Sports REPORTERS who use their soapbox to preach politics (re: Chouinard)

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

...are ethically-starved, imo.

No law against it, of course, nor should there be.

But I'm one of those who lose respect for a person like Kevin Chouinard when he uses the same Twitter account for his Hawks reporting to also propagandize his followers with his views on climate change and taxes and immigration and so on.

It's actually a little worse over at the NBC Sports sites, though. Some of those guys, ON THE ACTUAL SITE publish stuff regularly colored by their political bents... and that's just incredibly inappropriate from where I sit.

Don't get me started on pro sports commissioners using their sport's influence to forward a political agenda.

Adam Silver is the worst in that respect. It will not surprise me in the least if that guy decides to seek the Dem nomination for president some day. No hyperbole. I think that really could happen.

(EDIT: Realized I should have been more specific with my title, and corrected from "sports writers" to "sports REPORTERS.")

[jayu70]

You did this on the Squawk. Let it die.
You can opt not to follow his Twitter.

[Sultanofatl]

yeah well, if that President and political commentators can use sports and athletes to further their agendas, sportswriters and commissioners have the right and duty to do the same. Don't like it don't read it. And it seems you only complain about left leaning views. Hmmm...

[jayu70]

Sports and politicals have between entertwined since the days at the greek collisiums, to Tommy at the Olympics, to Mohammad Ali, to now.

[Sultanofatl]

Sports and politicals have between entertwined since the days at the greek collisiums, to Tommy at the Olympics, to Mohammad Ali, to now.

Jesse and Hitler too. Some of the best drama is political sports drama.

[MaceCase]

I feel like I've seen part of this conversation before..

[personanongrata]

My thing is, if you going to be political, be objective and be fair. Most are hopelessly partisan, be they liberal or conservative.

[jayu70]

My thing is, if you going to be political, be objective and be fair. Most are hopelessly partisan, be they liberal or conservative.

In an ideal world, just not the real world unfortunately.

[fuzzy1]

Why just sportswriters? Would you say the same about former show hosts?

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app

[MaceCase]

I will say this about sportswriters, there's rarely a happy medium in terms of reader appreciation. People will look at a Simmons and say "he's just highly opinionated but doesn't actually know squat about sports" but then look at a Hollinger and say "he's a nerd and needs to actually watch games". Thankfully, there's a lot of writers on a lot of platforms from which to choose from so you can skew towards your tastes or dabble around.

Additionally, if we have entire "news" conglomerates with company-wide mandates to not only skew but put the full pedal down in a particular political direction then I don't see how or why we're breaking out the pitchforks and torches for reporters with ~10k followers.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

1. So, if we follow Jay's logic, then maybe we have NOTHING to discuss here... after all, if it appeared on HS, why bring it up here?

As-if?

2. Let's be clear because it so easily gets lost... I stated from the top here, "no law against it of course nor should there be." It's NOT a question of "rights" that I'm bringing up... but some of you often have probably said yourselves at some point, "just because you have the right LEGALLY doesn't mean it's the right decision to take advantage of that right ETHICALLY."

God help us if our every behavior was a matter of what is legal versus what we know for ourselves to be appropriate.

You want examples, I'll give you examples, but I figure you know that to be true for yourselves in your jobs and in your families and otherwise.

==> 3. And so, let's also follow my detractors' logic further.

If my criticism is so very illegitimate, why not just a board that allows us all to discuss sports and non-sports topics freely from the same menu?

Why is it that it just seems to make sense that, if you want to talk Hawks basketball, there's a place for that, and if you want to talk about immigration, it's not appropriate in that same place?

Why is that? Because we're reasonable adults who understand it's only reasonable. Some differentiation that allows others the courtesy of reading content that they've chosen to consume is only a respectful way to operate.

4. Test me on this however you want to test me... any accusations that my complaint wouldn't be a complaint if the media people in question were generally pushing angles that I personally approve of is inaccurate and presumptuous... just plain wrong.

Rather, I am one of those birds who legitimately ascend to the virtue of fairness/objectivity, and ESPECIALLY where it concerns this topic. Away from here, one of the things you'll find me participating in is something called Better Angels, which is a grassroots movement begun a couple of years ago to reduce polarization, and markedly, that should not be reinterpreted as to promote centrism. I'm also one of those active advocates seeking to eliminate federal, state, and local laws that give advantage to one political party over the other... or, maybe better said, two large political parties over any other political party... fairness has to matter in a democratic republic.

5. I personally maintain professional social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter and personal ones.

It's actually do-able. In fact, it's very do-able. And it's respectful. And it's courteous.

And it's, at least, a step higher ethically because it keeps my customers and staff and my volunteer help and my organization as a whole from being colored by how, I, a leader of the organization views the world... politically, yes, but also religiously or any other way.

Which gets back to the point... it is as legit for Chouinard or Silver to promote their politics through their profession as it would be if they had become Jehovah's Witnesses and were promoting their religion... sure, it might sound great to the other JWs, but to the rest of us, it comes off as self-delusional that it doesn't in actuality suggest they are oblivious and self-important and disrespectful of people they really shouldn't be disrespectful toward.

[Atlanta Hawk Fan]

When actors, reality TV entertainers, comedians, sports stars, etc. can become politicians and actually fashion real world political policy, how can anyone proclaim that it is inappropriate for media talking heads to talk politics in addition to their primary subject area (sports in this case)? I'm at a loss.

I'm am fully in favor of the notion of reducing polarization which has become more and more extreme over time to the ugly state we are in today. Also 100% aligned on seeking to eliminate laws that give advantages to one party over the other (recognizing there is no legit option other than those two parties for most purposes) and eliminating the walls that place other political parties at a steep disadvantage (obviously as a means of maintaining power for both the R and D parties). This "Party over Country" mantra that many politicians have embraced is toxic. However, I see these are wholly separate issues from whether sports figures or commentators should keep their political opinions to themselves or that they are unethical for doing otherwise.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Why just sportswriters? Would you say the same about former show hosts?

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app

You might have to be more precise.

If I subscribe to Keith Olbermann's twitter feed, then I tacitly understand that he's been both a sports news anchor/commentator and a political news commentator. Is that the kind of thing you're citing?

Maybe, maybe not, but here's where the line seems to be reasonable to draw...

Sports fans subscribe to sports REPORTERS' twitter feeds SPECIFICALLY because they expect to gain their REPORTS. There's no disputing that, is there? So, there is no bait and switch of any sort there... assuming the sports REPORTER uses his twitter feed to REPORT.

When s/he uses that SAME feed to disseminate his POLITICAL thoughts and opinions, that is a convenient abuse of the tacit understanding among those who subscribed to his twitter feed... and that represents an appalling self-indulgence, as-if, as Jay suggests, in effect, "if you have a problem with it, hell with you, unsubscribe then."

I could similarly say, again, I would be similarly disappointed if Chouinard was taking advantage of his follower list to promote The Watchtower.

You get what I'm saying?

[Sultanofatl]

if the personal account is owned and operated by the individual, then you are in their space. Political ideals are promoted through art(movies,music etc.) even when people are paying to see the performance. If that is expected and accepted, why should a personal social media account be chastised for doing the same? If I go to the athletic and get a political spin from the beat writer then I will cancel my subscription if I feel offended. When David Stern corporated up the players, it was good business. When Adam Silver sees that 90% of his league has a political concern and as commissioner chooses to help them champion the cause it is his idea of good business..

[jayu70]

Anbody got the cliff notes on sturts post? Anyon
Again.....The cross pollination off sports and polititics exist. Deal with it or don't.

[kg01]

Anbody got the cliff notes on sturts post? Anyon
Again.....The cross pollination off sports and polititics exist. Deal with it or don't.

I was looking for the audiobook myself.

Heh. Old man just runnin' around shaking his fist at clouds.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I just explained why, sultan.

Counterpoint something I said, and we can have a discussion.

And to Jay, I respect you, but that comment is irrelevant... we all agree that it is what it is... we even all agree, again, that it's not a matter of anyone doing anything outside of their "rights." That you persist in trying to disregard the points made on the basis of playing Word Count Police is its own comment on how much substance you apparently realize is available to oppose what I've said... or better, how little.

[Sultanofatl]

You don't see my point. You say you subscribe/follow for sports information. This is untrue. If you want just stats follow Espnstats or newswires. You follow the personality for his opinion. His opinion is not exclusive to sports and he doesn't promise as much. Nor is he charging for you to freely access his opinions. So he owes nothing and you don't have grounds to expect anything.

[jayu70]

I just explained why, sultan.

Counterpoint something I said, and we can have a discussion.

And to Jay, I respect you, but that comment is irrelevant... we all agree that it is what it is... we even all agree, again, that it's not a matter of anyone doing anything outside of their "rights." That you persist in trying to disregard the points made on the basis of playing Word Count Police is its own comment on how much substance you apparently realize is available to oppose what I've said... or better, how little.

I'm not word policing you, i just have neither the time nor inclination to read it all as I've ssaid my piece here as well as previously on the Squawk.
Aaaah...you know what....I'mma just stick to sports.
Funny how you want Chouinard to stick to sports, but you want to talk politics on a Sports board. Oh the irony, but to each his own.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

You don't see my point. You say you subscribe/follow for sports information. This is untrue.

Yikes. Really? It takes a special kind of hubris for a person to respond, in effect, "You're lying."

...hehe...

If you want just stats follow Espnstats or newswires. You follow the personality for his opinion. His opinion is not exclusive to sports and he doesn't promise as much. Nor is he charging for you to freely access his opinions. So he owes nothing and you don't have grounds to expect anything.

Maybe you're just not acquainted. Let me acquaint you.

Chouinard is a REPORTER, not a commentator.

Regularly, one can find him REPORTING on things about the Hawks before anyone else... and w/o some of the dubious inaccuracies that the AJC beat writer is too well known for over the years.

So, I like that.

I do not follow Chouinard for any other reason than that.

He is NOT a sports columnist, like a Mark Bradley is. That IS indeed a different thing, at least to some degree, though I hasten to add, if I subscribed to a Mark Bradley, it would still get annoying that he didn't have the courtesy to separate tweeting about his sports writing from his tweeting and advocating for his religious views.