RealGM

Dat2U wrote:

doclinkin wrote:

Ruzious wrote:Meh, should we really be keeping track of peoples' likes on Twitter - especially when they don't use their own tweets for political commentary?

Absolutely. Yes. If they don't want their opinions to be public record then hey: don't use twitter. It is public social media, he is tapping that like button to publicly voice his opinions. Now maybe his politics shouldn't matter, but once he starts voicing opinions online then the topic of his judgement in general becomes fair game.

This leads to a much bigger debate beyond a **** sports announcer who will probably be gone after this season - that Ben Simmons quote will likely be the reason why.

This should probably go in the politics thread but do we hold the individuals accountable for what they've been told over and over again or do you go after these 'echo chambers' that spew lies and 'pro-insurrectionist' behavior'?

Which echo chambers? Twitter? Facebook?

I do think monopoly and anti-trust laws need to be looked at regarding Facebook etc. No one organization should have quite the power to influence politics that it does. Similarly I think there ought to be laws about spreading outright disinformation as if it were fact in the case of FOX news. That does go into questions of the First Amendment. But the FCC has regulations against obscenity etc, there needs to be a filter to help distinguish the difference between fact and editorializing. An ombudsman in effect.

I think it is fine for Kutcher to express his political opinions. I am not sure his company would agree.At this point political viewpoints serve to alienate half your audience whatever you say. Personally I like having even better justification for disliking the pud. I really don't care what he thinks about Ben SImmons. I think it is a misstep for your play by play guy to take his cues from Charles Barkely or whatever. It is not his job to offer opinions and the last 2 guys were too classy to do that (well Phil was classy, Buck was a pro though). But if he has an opinion about an opposing player, eh, okay. Still, if he has an opinion about politics that I disagree with, I will gleefully dislike him, and trash him on those grounds. :clown" and enjoy doing so. That's the way of the world nowadays.

I disapprove of what you say, and will defend your right to say it, primarily so that I can know who my enemies are, and mock and deride them proudly. Boo this man. Boo him.

Though in that respect it would be better if he were speaking for a different sports team than my own. I'd rather like my guys and boo the opponents'.

How about laws against media for spreading outright misinformation like the Russia Collusion Hoax? Or the Jesse Smollet hoax? Or the Trump told Georgia election officials to "find the fraud" hoax? Or the "good people on both sides" hoax? Or the NASCAR noose hoax?

nate33 wrote:How about laws against media for spreading outright misinformation like the Russia Collusion Hoax? Or the Jesse Smollet hoax? Or the Trump told Georgia election officials to "find the fraud" hoax? Or the "good people on both sides" hoax? Or the NASCAR noose hoax?

Ha! Come back to the Politics thread and we can debate the Russian Collusion "hoax" and the rest of these one more time.

Yes I do think it would be fine if news organizations had to reserve time for retractions to correct a mistaken report. (Though stories like Jussie Smollet tend to be corrected as new information comes out. They correctly reported he said what he did, then correctly reported it was disproven when more facts came out.).

doclinkin wrote:

Dat2U wrote:

doclinkin wrote:
Absolutely. Yes. If they don't want their opinions to be public record then hey: don't use twitter. It is public social media, he is tapping that like button to publicly voice his opinions. Now maybe his politics shouldn't matter, but once he starts voicing opinions online then the topic of his judgement in general becomes fair game.

This leads to a much bigger debate beyond a **** sports announcer who will probably be gone after this season - that Ben Simmons quote will likely be the reason why.

This should probably go in the politics thread but do we hold the individuals accountable for what they've been told over and over again or do you go after these 'echo chambers' that spew lies and 'pro-insurrectionist' behavior'?

Which echo chambers? Twitter? Facebook?

I do think monopoly and anti-trust laws need to be looked at regarding Facebook etc. No one organization should have quite the power to influence politics that it does. Similarly I think there ought to be laws about spreading outright disinformation as if it were fact in the case of FOX news. That does go into questions of the First Amendment. But the FCC has regulations against obscenity etc, there needs to be a filter to help distinguish the difference between fact and editorializing. An ombudsman in effect.

I think it is fine for Kutcher to express his political opinions. I am not sure his company would agree.At this point political viewpoints serve to alienate half your audience whatever you say. Personally I like having even better justification for disliking the pud. I really don't care what he thinks about Ben SImmons. I think it is a misstep for your play by play guy to take his cues from Charles Barkely or whatever. It is not his job to offer opinions and the last 2 guys were too classy to do that (well Phil was classy, Buck was a pro though). But if he has an opinion about an opposing player, eh, okay. Still, if he has an opinion about politics that I disagree with, I will gleefully dislike him, and trash him on those grounds. :clown" and enjoy doing so. That's the way of the world nowadays.

I disapprove of what you say, and will defend your right to say it, primarily so that I can know who my enemies are, and mock and deride them proudly. Boo this man. Boo him.

Though in that respect it would be better if he were speaking for a different sports team than my own. I'd rather like my guys and boo the opponents'.

The ones that actually peddle falsehoods. If your consistently putting out false content- such as stolen election nonsense, you should be held accountable. We've got entire subculture of media that drives content based on outright lies. I'll defend anyone's right to have a trashy opinion... as long as we know its just an opinion.

I never liked Kutcher... just always rubbed me the wrong way from day one but I have a bigger problem with where he's getting this nonsense from than his actual opinion about it.

doclinkin wrote:

Ruzious wrote:Meh, should we really be keeping track of peoples' likes on Twitter - especially when they don't use their own tweets for political commentary?

Absolutely. Yes. If they don't want their opinions to be public record then hey: don't use twitter. It is public social media, he is tapping that like button to publicly voice his opinions. Now maybe his politics shouldn't matter, but once he starts voicing opinions online then the topic of his judgement in general becomes fair game.

Yup, whatever you use twitter for or any social media is going to be broadcast to the world. I imagine Kutcher didn't realize that his likes were going to go to the public but that has been a feature of social media since the early 2010s, when potential employers could go through social media as a background check when checking on potential candidates. He should realize this especially since he's in the public.

Now Kutcher is allowed to have his own political beliefs, but perhaps unintentionally is telling the world how he feels so he may need to address it if this actually picks up enough traction. That being said, I don't think this should necessarily disqualify him from his position at CSN.

Kanyewest wrote:Now Kutcher is allowed to have his own political beliefs, but perhaps unintentionally is telling the world how he feels so he may need to address it if this actually picks up enough traction. That being said, I don't think this should necessarily disqualify him from his position at CSN.

Me either. It just means I get to enjoy more my dislike of him.

Still if he gets roped in by the insurrectionist crowd, believing fake news stories etc, well then he is a credulous boob, so why should anyone care about his opinions on Simmons etc. He is a play by play guy, more reporter than commentator.

That said I actually like when smart announcers give flavor and color to their observations of the game, so I'm talking out of both sides of my head here. I am not a fan of Kutcher, is all.

LMAO

I can't wait for JK to be replaced, for multiple reasons. However Gooden has grown on me a bit, he's definitely gotten better and provided some good insight at times.

Just in the East it has to be the Knicks, Nets or even the Hawks or 76ers. Perhaps the narrative would be different if Westbrook was healthy this whole season and if the whole team didn't get Covid (ie if they had a better record than the Knicks).

doclinkin wrote:

nate33 wrote:How about laws against media for spreading outright misinformation like the Russia Collusion Hoax? Or the Jesse Smollet hoax? Or the Trump told Georgia election officials to "find the fraud" hoax? Or the "good people on both sides" hoax? Or the NASCAR noose hoax?

Ha! Come back to the Politics thread and we can debate the Russian Collusion "hoax" and the rest of these one more time.

Yes I do think it would be fine if news organizations had to reserve time for retractions to correct a mistaken report. (Though stories like Jussie Smollet tend to be corrected as new information comes out. They correctly reported he said what he did, then correctly reported it was disproven when more facts came out.).

Holy Moley!! How'd I miss this?

By now maybe you have come back to talk about these subjects, who knows? I never drop in on the politics thread any more. But, if I thought nate was visiting... I would!

I think they are fine on the broadcasts, especially since they are new to it. I used to get league pass regularly and was surprised how many bad announcers are out there.

I couldn't care less about the social media stuff. As long as he doesnt bring it up on the air I give no f's.

Gooden has gotten better over the year.

He just shared great insider knowledge on Rick Carlisle and his coaching style while he was with the Mavs. Great story on Carlisle texting Gooden to watch film on his jump shot together, then Carlisle and Gooden going to shoot in the gym afterwards. And that's the head coach taking that time.

I'm extremely biased, and while I realize he's probably persona non grata here, I think Gilbert Arenas would be a great Wizards game analyst. A Mel Proctor/ Gil Arenas broadcast team would be a perfect combo imo.

J. Michael calling anyone a talentless tool is ... beyond rich.

As for Gooden: seems like a nice guy, but the words, the words ...

I’d like to see broadcasters held to the same standard as the players. Why make allowances for these guys by hiring them and providing them a platform — by allowances, I mean in the form of overlooking their accents, their word use, their mental agility or lacktherof — when comparable flaws or weaknesses (missed rotations, not boxing out, missing open jumpers, turning the ball over) would get them bounced from the league? In awarding them, these networks undermine their work and philosophy.

In the case of Gooden, you rarely even get the kind of observations and insights that supposedly a former player is there to deliver. The other night against the Spurs, in the final minutes, he said it would come down to who wants it more.

Hire on-air people who have the gift, regardless of whether they played. Actually, on second thought — don’t hire anyone who played. Give the broadcasts a little critical distance. Do away with the jockocracy. Anyone with half a passion for the sport can learn the game. It would be SO much more interesting to listen to. SO much more surprising.

badinage wrote:I’d like to see broadcasters held to the same standard as the players. Why make allowances for these guys by hiring them and providing them a platform — by allowances, I mean in the form of overlooking their accents, their word use, their mental agility or lacktherof — when comparable flaws or weaknesses (missed rotations, not boxing out, missing open jumpers, turning the ball over) would get them bounced from the league? In awarding them, these networks undermine their work and philosophy.

In the case of Gooden, you rarely even get the kind of observations and insights that supposedly a former player is there to deliver. The other night against the Spurs, in the final minutes, he said it would come down to who wants it more.

Hire on-air people who have the gift, regardless of whether they played. Actually, on second thought — don’t hire anyone who played. Give the broadcasts a little critical distance. Do away with the jockocracy. Anyone with half a passion for the sport can learn the game. It would be SO much more interesting to listen to. SO much more surprising.

Personally I like having a knowledgeable and well connected former player on a broadcast team. They deliver insights to the culture, locker room, coaching thoughts etc. Some part of the game does have to do with the celebrity of the players. If you have a well respected player in your broadcast booth you can get comment from players who might be sticky to talk to. A guy like Brendan Heywood consistently delivers insights, humor, and analysis of the game. That is the part that is missing with a guy like Drew. And the broacast game in general. Gooden is only there for color commentary, he does not breakdown the sets, defenses, counters, etc. He is not Tony Romo'ing the action and predicting what will likely happen out of a time-out. I think broadcasts are better with former coaches like Jack Ramsay, Hubie Brown, Van Gundy who can teach a bit of the game while they are breaking down the action. I think every broadcast teach should have a guy like that providing notes and things to look for. There are players who can do so as well. I wish they had the freedom or encouragement to do so, instead of simply trying to entertain.

But really I think guys like the 'All the Smoke' crew would work well if they were free to work a little blue. Frankly for my taste I wish there was a late-night crew who had a little more latitude to work a little loose and free with the language. Who wouldn't want to sit in a suite with Gil and listen to his uncensored running commentary on the game? You'd be both laughing and learning the whole time. Yeah it might get a little blue, but he would be stirring up controversy and giving background details and the bar/barbershop commentary on the game, only with actual knowledge. Gilbert is sharp as a scalpel when it comes to his understanding of the game. He loves the game and watches it obsessively. If he veered off script a little, that would be fun. So long as it circled back to the action and outcome.

In tonight's game, Westbrook made an unbelievable full-court pass to Beal, who finished in one motion with a nice layup. One of the highlights of season, I think.

All the announcer could manage was an 'oh wow' like an excited 12 year old. Not great, Bob.

I also think Haywood would be a fine choice to be analyst.
One other guy too, Martell Webster.
I’ve never liked JK now really don’t like him.
What a dumbass.

9 and 20 wrote:In tonight's game, Westbrook made an unbelievable full-court pass to Beal, who finished in one motion with a nice layup. One of the highlights of season, I think.

All the announcer could manage was an 'oh wow' like an excited 12 year old. Not great, Bob.

Eric Collins and Dell Curry on the Hornets TV broadcast are enjoyable especially for moments like that

doclinkin wrote:

badinage wrote:I’d like to see broadcasters held to the same standard as the players. Why make allowances for these guys by hiring them and providing them a platform — by allowances, I mean in the form of overlooking their accents, their word use, their mental agility or lacktherof — when comparable flaws or weaknesses (missed rotations, not boxing out, missing open jumpers, turning the ball over) would get them bounced from the league? In awarding them, these networks undermine their work and philosophy.

In the case of Gooden, you rarely even get the kind of observations and insights that supposedly a former player is there to deliver. The other night against the Spurs, in the final minutes, he said it would come down to who wants it more.

Hire on-air people who have the gift, regardless of whether they played. Actually, on second thought — don’t hire anyone who played. Give the broadcasts a little critical distance. Do away with the jockocracy. Anyone with half a passion for the sport can learn the game. It would be SO much more interesting to listen to. SO much more surprising.

Personally I like having a knowledgeable and well connected former player on a broadcast team. They deliver insights to the culture, locker room, coaching thoughts etc. Some part of the game does have to do with the celebrity of the players. If you have a well respected player in your broadcast booth you can get comment from players who might be sticky to talk to. A guy like Brendan Heywood consistently delivers insights, humor, and analysis of the game. That is the part that is missing with a guy like Drew. And the broacast game in general. Gooden is only there for color commentary, he does not breakdown the sets, defenses, counters, etc. He is not Tony Romo'ing the action and predicting what will likely happen out of a time-out. I think broadcasts are better with former coaches like Jack Ramsay, Hubie Brown, Van Gundy who can teach a bit of the game while they are breaking down the action. I think every broadcast teach should have a guy like that providing notes and things to look for. There are players who can do so as well. I wish they had the freedom or encouragement to do so, instead of simply trying to entertain.

But really I think guys like the 'All the Smoke' crew would work well if they were free to work a little blue. Frankly for my taste I wish there was a late-night crew who had a little more latitude to work a little loose and free with the language. Who wouldn't want to sit in a suite with Gil and listen to his uncensored running commentary on the game? You'd be both laughing and learning the whole time. Yeah it might get a little blue, but he would be stirring up controversy and giving background details and the bar/barbershop commentary on the game, only with actual knowledge. Gilbert is sharp as a scalpel when it comes to his understanding of the game. He loves the game and watches it obsessively. If he veered off script a little, that would be fun. So long as it circled back to the action and outcome.

Great idea for a late-night basketball show for Gil. Maybe team him up with Brendan Haywood - someone he's comfortable with and who'd keep the conversation at a high level while still accentuating his sense of humor. How great would that be?