Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

David Sterns Inexcusable Comments

airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the comment, and the interview was fairly benign.. Although I did enjoy listening to it.

"Have you stopped beating you wife yet?"...

...Was not asked literally. It's an expression that denotes a loaded question. Jim Rome didn't take offense to it, he recognized that Stern doesn't think the questions related to a "draft lottery conspiracy" are valid, but knows that fans wonder about it, and has a responsibility to ask about it.

The conversation then derailed into Stern accusing Rome of "chap thrills" and shock journalism, with Rome defending himself.

I thought it was interesting and actually fairly true. Stern, the NBA commissioner was obviously going to deny the question, and he became defensive. Jim Rome has a history of trying to get a rise out of his subjects (The Jim Everett interview comes to mind, though it was likely staged) and Stern pointed it out (Then Rome became defensive). This is what makes Jim Rome a compelling journalist, and entirely why I listen to him.

I don't see anything at all inexcusable about Stern's conduct, and this seems to be a fairly typical Rome interview where high profile people are involved. I'll bet Rome was pretty happy with how it went and wasn't offended in the least.
Debate.org Moderator
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:45:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But for someone who wants to protect the image so much he cannot say things like that. Not just the "beating your wife" comment, but also everything that followed.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 7:58:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 7:45:59 PM, stubs wrote:
But for someone who wants to protect the image so much he cannot say things like that. Not just the "beating your wife" comment, but also everything that followed.

I disagree. The "beating your wife" comment is a well known expression. Jim didn't even react to it, he just replied that he didn't think "it" was fair. What "it" refers to, is dismissing an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the draft lottery.

I think everything after that was pretty reasonable.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the lottery was fixed?

There isn't. Stern pretty much pointed out that no matter who won the lottery, fans and journalist could be painting it as something that was fixed, and they likely would have.

As an NBA fan I actually have a problem with the lottery in general because it is possible to be fixed. It seems to be designed to prevent teams from tanking, but by not giving the team with the worst record the top pick, there can always be doubt as to how it was awarded.

Jim asked the question because fans want it to be asked. Stern replied exactly as he should have, defensively and as though he was offended by it.
Debate.org Moderator
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:17:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But things such as he hasn't been asked that by "a respectable journalist." and that he has to go talk to someone "actually important." The commissioner cannot say those things. At the least it is very unprofessional.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 8:44:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 8:17:49 PM, stubs wrote:
But things such as he hasn't been asked that by "a respectable journalist." and that he has to go talk to someone "actually important." The commissioner cannot say those things. At the least it is very unprofessional.

Yeah that may be true. Fair enough. But that's the kind of venue Jim Rome is. He gets in your face, and it makes for quality entertainment. It's the difference between Tom Brokaw and Bill O'Reilly, and it leads to interesting moments.

I don't think Stern went too far with anything he said, but perhaps he should have been more diplomatic.
Debate.org Moderator
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 2:12:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Stern showed vulnerability by not letting the issue go. Rome made a decent case for asking the question and logic was on his side; if it was ridiculous to even ask it then Stern should have blown it off as such. By engaging in histrionics Stern only weakened his own case. And of course in either case Rome wins by default because it is all just ratings for him.
Rob
Awesome-Sauce
Posts: 208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 2:25:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've never heard of the "beating your wife" expression before...
Cogito ergo sum - Rene Descartes

: At 6/23/2012 1:15:48 AM, bossyburrito wrote: (to Jimtimmy)
:
: You are the equivelent of a fly buzzing around a cow. I can just swat you with my tail without it taking my attention away from grazing the sweet grass that is DDO.

DDOians for a better DDO! (DDOfabDDO)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 10:11:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 2:25:42 AM, Awesome-Sauce wrote:
I've never heard of the "beating your wife" expression before...
It doesn't surprise me.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 1:06:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Have you stopped beating your wife" is the classic example of a loaded question. It's an important concept in both legal and philosophical matters. Stern was way out of line jumping to this reasoning, because Rome's question was not loaded at all, while his was.
Rob
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 1:51:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 1:06:16 PM, Lasagna wrote:
"Have you stopped beating your wife" is the classic example of a loaded question. It's an important concept in both legal and philosophical matters. Stern was way out of line jumping to this reasoning, because Rome's question was not loaded at all, while his was.

yes that is a good point. I think it everything that followed, the insults, were more inappropriate because he is supposed to be acting professional.
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 5:19:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm trying to figure out what Stern thought was going to happen in the first place. Jim Rome is not exactly known for his politeness and humility. But yeah, the draft lottery question wasn't really a pivotal or monumental question to ask so I could understand Stern's frustration although I would have pressed Rome to provide substantial evidence that it is rigged and no "he said and she said and they said and this guy on youtube said." Not a fan of Stern by any means, but he's an easy scapegoat for virtually every problem in the NBA. Again, not a fan but he's reasonably done good work for the NBA as a commissioner, certainly a much better job than Larry O'Brien.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 5:52:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But Rome/fans have a point.

2005: Bucks win the 1st pick on 6% odds.
2006: Raptors win on 9% odds.
2007: T. Blaizers win on 5% odds.
2008: Bulls win on 1.8% odds.
2009: Clippers on 17% odds.
2010: Wizards win with 10% odds.
2011: Clippers win (given to Cavs) on 2.8% odds.
2012: Hornets win on 13.7% odds.

That's really suspicious.
Sapere Aude!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 6:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 5:19:31 PM, Skyhook wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what Stern thought was going to happen in the first place. Jim Rome is not exactly known for his politeness and humility. But yeah, the draft lottery question wasn't really a pivotal or monumental question to ask so I could understand Stern's frustration although I would have pressed Rome to provide substantial evidence that it is rigged and no "he said and she said and they said and this guy on youtube said." Not a fan of Stern by any means, but he's an easy scapegoat for virtually every problem in the NBA. Again, not a fan but he's reasonably done good work for the NBA as a commissioner, certainly a much better job than Larry O'Brien.

I agree he has done good work as the commish.
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2012 7:51:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/14/2012 5:52:48 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
But Rome/fans have a point.

2005: Bucks win the 1st pick on 6% odds.
2006: Raptors win on 9% odds.
2007: T. Blaizers win on 5% odds.
2008: Bulls win on 1.8% odds.
2009: Clippers on 17% odds.
2010: Wizards win with 10% odds.
2011: Clippers win (given to Cavs) on 2.8% odds.
2012: Hornets win on 13.7% odds.

That's really suspicious.

It could be suspicious or maybe that's how it went down. The 17, 10, 13.7, and 9 percent aren't really suspicious though since the highest probability for the draft is 25%. Granted, it's a pretty high percentage, but of course there's a 75% chance the worst team in the draft won't get #1.

the only really suspicious draft I can think of is Patrick Ewing's draft where a redmark on the selection ball could have identified the #1 pick to Stern. Other than that, I haven't seen past drafts with anything to make me think something's going on. It's either suspicious or just a funky statistical pattern going on. Unless Rome could point to something (like the Ewing thing), I think the better explanation is just certain improbabilistic events, basic stats.