To casual fans, it's one of the oddest concepts in the already-odd world of professional sports.
Pro athletes -- often paid millions annually to play a sport for a living -- threatening to go on strike and cancel sporting events across the United States? Really?
Well, yes and no.
Yes, they are typically paid millions, annually. Yes, sporting events are in danger of being cancelled. But no, it's not actually the players threatening to go on strike -- it's the owners, hence the term 'lockout,' not 'strike.'
So, yes, in the current situation in the news, NFL owners are threatening to, in many more words, lock the players out of their facilities and cease normal functioning as an NFL franchise in order to coerce the players' association into agreeing to a more favorable collective bargaining agreement that will allow them to profit more handsomely as the national economy continues to struggle and several owners fight to stay in the black.
Recent developments have made the likelihood that will happen a lot smaller. A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota ruled Monday, on the side of the players, that the lockout was unlawful and ordered it ended, meaning that, as of right now, there is no lockout in the National Football League.
There's an issue, though. The NFL owners immediately appealed the ruling and also requested a special expedited stay, meaning that they want the enforcement of the ruling to wait until the appeal is heard. When a ruling is made on the stay request, we'll know whether or not the lockout will continue to not exist, but that could still change when the second ruling -- on the appeal -- takes place.
Confusing, right? Imagine if you're a NFL player waiting to get back into shape for the upcoming season. Even more confusing.
The NFL Players' Association emailed all of its members late Monday night, after the judge's initial decision was announced, letting them know they could report to their places of work Tuesday morning. A few did for each team across the country, with all but one player -- New York Giants defensive being turned away by management from the weight room and some not even being allowed in to the facilities. In other words, it sounds a lot like the lockout still exists to the owners.
On inside the fold, I typically try to take in-the-news issues and go over the media aspects covered within them. With this lockout ordeal, there are tons, but the most interesting is following along to which side the media takes as the lockout -- or what we know of it -- continues. Today, when NFL players tried to report to their team facilities, reporters all across the country staked them out and wrote stories on which players tried to report and the outcomes of those attempts. The resulting stories were decidedly player-favored, even in news stories, with owners and team staffers coming off as demanding and players coming off as simply inquisitive.
It's something we often forget as a general public -- the media, especially in sports, plays a large role in how stories are shaped over time. We mustn't forget it'll be the same this time as well.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Kobe and his mouth
You've probably heard about it by now: midway through the third quarter of a Tuesday game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the San Antonio Spurs, the Lakers' Kobe Bryant was called for his fourth foul of the game on what he felt was a bad call by referee Bennie Adams, so he took action.
As Bryant sat down on the bench, he threw down his towel violently, picked it up and then shouted at Adams in a voice loud enough the TNT boom mic picked it up and simultaneously broadcast it live around the country.
"BENNIE!" Bryant yelled. "F**CKING F**GOT!"
Within seconds, Twitter and other social networking sites were ablast with fans and media members writing about the incident, and by Wednesday morning, it had blown up to an astonishing extent. Gay publications were responsible for a lot of the coverage, but they were only the spark -- every news source was on it by noon Wednesday.
Bryant eventually issued an apology -- but really didn't apologize, actually, being that he didn't say sorry at all and really only said that he didn't meant for his words to be taken literally.
And then the NBA fought back, commissioner David Stern announcing that the league would fine Bryant a cool $100,000. Sure, it's not a lot of money when a guy makes upwards of $20 million a year, like Bryant does, but it's significant in that the average NBA fine ranges from $5-10 thousand dollars.
Because of that, Stern showed that he placed the issue high up the spectrum of importance, and his stand was important for the NBA to take as they near an offseason of uncertainty with the impending lockout.
But what's most interesting about this whole story is this: Should Kobe actually be faulted and deemed homophobic for what he said? After all, most Americans have used a word -- or something akin to it -- in a very similar fashion as he did at some point in their lives. There's no arguing whether what he did is right or wrong -- it's clearly wrong -- but can we really say that he's a bad example of a role model as an athlete because of his use of that gay slur.
In my eyes, no. It'd be more than a little bit unfair for me to call him out for saying a word like that when I've done the same thing in my past. (Not that it makes it right. It's completely wrong. But I've still done it.) The only thing he did wrong was that he did in a public sphere. And, yes, of course there is something to be said about that, but I'm not going to crazy on him or anything.
The $100,000 fine is a good way to solve it. Bryant has been publicly reprimanded, and hopefully he and other pro athletes learn that that word should never be used, let alone in a derogatory way at a referee simply doing his job.
Hopefully the rest of us do too.
As Bryant sat down on the bench, he threw down his towel violently, picked it up and then shouted at Adams in a voice loud enough the TNT boom mic picked it up and simultaneously broadcast it live around the country.
"BENNIE!" Bryant yelled. "F**CKING F**GOT!"
Within seconds, Twitter and other social networking sites were ablast with fans and media members writing about the incident, and by Wednesday morning, it had blown up to an astonishing extent. Gay publications were responsible for a lot of the coverage, but they were only the spark -- every news source was on it by noon Wednesday.
Bryant eventually issued an apology -- but really didn't apologize, actually, being that he didn't say sorry at all and really only said that he didn't meant for his words to be taken literally.
And then the NBA fought back, commissioner David Stern announcing that the league would fine Bryant a cool $100,000. Sure, it's not a lot of money when a guy makes upwards of $20 million a year, like Bryant does, but it's significant in that the average NBA fine ranges from $5-10 thousand dollars.
Because of that, Stern showed that he placed the issue high up the spectrum of importance, and his stand was important for the NBA to take as they near an offseason of uncertainty with the impending lockout.
But what's most interesting about this whole story is this: Should Kobe actually be faulted and deemed homophobic for what he said? After all, most Americans have used a word -- or something akin to it -- in a very similar fashion as he did at some point in their lives. There's no arguing whether what he did is right or wrong -- it's clearly wrong -- but can we really say that he's a bad example of a role model as an athlete because of his use of that gay slur.
In my eyes, no. It'd be more than a little bit unfair for me to call him out for saying a word like that when I've done the same thing in my past. (Not that it makes it right. It's completely wrong. But I've still done it.) The only thing he did wrong was that he did in a public sphere. And, yes, of course there is something to be said about that, but I'm not going to crazy on him or anything.
The $100,000 fine is a good way to solve it. Bryant has been publicly reprimanded, and hopefully he and other pro athletes learn that that word should never be used, let alone in a derogatory way at a referee simply doing his job.
Hopefully the rest of us do too.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Occupation: Human waste disposal
Officer Trey Economidy of the Albuquerque Police Department learned a lesson about the negative effects of social media the hard way a couple months back, like many Americans have in recent years.
His learning process went like this: Economidy, a seven-year veteran of the police force working in Albuquerque's gang unit, pulled over a man in the parking lot of a strip mall for suspicious behavior. The man, 29-year-old Jacob Mitschelen, who had an extensive criminal record at the time of the incident, attempted to escape on foot after being pulled over. Economidy did chase. A gun fell off of Mitschelen's person shortly after he began running and he immediately picked it up. The officer, Economidy, demanded he drop it. When he didn't, Economidy fired his gun at Mitschelen multiple times and fatally wounded him.
At that point, it was still a fairly standard incident, although the fact that someone died in the pull-over caused local news outlets in Albuquerque to research the circumstances. What they found caused a scandal of medium-sized proportions, got Economidy suspended and now has him outside the field and inside the police station at a desk job for the foreseeable future.
What was it? Well, for starters, Economidy's Facebook page was public at the time of the incident. So when a local TV station went to it, they were able to scan through his employment data, religious beliefs and similar self-provided personal information. Under occupation, Economidy listed his job as "human waste disposal." The TV station relayed the findings to the police station; Economidy was suspended the next day.
His page is now private, and he has since apologized for his actions, calling them "extremely appropriate." The New York Times picked up on the incident this week and ran a story Wednesday on its website -- it's slated for front-page publication in Thursday's paper -- taking a all-around look at the many problems social media has caused for police across the U.S., from Economidy's incident to an Indiana cop who posted a picture of another officer pointing a gun at his head to even an officer who filmed himself stripping off his uniform and masturbating and then sold the video on eBay's adults-only section. All three of these incidents were exposed by media investigations, the Times reported.
What's my take on all this? Well, I particularly liked the angle the Times took on the stories and thought it shrewd of them to group all of these incidents in one deep-digging piece this week. The article served two purposes: (1) it essentially concluded, or induced readers to conclude, that the media was rightfully responsible for exposing these stories to the general public in a necessary manner and (2) it gave readers detailed information for their own personal security purposes online, regardless of profession.
Both of those are great in my book.
His learning process went like this: Economidy, a seven-year veteran of the police force working in Albuquerque's gang unit, pulled over a man in the parking lot of a strip mall for suspicious behavior. The man, 29-year-old Jacob Mitschelen, who had an extensive criminal record at the time of the incident, attempted to escape on foot after being pulled over. Economidy did chase. A gun fell off of Mitschelen's person shortly after he began running and he immediately picked it up. The officer, Economidy, demanded he drop it. When he didn't, Economidy fired his gun at Mitschelen multiple times and fatally wounded him.
At that point, it was still a fairly standard incident, although the fact that someone died in the pull-over caused local news outlets in Albuquerque to research the circumstances. What they found caused a scandal of medium-sized proportions, got Economidy suspended and now has him outside the field and inside the police station at a desk job for the foreseeable future.
What was it? Well, for starters, Economidy's Facebook page was public at the time of the incident. So when a local TV station went to it, they were able to scan through his employment data, religious beliefs and similar self-provided personal information. Under occupation, Economidy listed his job as "human waste disposal." The TV station relayed the findings to the police station; Economidy was suspended the next day.
His page is now private, and he has since apologized for his actions, calling them "extremely appropriate." The New York Times picked up on the incident this week and ran a story Wednesday on its website -- it's slated for front-page publication in Thursday's paper -- taking a all-around look at the many problems social media has caused for police across the U.S., from Economidy's incident to an Indiana cop who posted a picture of another officer pointing a gun at his head to even an officer who filmed himself stripping off his uniform and masturbating and then sold the video on eBay's adults-only section. All three of these incidents were exposed by media investigations, the Times reported.
What's my take on all this? Well, I particularly liked the angle the Times took on the stories and thought it shrewd of them to group all of these incidents in one deep-digging piece this week. The article served two purposes: (1) it essentially concluded, or induced readers to conclude, that the media was rightfully responsible for exposing these stories to the general public in a necessary manner and (2) it gave readers detailed information for their own personal security purposes online, regardless of profession.
Both of those are great in my book.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Obama to announce re-election campaign -- now?
CNN reported Saturday that Democratic sources indicated President Barack Obama intends to send supporters a text or email message as early as Monday announcing he intends to run for re-election in the November 2012 presidential election.
That's a little early, no? It seems to me as if Obama would be better off waiting a while to do such an announcement, simply because of, well...the state of the country, you know? Obama's US of A isn't exactly in great shape at the moment, and people are starting to blame him for it.
Hey, at least they're not going to make a whole big shebang out of it. Obama's plan, CNN reported, is simply to get the word out there among his big-time supporters so he can officially start raising the money he'll need to contend against whichever Republican candidate comes out of the woodwork to run against him next year.
I still don't agree with it.
Reads the article:
"These Democrats say no public event is planned because the White House wants to downplay the announcement and minimize the political distraction...The president is making his campaign official slightly earlier than is typical for an incumbent so he can get a jump on fund-raising in a season that's likely to shatter all records."
The campaign fundraising season's likely to shatter all records, again? It really is ridiculous how much these costs are trending upwards in recent decades, but that's a blog post for a different day.
And today's blog post? Here it is in summation: it can't be good for Obama, from a PR standpoint, to announce his re-election campaign at this point during his current term. His approval ratings are frighteningly low and on a downward trend right now, too.
Instead of announcing it now, why not announce it in another month or two, giving him some time to do some good in the eyes of American public and repair his image even the slightest bit. There is no downside to that plan. Every informed American knows he's going to run for re-election, so it's not as if he's going to be late to the party if he announces in June. All he'll lose is a couple months of fundraising while he'll gain -- hopefully, of course -- a bunch of possible supporters in on-the-fence voters over the next month or two.
And this is simply in his best interest, disregarding any particular political views I may have. Say what you will about Obama, but one thing he and his camp have always been good -- no, spectacular, at -- is crafting a great public-relations image in the campaign season.
This seems to be at least a slight departure from that, but I guess time will tell which one of us is right.
Hey, at least they're not going to make a whole big shebang out of it. Obama's plan, CNN reported, is simply to get the word out there among his big-time supporters so he can officially start raising the money he'll need to contend against whichever Republican candidate comes out of the woodwork to run against him next year.
I still don't agree with it.
Reads the article:
"These Democrats say no public event is planned because the White House wants to downplay the announcement and minimize the political distraction...The president is making his campaign official slightly earlier than is typical for an incumbent so he can get a jump on fund-raising in a season that's likely to shatter all records."
The campaign fundraising season's likely to shatter all records, again? It really is ridiculous how much these costs are trending upwards in recent decades, but that's a blog post for a different day.
And today's blog post? Here it is in summation: it can't be good for Obama, from a PR standpoint, to announce his re-election campaign at this point during his current term. His approval ratings are frighteningly low and on a downward trend right now, too.
Instead of announcing it now, why not announce it in another month or two, giving him some time to do some good in the eyes of American public and repair his image even the slightest bit. There is no downside to that plan. Every informed American knows he's going to run for re-election, so it's not as if he's going to be late to the party if he announces in June. All he'll lose is a couple months of fundraising while he'll gain -- hopefully, of course -- a bunch of possible supporters in on-the-fence voters over the next month or two.
And this is simply in his best interest, disregarding any particular political views I may have. Say what you will about Obama, but one thing he and his camp have always been good -- no, spectacular, at -- is crafting a great public-relations image in the campaign season.
This seems to be at least a slight departure from that, but I guess time will tell which one of us is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)