The media is at it again.
 

It is amazing that people that pride themselves on giving accurate information cannot even get basic officiating information correct.

I was watching Rome is burning and guest host Jemele Hill talked about the NBDL Camp the NBA is running for "Open Tryouts." Then she goes on to say that basically some Insurance Salesman might get a shot as to suggest that anyone who wants to referee is going to be eligible.

At what point do these media people check facts against their ignorant opinion?

I just do not understand, the media prides themselves on getting facts straight. They claim that guys like Canseco, is credible when he exposed steroids in Major League Baseball, then claim he is not credible when he makes similar claims about other players in his new book. But they cannot check the facts of how the NBA or how officials in the NCAA are trained or picked to work games? It is amazing the amount of ignorance of basic facts media has when it comes to basic issues. I do not work for the NBA and I have enough knowledge to know that any "Open Tryout" is not for some guy just walking off the street to be realistically considered. I have enough knowledge that the officials that will be picked to work in the NBA system are already accomplished officials from the HS level to the college level.

Is my frustration even warranted? Or should I just chalk it up as the way it is and always will be?

Peace

The two (frustration and chalking it up) aren't mutually exclusive.

I agree with what you're saying, though I will say this: it takes actual work to figure out this information about officiating. A journalist might have to call a couple people in order to learn the facts. It's not all spelled out on a "reliable" website to look up, so the next best thing is to trust what some guy tells you. Regardless of who "some guy" is.

I would suggest the problem here is, although this comes from a media outlet, it isn't a news show. It's a show by a commentator who happens to have an opinion on a wide variety of sports subjects. It would be the same if you got your political news from Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart.

Otherwise, chalk it up the same way we chalk up ignorant remarks by fans sitting in the stands....'cause neither of them are likely to change anytime soon.

It's a hot button right now with officiating. Officials at the highest level are under more scrutiny then ever before because of the obvious, Internet, More TV coverage, more everything. Every controversial HIGH SCHOOL call is now seen by everyone in the country 50 times on Youtube, you can't escape the hot lights. God forbid you may just miss a travel or pass on contact in the final seconds.
Its mind boggling. And the more exposure this stuff gets, the more the media will try and create a story. They're lemmings and they all fall to the temptation to amplify, distort, twist, for the sake of what they deem 'news'

I'm with you, and sick especially of all the talking....no make that screaming heads, that permeate the airwaves.

Insurance salesmen becoming officials? What about all the ex jocks that retire and instantly are thrown a microphone or the babe who is hired strictly because she has a couple a things going for her.

Hypocrites.

I do agree with what you are saying. But these people are only on the show because they hold journalist positions. Hill is a writer for ESPN and writes many articles for ESPN Page 2. Now she does give her opinion and that is OK with me. But I would expect simply picking up the phone and calling the people with the NBA and find out what is the nature of the clinic before saying anything that is clearly not true. My point is she made it seem like the NBA was just picking guys and gals off the street, rather than allowing qualified officials at other levels trying to get hired by the NBA. She even made a reference to the rules as if to suggest the people in attendance would not know anything about the rules of basketball.

Peace

US? Hey......don't include me in your sandbox. :p

I like ice cream! :)

:D

Ice cream with hot fudge sauce! :)

I happen to think this is a good policy. :rolleyes:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/sea0361l.jpg

USAToday Online Article - More fuel for the fire.....
 

Article title is: UCLA says close victories not officially influenced

The last paragraph reads:

"It is interesting that there seems like there's an idea that there's some kind of conspiracy theory that's helping UCLA with the officials," UCLA Coach Howland says. "I hope that's true, but I assure you that it's not."

The rest of the article is at:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...-26-ucla_N.htm

You? Should be those.

:rolleyes:

It's funny to hear this board rant and rave about the media just as "fanboys" come here and rant and rave about officiating.

JRut is making a sweeping generalization about the media based on one failure by one reporter.

Maybe you guys should try finding a journalism message board and see if you receive a similar greeting that "fanboys" get when they come on here and run their mouths about things they know nothing about.

Actually, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on the sports media since I used to be one. In fact, I would bet there are more officials who used to (or still do) work in the media than media people who used to be officials.

First of all I am not making a sweeping generalization about anyone. I am stating that if facts and information is what is held to a higher standard for media people, then why can't they pick up the phone and call someone to find out what the origin of the situation that is called a "try out." Not only that, they could call former NBA Officials or the NBA directly to find out how the system works. And you would think with the way the recent gambling scandal took place, I really would like to check this out before I went on the airways and internet or paper before I started stating things that are not facts. Not only would it not be hard to find out but the information is a phone call away or just do some research on the internet like many of us here do to find out all kind of officiating information. I am sure if someone over this site was contacted or if NASO people were contacted, they would gladly lead a reporter in the right direction. If these individuals know so much about why someone is drafted or who is on the trading block, you cannot have a conversation with the NBA as to where the officials come from that become apart of the NBA staff? Or better yet how the NDBL hires their officials and how they are integrated into the NBA. It is not like the information is top secret and held away from the public. Heck we talk about it all the time here.

Also this is not the only example of this kind of misinformation that is talked about on this site. There are many references to articles in multiple sports and by different reporters and the lack of understanding of basic officiating information is astounding. These media people even quote coaches about officiating and they do not fact check basic claims of procedures or practices in conferences or leagues. If a Presidential Candidate says something that is slightly untrue the media picks at and dissects every minor detail. But if someone in the sporting world says something, the media barely fact checks or even checks the credibility of the information that is said. And then they perpetuate the same myths over and over again when clearly some of the information is a phone call away.

Peace

Surprise, surprise.

Rut - this is one of the most outstanding posts I've ever seen on this site. You nailed it. And yes - I'm on my meds.

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.

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.


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

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.

Not sure if you can read this from up there on your high horse, but....

Rut did not make a sweeping generalization. "the media are at it again" can easily be backed up by specific examples of goofs in the media. Hell, he could have easily said "ESPN is at it again...." For examples of officiating and rules misinformation, one need only look Doug Gottlieb's body of work. You can add to that Coach Knight, now that he's in the media; and most other former coaches for that matter.

Just do a search in this sight for Doug Gottlieb and you'll get your "specific examples."

Finally, when a fan comes in here and asks about a specific ruling, we are pretty accomodating with rule information. We've even been known to indicate an official may have (gasp) missed a call. What we really don't take lightly, however, are accusations of general incompetence from fans and/or inexperienced officials or accusations of cheating.

BTW, if you want a specific example, you could either look at the Georgetown game from last year where everyone said the ref missed an obvious travel when replays showed it was, at best, debatable. Or, all the talk about the marginal, possible missed OOB call on the shot that may or may not have gone over the backboard before going in.

Couple years ago there was a correctable error in the Iowa State/Kansas game down in Lawrence. Refs handled it by the book, which looked like a screw job in favor of Kansas. Local commentator went off, saying there's no way they would have done it that way if the game was in Ames or if the roles had been reversed. I emailed him and told him the rules were followed, and that the officials would have been reprimanded for doing it any differently.

His response, in essence. "I don't care what the rules say, I think they would have done it different if the home team wasn't the one benefiting."

Hmmm....sounds like a sweeping generalization to me.

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

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.

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.

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

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



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 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.

It can be, but it wasn't. It was "backed up" by one isolated incident. It was then backed up by more vague references to "media people" getting information from "coaches" and not doing some sort of due diligence in researching something. I'm not even sure what because that part of Rut's post was so incredibly vague it was hard to grasp.

You only have to visit this board a handful of times to know that when some "fanboy" comes on here and calls out officiating as a profession with precious little more than an isolated incident and makes a sweeping generalization about basketball officials as a whole, said person is going to have a lot of pissy posters demanding for the "fanboy" to either shut his piehole or provide some specific back-up for his statements.

It's just funny how, when the tables are turned, the standards are different.

What statement specifically?

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.

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

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. :p

Peace

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".

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.

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

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.

Rut,

You hit the nail on the head. If someone hasn't never officiate basketball before, wouldn't know the hard long trail, (camps, junior high ball, semi varsity, varsity, AAU, YMCA etc.) The fan's and observers think that we are just somebody who wants to work a UCLA or Georgetown game. They don't know, (and will never know) how one obtains D1 status. They also do not factor that unlike the teams they root for, or the announcers call for, that we call the best game every time we are on the court.

You can say that I'm weird, but I consider being a sport's official, part of a fraternity. The only people who could understand what we go through is another sports official. I know I'm not perfect, but if you show me someone who is perfect and I'll show you someone that isn't a official.

The media will never understand. Neither some coaches. But, before they start to judge us, be in our shoes for one quarter with two hostile coaches, crazy fans, and a tie ball game with 4 seconds left that will decide a ball game that will decide the world championship game.

You learn, you make mistakes, and you grow up trying not to make mistakes again. The media will never know until they do their research or realize we have a harder job than what they use to thought.


Bud

Once again, I do not compare a fan that is supporting a team with a media member that can fact check information and is reporting to the general public. Even if I had an opinion about this issue, I do not have a forum to voice that opinion on the national airways or I do not write an article that millions have the opportunity to read. I guess what we say here can be seen by millions, but the reality a very small percentage of people will ever read our comments here and our comments are not referenced as fact about sports and officiating.

Hill suggested that the NBA is looking for the average Joe off the street that has never officiated a game in their life to work in the NBA. Not only is that not true, there is no suggestion that this information is true. If you have never worked a JH game in your life, chances of you working in the NBA or being hired by the NDBL is slim to none. She could have fact checked that information before spouting off what the "try out" actually entailed.

Peace

Both.

If these people REALLY want to look like they understand the process and the players they would have done a nice in depth piece on how this all works.

But they don't really care about reporting, they just want to toss off snotty comments. This is nothing new, it's really simpler to say Busk is dumb, Hillary is a liar, Obama is a Moslem and the refs all suck than it is to think about what's really going on in the world, isn't it?

Correct..it's all about sound bytes and 10 second attention spans. Be controversial, to justify their few minutes in the chair they can't be bland nor do they have the time.

Reflecting, we should take it with a grain of salt, consider the source and lump them into the fanboy category that we as officials have to deal with continually.

Why am I not surprised. A bunch of "whistle boys" taking pot shots at and industry they know nothing about.

Lah, me :rolleyes:

Piss off, troll.

I was in the industry on the TV side for 10 years and now happen to freelance on the print side.

I also have several friends who are national names on the sport side you're very familar with.

A bunch of "whistle boys" taking pot shots at and industry they know nothing about.

That would be an industry.

But, we're doing it on OUR site, amongst ourselves.....we're not going to the media or a fan or media forum and throwing the hand grenade over the wall and leaving. JMO.

BINGO!!!

Yup. Very good point, Mark. Count me in as one.

JRut is complaining about inaccurate facts being reported. If a fanboy complained about inproper rules application by an official I know I wouldn't have a problem with that.

And if JRut made his post on a media website I'm confident he could have a rationale, reasonable, and intelligent conversation with someone on that site who disagreed. Fanboys are those folks on this site who are incapable of such.

Well, I am definitely not an Insurance Salesman, but I got an email to put in an application for a D-League try-out camp and I am going. The experience alone is worth it!!!!

But I'm sure you've stayed in a Holiday Inn Express or 2. ;)

Or 3, but it was more pleasure than business!!!!

Can we all agree that "fiasco" is the most aptly named poster on this board? Or is that just a "sweeping generalization"? :p

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/kisatchie/im...ing_hg_clr.gif

OK, lost me there, moron....enjoy the wrath :p

You didn't use campaign funds to pay for the pleasure, did you?

Only when he stayed in Hackensack!:eek:

Oops...was that a sweeping generalization?? Sorry about that.;)

Bad rocky.

It is clear to me that you have no point. It is clear to me that you do not want to address what has already been said or what was in my OP. I do not understand why your focus is a fan that will claim officials are cheating for some underhanded reason to a reporter that is in the information business where their job is to inform the public. My job is not to inform the public and I am talking on an officiating website where most people are officials. It is odd to me that you want to compare what we say about a fanboy (which BTW is an internet term to signify how unreasonable someone is about a team or subject). And it is not a pot shot to give a specific example about a very specific situation and give the person who is responsible for the criticism. I guess had been critical of politicians that get in legal trouble, it would have been wrong to talk about the Spitzer case in detail. I do not think you know what the term "general" means.

Peace

I think it's apparent that Fiasco is a frustrated journalist who doesn't like criticism. Perhaps it's Stephen Glass?

Except you missed one very important point. The only area where we are criticizing them is in their coverage of our specific area of expertise. That is far different than criticizing them on their coverage of some activity we've seen on TV and maybe tried in our backyard.

It very clear to me that fiasco is a journalist who frequent this forum to better understand the avocation.

That is fine with me just be intellectually honest about it when you post your opinion. And if he does have a problem with what I said, where are his examples of good stories by the "media" that show they are being factual about rules or NBA hiring? Bob Delaney was all over ESPN when he wrote his book about being an undercover cop and he helped bring down the mob. You mean that someone at ESPN could not use Delaney has a source to find out how the NBA hires their official? You mean there is no one that can tell Doug Gottlieb what the rule is before he goes off about how the officials blew a call based on a rule? If what I had to say was unfair, give one example that debunks my point of view of this kind of story.

Peace

Since everything you've said in this thread has been very fair, I'd like to think you'd be waiting a long time for someone to come along and try to give you an example. But I think I know better.

To coin a phrase: Lah, me :rolleyes:

A proud member in good standing of the Whistle boys

http://www.bibi.org/box/2005/abril/W...ng_Records.jpg

Our leader:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/32091...5A1E4F32AD3138

I thought of that one............ he is in a uniform........

But Busk really is dumb, isn't he?

Yes.

Peace

Dumb enough to beat Gort & Kenny

That is because the public is dumb. :D

Peace

Yep. Definitely need better nominees.

I can't argue with that.

Hey, Gort invented the Innernet

I'm voting for Teddy Roosevelt. I don't care if he is dead. Bully for him. Legend has it that not once during the charge up San Juan Hill did he yell "over the back" or "reach". That's good enough for me.

http://ameddregiment.amedd.army.mil/...images/tr2.gif

I think it depends on whom you ash and what your criteria are.

...while he and his daughter were running through an airport ducking sniper fire on his way to help Godzilla destroy Mothra.

http://www.godzillaondvd.com/mediapa...s/mothra-9.jpg

Bully, Bully ...
 

Here's what he did say:
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."

Sadly, that fails to happen on occasion.