The media is at it again.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Uh...yes you are. The title of the thread is "the media is at it again." You are making a sweeping generalization about all the media based on one instance you observed recently.

If it was a generalization then I would not have given a specific example.

Originally Posted by fiasco

When the average fan makes a comment like "referees are corrupt," based on some random game they watched involving a solitary crew, that is also making a sweeping generalization. I'm not sure why you insist that you are saying something that you clearly are not.

I guess I am missing the point you are making. Because when fans come here and make statements, we usually require specific information or specific situations. And I do not get upset when a fan says "Referees......." Maybe you do not read this board that often when I and others ask for a specific play or situation. And what does that have to do with me anyway? My post is not about what fans may or may not say? Sounds like this is your issue.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Do you have specific examples of this or are you just spouting off?

All you have to do is turn on CNN, MSNBC or Fox and you can see some form of scrutiny. I am not trying to turn this into political conversation, but Clinton was ripped apart for here claims in Bosnia. Obama is ripped because he talked about positions he took before he was in the U.S. Senate. McCain was ripped for his positions on the war and even some comments he made that were not accurate about where Al-Quada located in and out of Iraq. And any statements to defend themselves or clarify their positions the media went after all of them about their positions or explanations.

Originally Posted by fiasco

In other words, if I watch you ref a game and I say "boy, Rut really made a bunch of bad calls today and it cost Illinois High the game," I better have some specific examples of what I'm talking about and not some sweeping generalizations, because that's all your posts have contained up until now.

I guess you are having trouble reading, because not only did I point out the person that made the specific comments, I stated where I heard them and who said them. I also gave other examples of how the media could have fact checked the information.

Maybe you do not know what specific means. Do you want social security numbers and Tax ID numbers of all the outlets that put out the information? Would that make the example much more specific?

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it was a generalization then I would not have given a specific example.

You attributed an isolated incident to an entire industry. That is a generalization.

I guess I am missing the point you are making. Because when fans come here and make statements, we usually require specific information or specific situations.

Exactly.

You provided specific information for the incident you referred to. Then you went on to make yet ANOTHER sweeping generalization about "media people" (which ones? what are their names and what stories did they write?) talking to "coaches" (which coaches? regarding which games?) about....you know, I don't even know about what. You just threw out some random "media people" talking to random "coaches" about nothing specifically. It would be nice if we all knew what event or story you were referring to so we could know exactly what your point was.

Maybe you do not know what specific means. Do you want social security numbers and Tax ID numbers of all the outlets that put out the information? Would that make the example much more specific?

Peace

Maybe I need to explain this in a more simple manner for you.

This board has a standard to which it holds posters. That is, if you're going to complain about something relating to officiating, you probably should have your facts straight. I think the same standard should be upheld for other professions. So, if you're going to call out the media for "many references" to reporters giving false information to readers via coaches (as referenced in your last post), you probably should have your facts straight and lay them out for all of us. Is there a specific story or coach that you were referring to in your last post or were you just spouting off about the media? I think that's a fair question.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

You attributed an isolated incident to an entire industry. That is a generalization.

What statement specifically?

Originally Posted by fiasco

Exactly.

You provided specific information for the incident you referred to. Then you went on to make yet ANOTHER sweeping generalization about "media people" (which ones? what are their names and what stories did they write?) talking to "coaches" (which coaches? regarding which games?) about....you know, I don't even know about what. You just threw out some random "media people" talking to random "coaches" about nothing specifically. It would be nice if we all knew what event or story you were referring to so we could know exactly what your point was.

Media members on a regular basis claim standards with sources, information and claim that you cannot report said facts unless you meet a certain level of fact checking comes first. And I have heard many media members talk openly about their standards and even criticize other outlets that do not uphold those "journalistic standards" when reporting stories. On this same program that where Hill talked about the NBDL Tryouts, one of the "Forum members" talked about how he could not run a story the way Censeco wrote his accounts of A-Rod in his book. Then he went on to say that one source would not work and he would not be allowed to run such a story about a player being accused using steroids.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Maybe I need to explain this in a more simple manner for you.

This board has a standard to which it holds posters. That is, if you're going to complain about something relating to officiating, you probably should have your facts straight. I think the same standard should be upheld for other professions. So, if you're going to call out the media for "many references" to reporters giving false information to readers via coaches (as referenced in your last post), you probably should have your facts straight and lay them out for all of us. Is there a specific story or coach that you were referring to in your last post or were you just spouting off about the media? I think that's a fair question.

This board is about officiating and it not related to other professions. Most people that officiate sports, officiating is not their primary job. And many things that are discussed here are based on opinions. There have been many discussions on politics of officiating or camps recently and most of the information is based on opinions one way or the other. And most of that information also is illustrated by people's personal situations and interactions. People's perceptions are not always factual but this forum is not to educate the general public or to make sure that every thing said is checked and double checked. Also many people here that make comments are not using their real names or do not even tell us where they live or what organizations they are associated with. Not the same as someone that writes for ESPN or the New York Times when talking about either sports or politics. And my comments are not about what fans say about officials. That is a separate issue and not something that I get upset by if a fan makes a statement about officials here. Fans are not media members just like the average person is not a Governor that pays for prostitutes.

Peace

[truerookie]

The media create issues to boost ratings. It's all a ploy. Some may go as far as to try and stand out from the crowd. IMO

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by truerookie

The media create issues to boost ratings. It's all a ploy. Some may go as far as to try and stand out from the crowd. IMO

You do not want to be making those kinds of generalizations. You might have to face the wrath of the fiasco.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Ice cream before bed is fun!





Seriously - guys, he has a point. I don't necessarily think he's 100% right in this particular case - but his overall point is valid.

I don't think it's unreasonable for us to be aware of how we comment on the actions/words of other "professions".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Seriously - guys, he has a point. I don't necessarily think he's 100% right in this particular case - but his overall point is valid.

I don't think it's unreasonable for us to be aware of how we comment on the actions/words of other "professions".

To compare fanboys and what people say about the media is laughable. I do not expect the same from some guy that calls in to a radio show or posts on an internet with a funny name to be factually accurate as compared to someone that works for ESPN and reports on sports.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

I think what fiasco was saying - and what I was referring to - was us, as officials, being conscious of how quick we are to judge, criticize, and second-guess others....seeing as how we can be sometimes be fairly defensive when it comes to others coming here and criticizing us.

To be aware of that, I don't think, is unreasonable.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

You attributed an isolated incident to an entire industry. That is a generalization.

If you thing such incidents are isolated, either your TV is broken, your newspaper delivery person is throwing it to the wrong house, or you live in a heavily censored country.

Comments by journalists regarding the rules, interpretations, judgement, and the general way things work in officiating of just about any sport are far more erroneous than they should be and perhaps even erroneous more often than correct....largely because they're too arrogant to admit they don't know the topic so well as they think and continually perpetuate myths and untruths.

And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for us to criticize them when they're misreporting about our industry. It would not be appropriate for us to be so overtly critical if they were discussing the nuances of ballroom dancing.