it as well as the actual history of the United States (ala Howard Zinn).

 

[Wildo7]

And NC might have handled himself well, but Nader takes the cake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d28IFaRvkJ8

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yes I work in the Senate, you? We can move this to the political discussion forum because I fear when other see this we're going to get ripped apart.

I brought up the anti-semitism card as evidence for the point that I was making which is that criticism of Israel is far out of the realm of acceptable political discussion in this country. The difference between the "anti-semitism card" and those other examples you've listed is that anyone who criticizes Israel is labelled an antisemite, even jews such as Chomsky. If you can name me someone who criticizes Israel that has been called an anti-semite by Dershowitz etc. I'd be very surprised. Dershowitz has used this "anti-semite" accusation against Chomsky before, calling him a "self-hating jew" and similarly used it to discount Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" which was a line-by-line critique of Dershowitz' work.

Israel has a unique history and cannot be held to the same standards as other countries as it has an extreme amount of military and political power and was formed at the expense of many who lived there and who are currently living in inhuman conditions as a result of settlement projects etc. The U.S. is culpable in much the same way for it's treatment of Native Americans and their subsequent relegation to reservations and extreme poverty.

Of course you cannot be too far left, that's where the truth lies, and where we discover the nature of power and those who wield it as well as the actual history of the United States (ala Howard Zinn).

Exec branch, career guy, sleeves rolled up and in the weeds. Blissfully apolitical, in terms of policy positions for the positions' sake.

I understand your point of view, and of course, disagree. But I think you are correct in that we should move this to the political forum.

I thank all you other guys for putting up with my/our "bleedover" into politics from what's really important, that is, football.

By the way, Dershowitz has never called me anti-Semitic. More to the point, he hasn't "used" that charge on every critic of Israeli policy, or even close to it. However, Dershowitz is quite forthright about applying the term to those whose critique is that Israel exists at all; or that Israel must be held to different standards than other nations.

Again, we can continue elsewhere on the political forum. I do disagree with your premise that we use one bar for states whose populations are composed of other ethnicities, and another bar for the single state which is primarily Jewish. I'm fairly certain that is the textbook definition of discrimination.

If you post it, they will come.

PFnV

 

[ATippett56]

I agree that the NY Times, for example, can be trusted to have fair and accurate journalism. But remember that most Americans don't read the newspaper, they listen to talk radio and watch cable news. Turn on CNN and you get Lou Dobbs, turn on Fox and you get Bill O'Reilly, turn on the radio and you get Jay Severin etc. Unfortunately, that's what the main source of information for the majority of the United States has turned into. And it's really no better than First and Ten.

Talk about bias journalism. You must be a liberal.

 

[ATippett56]

That's why I was hesitant to go there. Say, if you read the Wall Street Journal and then read the NY Times you'd get a more balanced view, or whatever actual journalism and analysis you choose to read.

Do you have a brain?

 

[Wildo7]

Do you have a brain?

no I don't have a brain. Thanks for that excellent question and your searing analysis of what I wrote. Keep up the good work guy, your clearly out of my league.

 

[Captn]

You are late to the party, as others have made this point in numerous posts last month.

Hugo Chavez is the perfect example - but perhaps not the way you think. If you believe the mainstream media, he a champion for "civil rights", and a courageous leader for standing up to US "imperialism". The mainstream media dutifully amplifies every Bush-bashing statement he makes.

Of course, a more balanced media might point out that he is systematically dismantling what had been one of the most prosperous and stable democracies in South America, closing newpapers, intimidating voters and politicians with club and gun-toting mobs, and arresting opposition politicians on trumped up charges.

A more honest media may notice that he is "nationalizing" all the key industries, and transferring control to cronies and thugs. A less left-veering press may take note that Chavez has redirected the oil wealth that made Caracas one of the more modern cities south of the border, and embarked on an arms buildup that will give him one of the largest armies in South America.

A more critical press might report that he is arming and financing Marxist terrorist groups in surrounding countries, intent on overthrowing democracies throughout the region. And perhaps an unbiased press would investigate exactly what is on all those military cargo flights from Caracas to Havana to Damascus.

A truly objective and unbiased press might investigate all those things. I just wouldn't hold your breath.

After all, it was the New York Times itself who employed Walter Duranty - who for 20 years used the Times front page to cover up Stalin's 20 million dead by repeating Stalinist propaganda - to show us the "other" side of Stalin if you will - and won a Pulitzer for it. A horrid crime that has gone unacknowledged by the Times nor the Pulitzer committee to this day.

I hope that most fans here take what they saw happen here in the sports arena, and apply that same critical thinking process to what they are being fed in the mainstream media. Though in your case, I'm sure you won't be happy with the result.

R

WOW, awsome post. I was gonna post something but I think you took almost EVERY word out of my mouth. Wonderful post njpatsfan!

:rocker: :agree:

 

[Deus Irae]

no I don't have a brain. Thanks for that excellent question and your searing analysis of what I wrote. Keep up the good work guy, your clearly out of my league.

I don't want to get into politics on the sports section, but let me just point out to you that the Wall Street Journal has a moderately conservative editorial board, but the reporting staff does not follow the same bent, whereas the NYT is a fairly far left editorial AND reporting staff.

 

[Captn]

Again, you repeat the baseless accusations against Chavez of voter intimidation and "gun-toting" mobs and "financing Marxist terrorist groups" non of which there is any substantive evidence for. What there is evidence for, however, is that the last presidential election in Venezuela was fiercely monitored by international election NGOs and was incredibly transparent. You bring up oil, and his nationalizion of the Venezualan people's resources as an example of tyranny but it is anything but authoritarian. He has received an enormous popular mandate from the people and is combating corruption within government agencies, hence being allowed to rule by decree.

Wasn't Jimmy Carter one of those NGO's...LOL. Enough said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html
You should take off your horse blinders really, w0w.


http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/576 LOL

 

[ATippett56]

right. but that comes down to the education system. And ours is not so good, and it's not an accident. But I'm hesitant to fall into the "Americans are stupid" rant because I think that all people are stupid or smart, depending on how they are educated.

Baloney! If the Russian education system is far superior than ours, we doesn't Russia have the best economy in the world?

 

[ATippett56]

Wasn't Jimmy Carter one of those NGO's...LOL. Enough said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html
You should take off your horse blinders really, w0w.

Jimmy Carter .... what a joke! By far the worst US President in my lifetime!

 

[Wildo7]

Baloney! If the Russian education system is far superior than ours, we doesn't Russia have the best economy in the world?

excuse me?

 

[Wildo7]

Baloney! If the Russian education system is far superior than ours, we doesn't Russia have the best economy in the world?

who said anything about the economy and whose was the best?

 

[Wildo7]

WOW, awsome post. I was gonna post something but I think you took almost EVERY word out of my mouth. Wonderful post njpatsfan!

:rocker: :agree:

fair enough but I hope you read my rebuttal which pointed out that the vast majority of what he said was completely made up.