| 0 |
Subject: OT- Ryan suspended by the Boston Globe
Posted by: Dave R
- Leader [103182910] Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:02
This might not interest many, but it sure has been discussed on end on the local talk show stations here
Talk about putting your foot in your mouth
Ryan is apparently a widley respected writer for the Globe. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting what Kidd alledgedly did in Phoenix, but this is totally out of line.
He deserves the suspension, if not worse.
GO NETS |
| 1 | Da Bomb
ID: 54233616
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:07
|
But who shall take his place on that ESPN show
with Max Kellerman??
|
| 2 | blade
ID: 544619
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:11
|
i'm a big Nets fan but Byron Scott should pipe down on this issue. when Kidd was traded to the Nets i didn't hear him say "oh no i don't want Jason Kidd on my team...he was arrested for hitting his wife." enough with the double standard.
|
| 3 | SillySpheres at Work
ID: 12030914
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:21
|
Ryan is probably the top journalist from Boston and he appears in numerous national tv and radio programs - Around the Horn, PTI, ESPN radio, Sports Reporters, etc.
While his comments were out of line, there is quite a bit of truth in his remarks. Kidd's wife and kid basically taunt the crowd and invite the remarks and comments by parading around in Kidd jerseys and sitting courtside at road events. Why does she have to sit courtside when every other player's wife and kids sit in the luxury boxes? Why is she shocked that people taunt her? All she is doing is attracting attention to herself. Whether or not her goal is to advance her modeling career is not known, but I dont have any pity for either one of them.
Think of it this way, if I were a Red Sox shirt to Yankee Stadium and loudly root for the Sox, is it wrong that people yell stuff at me?
Ryan's comments were harsh, but he wasnt saying anything that isnt the truth. Yes he shouldnt have said he wanted to slap her (if you know the guy, you know he meant it in a figurative way and he would never condone violence against women), but he was doing his job. His job being to share his opinions about sports and get people talking.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 34071820
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:27
|
Good for him, getting suspended. His comments were over the line. An idiotic comment.
Yeah, I'm sure it's Mrs. Kidd who causes Boston "fans" to yell their sh!t. It's her fault, officer. She was parading around in front of me, practically begging me to call her names...
pd
|
| 5 | LJB
ID: 31427621
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:27
|
Kidd's wife and kid basically taunt the crowd and invite the remarks and comments by parading around in Kidd jerseys and sitting courtside at road events.
that is absurd. so i guess that means every fan wearing a visitor's jersey is taunting the crowd. it's not like his wife is jumping up and down yelling at opposing teams "you suck the nets are the best." wearing a jersey whether you are related to a player or not is just showing support for your favorite team.
|
| 6 | J
Leader
ID: 49346417
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:30
|
Ryan's comments were harsh, but he wasnt saying anything that isnt the truth.
Truth = wanting to slap her? If he would've omitted that part of his quote this wouldn't be an issue.
He also had several chances to "take it back" but refused apparently.
If she wants to sit courtside with her child, thats her right!
|
| 7 | SillySpheres at Work
ID: 12030914
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:38
|
I am just saying that before everyone jumps to defend poor Mrs Kidd and son as the victims that you have to realize they invite it. They have attracted a lot of attention to themselves over the years, especially since Kidd came to NJ, by openly rooting for the visting team in a hostile environment. Why is everyone shocked that the home fans dont like that?
Yes, sometimes the Boston fans go overboard, but that is that nature of fans these days. That was actually the basis of the discussion between Ryan and Bob Lobel (the host of the show)- why do fans feel they are entitled to be so harsh.
J had a good point, if Ryan didnt add the slapping comment, then nobody would have brought it up. Everything up until that comment was more or less truthful. He was also attempting to get Boston fans more riled up for the upcoming series.
|
| 8 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 103182910
Tue, May 06, 2003, 22:39
|
Blade, there's not to many bigger Nets fans than me, trust me on that. I'm not supporting what Kidd did earlier. I don't see what Scott's response has any bearing on this and I understand his position. I suspect he was merely sticking up for his star andi commend him for that.
SillySpheres, yup certainly sitting at courtside opens Kidds wife and kid opens them up to taughting, I guess they expect that and can live with it. That is certainly their choice The point of this thread was the mindless comments by a respected writer for a respected paper and as you pointed out, TV & radio personality.
Quite obviously the Globe felt his comments were inaproppriate or they wouldn't have taken the measures they did
|
| 9 | patjams
ID: 23438612
Tue, May 06, 2003, 23:19
|
Definitely mindless in this pc world, but I think everyone knows what the metaphor really meant. It's getting so you can't say anything anymore for fear of hurting someone's id. We're living in a thin skinned world these days.
|
| 10 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Tue, May 06, 2003, 23:29
|
I remember azdbacker ripping Joumana Kidd back when Kidd was in Phoenix. I think he echoed the sentiments of Bob Ryan regarding her self-promoting motives, but I could be wrong.
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 34071820
Tue, May 06, 2003, 23:34
|
Patjams, c'mon, get off that knee-jerk anti-PC rap. Saying a guy went over the line by broadcasting a comment about slapping a woman who'd been hit by her husband has nothing to do with being "PC." Your comment sounds like those people who get their posts deleted and then go off about "censorship."
pd
|
| 12 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 589301110
Tue, May 06, 2003, 23:40
|
Making any comment that might be construed as suggesting wife beating is acceptable in our "enlightened" society should be harshly dealt with. This isn't PC crap. This is real lives that are ruined.
|
| 13 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, May 06, 2003, 23:41
|
I met Ryan this past fall for the first time ever in person. he was very genuine and it was weird seeing someone that I've seen so much on TV in person and how down to earth he was. He's always been knowledgable and fair to referees and to players. Fair but firm. The main thing I appreciate is that he tries to find out the rule and how and why something is done--not jsut to rip. His statements here are out of character from what I've ever seen--yet not that he was direct and unafraid to say how he feels. His comments here though are irresponsible and unfortunate.
|
| 14 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Tue, May 06, 2003, 23:50
|
If 2 friends are sitting around chatting and one of them makes the same comment, you could debate PC/non-PC. But, Ryan is a "reporter" making a comment in a public setting while representing an employer. Reporters shoud report events, not make news. A suspension is warranted IMO.
Any notion that Mrs Kidd "asked for it" is ridiculous. That's like saying a girl "asked for it" cause she dressed a certain way.
Ryan (as a fan) doesn't have to like Mrs Kidd's actions and he can make those comments in private if he wants. As a reporter, he needs to limit the scope of his comments to facts. Let him report she is obnoxious and lime light hogging, but don't threaten to slap her.
I wonder how Bob Ryan would like it if a professional athlete wanted to slap his wife around becuase they disagreed with her manorisms?
|
| 15 | Razor
Donor
ID: 411149818
Wed, May 07, 2003, 00:53
|
I thought Ryan should've been fired after he called Kansas "a fraud" before the tournament on that idiotic Around the Horn show. Sportswriters who call the best team in the best conference who go to the title game a fraud should be fired.
|
| 16 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 541437
Wed, May 07, 2003, 08:00
|
not to bring this up again, but this is the article in todays paper ( Star Ledger )
Ryan was for sure out of line and deserves a suspension if not more. Kidds family matters are his own business and none of his.
His comments are totally unprofessional and I'm shocked.
In any event, I hope he adds some fuel to the Nets fire!
GO NETS
|
| 18 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 541437
Wed, May 07, 2003, 08:12
|
because I'm shocked that a widely respected and well know sports columnist and talk show guy would make these comments
|
| 19 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, May 07, 2003, 08:14
|
Sorry, Dave. I was trying to be silly and reread it and figured it wasn't silly afterall so I deleted it.
|
| 20 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, May 07, 2003, 08:16
|
I deleted it before I knew you replied to it that is.
I'll clean these 2 posts up as well, later.
|
| 21 | Khahan
ID: 3127107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 08:39
|
You know what, I say that about a people all time. I always thought that was a figure of speech. When somebody is being arogant or pompous or is too full of himself, I say, "Somebody needs to smack him."
Its a figure of speech, normally. However, given the overall situation (she'll be sitting in a crowd of rowdy sports fans who may just take him up on his comments) it might not have been the best phrase to use. I think perhaps things are being blown a bit out of proportion though.
|
| 22 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 1943258
Wed, May 07, 2003, 08:55
|
Ender, no harm no foul so to speak and no offense taken. Maybe I'm overreacting as a NJ guy and love watching Kidd play-- you didn't need to delete you post. I'll be at the game tonight, my son came home from school for the game, life is good.
You have to admit that the comments Ryan made were uncalled for and that he deserves what he got if not more.
I'll drop this ( for now ), but rest assured this is going to be a hot topic in this area today.
GO NETS
|
| 23 | SillySpheres
ID: 58512252
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:10
|
Dave:
I agree the comments were uncalled for, but a month's suspension is excessive. The Boston Globe could have dealth with this in a much better manner if it stood more by its top columnist instead of just giving in to outside PC pressure.
GO CELTS
|
| 24 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 0059248
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:21
|
It's not PC in this particular case, as I've already pointed out.
|
| 25 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:26
|
Khahan, I'll use similar language loosely in closed company as well, but you don't attain the status of highly respected on-air and print sports journalist by innocently thinking you can throw phrases like that around without repercussions. So don't think for a second he didn't know better ...unless of course you think he is a moron AND a spineless coward who is willing to condemn himself against his own convictions in the form of an apology just to keep his job.
|
| 26 | Ender
ID: 45114615
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:31
|
NP, Dave. I agree with you. The comments were ignorant, insensitive, and directed at the worst person he could have chosen. If he had made them about any woman it would have been bad. The fact that he made them about a woman who had been slapped and it made big headlines called even more attention to it.
Suspension was definitely warranted. I'm not sure what an appropriate length would be. I don't know what is typical in journalism, so I won't pass judgement on the length.
|
| 27 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:31
|
The whole reason it was bad, and maybe this was said I just haven't read the whole thing was cause of Kidd hitting her before then Ryan saying what he said about slapping her, that's why. If she'd never been hit before, I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue. Bob Ryan is one of the best sports reporters around, just testament to that freedom of speech is not so free anymore.
|
| 28 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:35
|
Sillyspheres, PC pressure? The guy is lucky he kept his job. Regarding what you said earlier in this thread, Think of it this way, if I were a Red Sox shirt to Yankee Stadium and loudly root for the Sox, is it wrong that people yell stuff at me?
By that comment I can only assume you have never seen the Red Sox at Yankee Stadium. I have, dozens of times. There are Red Sox fans everywhere, and they are out and vocal. Vendors openly sell Red Sox hats in the stands. Sure, shouting matches occur and escalated situations do occassionally happen with probably somewhat greater frequency than in other games, but NEVER would a Yankee announcer say even in jest that any particular fan - celebrity or otherwise - should be on the receiving end of any kind of violence for cheering on his/her team. And if one did, I'd be all for seeing him/her fired.
|
| 29 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:44
|
It amazes me that so many gurupies have no idea what freedom of speech is all about. In no way, regardless of prior history between the Kidds, are the words of Ryan protected by our Constitutional right to free speech. The Framers of the Constitution never had any intention of protecting the right of people to advocate violence on innnocents, in jest or otherwise.
|
| 30 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 1943258
Wed, May 07, 2003, 09:47
|
SillySpheres, I'm not sure of your age or occupation. I own my own business and If one of my employees made similar statements they would be dealt with in a similar manner, if not fired.
Granted he's a widely respected journalist, which IMO, makes it worst as he's in the public forum.
Not only was the interviewer shocked but gave him a chance to recast his statement, and Ryan declined.
There's no way those comments can be justified, so sorry. And I wouldn't care if it was Kidd or any other Player or person for that matter. It's simply poor judgement.
oh by the way
GO NETS
|
| 31 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:02
|
MITH: Yeah the framers of the constitution didn't mean for that to be the definition of Free speech. However, we must remember how old the constitution is. Certainly, the definition of freedom of speech has evolved throughout the years and is vastly different from what the ideals of the constitution implied.
Do I think his comments are covered under freedom of speech, yes. I also believe Todd Jones comments are covered under freedom of speech. BUT, I do agree they should be punished accordingly, freedom of speech is a wavy wavy line, depending where you are demographically, where you are geographically, where you are in terms of respectability, the actual freedom of speech you receive is vastly different from you or I.
Should it be different? No, freedom of speech should be a standard, but it isn't we all know that and it's ludicrous for us to think it can be. What our founding fathers had in mind is not what freedom of speech is today, sorry but that's the reality of it whether we like it or not.
It's impossible to have an opinion about anything, and it's hard to express your opinion about anything, without offending someone. In this case, Ryan did go way to far, however you and I both know, had Kidd never hit his wife before, this would not be as serious as it is now.
I do have a very good idea of freedom of speech, as a Comm Journ Major, it was drilled into my head, thank you.
|
| 32 | Jaybird
ID: 37339146
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:08
|
Dave your comment to Silly seems almost as ill considered as was Ryan's, although of a different nature. I would hope as a boss of perhaps many, that in disciplining your employees you would consider the totality of their service to you and their loyalty to your company, rather than summing up the entirity of their employment in one off hand remark. I would think you'd owe them that much, and if you have a sucessful company, you already know and do that.
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 0059248
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:10
|
Their prior service is why Dave would let them keep their pants on when he paddles them....
|
| 34 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:19
|
Matt G
If Kidd had never been charged with hitting his wife, Ryan would still deserve to lose his job, IMO. Fortunately for him, the Boston Globe is a more forgiving employer than I would be. I agree the history makes this issue more sensitive, but sensitivity aside, it would be no less wrong.
Seriously, what do you think is the purpose of the right to free speech? You say it is drilled into your head, but you say that this issue is "testament to that freedom of speech is not so free anymore." You're wrong. No one wants to see Ryan charged with any crime, and what he said is clearly damaging to to the company he works for and the industry he represents, and are unquestionably libelous to the Kidd family. Please explain how this incident demonstrates any erosion or changes in free speech through the decades.
|
| 35 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 589301110
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:29
|
500 words or less. Double spaced. At least 10 references. ;)
|
| 36 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:30
|
I got all mixed up with what I was saying. For him to say that about hitting a women many many years ago, I can't say what would happen to be honest.
In a way, how you said this is libel, is a testament to how freedom of speech still isn't protected. I dunno, It's hard for me to explain exactly what I think, and how I think it. Libel is considered a false statement of fact which can hurt another person. Meaning a reasonable person ACTUALLY has to believe what is said and that has to affect a person's reputation. The fact of the matter is libel and slander are completely different for celebrities, because their lives are already made public. Whether Mrs Kidd is a celebrity has yet to be seen.
So Ryan can't be held for libel on this account. I know that. For it to be libel it has to be, this person did this. And it has to be reasonably believable. Comedians, are rarely held for libel because what they say is known to not be believable, however this is OT.
for what I said about free speech, forget it, I think he should be punished, fired he won't be. Bosten Globe makes so much money from Ryan, more so then it's worth to fire him. I don't believe thats right though.
|
| 37 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:37
|
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
|
| 38 | John Budge
Donor
ID: 51042247
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:46
|
I don't know if Matt G purposely tries to play both sides of the fence, but he manages to do it often when social and political issues are broached.
Ryan's comments have nothing to do with the fact that Kidd smacked up his wife. In fact, I think it would be MORE serious if the Kidds didn't have a prior history.
|
| 39 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:48
|
What's your point? so he wants to slap her? that has nothing about defaming her or unjustly defavoring her. You're missing the point on libel here. The dictionary definition is the dictionary definition, but anyone who has studied Journalism knows the dictionary definition is RARELY used, I can't say never but RARELY. It's a false statement of fact, that could be believed by a reasonable person to be true, thus defaming the character.
I really don't feel like arguing this anymore, cause you know you are right and I know I am right. Let's just agree to disagree, otherwise I can get my journalism profs to post here ;-)
|
| 40 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:50
|
JB I don't play both sides of the fense, but I'm very objective. I see both sides, that simple. I can turn it on or off actually, it's another college trick I learned.
I have an opinion on everything yes, but I can see the other side, I'm rarely bias. Keeps me from trouble.
Yeah I think this, but I understand your point.
|
| 41 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 10:56
|
JB: Another thing, yeah what Ryan said had nothing to do with Kidd hitting his wife. But a year or two after it happens, you are commenting on his wife and you mention smacking her. KNOWING that she was hit before, I think that carries a heavier load.
That's my opinion. I'm thinking subconsciencly Ryan is thinking about how Kidd hit her, and is "sympathizing" with him, saying "I'd like to smack her." that's my point.
|
| 42 | Khahan
ID: 3127107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 13:21
|
His statement, wrong or innocent, in no way has anything to do with a legal definition of liable.
Liable occurs when a false statement of truth is made about a person in the presence of another and that statement harms the reputation of another.
He's stating his opinion, not a fact. He believes she should be slapped. And what harm to Mrs. Kidd's reputation did it have?
I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion, something the media in this country rarely does
Considering the situation in which he said it, his employer does need to have a serious talk with him and some kind of disciplinary action would not be uncalled for. But a month without pay and a national public outcry? Come on. That's a bit excessive.
But either way, liable and slander play no part in this.
|
| 43 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 13:27
|
That's exactly what I was saying Khahan thanks for backing me up...RE post 39 :)
|
| 44 | Ref
Donor
ID: 100261311
Wed, May 07, 2003, 13:37
|
I back you up too. The truth hurts sometimes, but in no way do I condone what Ryan said.
|
| 45 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 13:43
|
Truth does hurt yes, Ryan insert both feet into his mouth, that must hurt.
I'm pretty well versed on libel and slander, I had a case brought upon me in HS when I wrote for my school paper. I had a habit of practicing Gonzo Journalism. Apparently that doesn't fly in HS, the administration hated it, but my journalism teacher thought I was the actual next coming of Hunter S. Thompson.
|
| 46 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 13:52
|
Khahan,
I'll stand corrected on the difference between the legal definition of the term and the civilian one. Still, I stand by what I meant, that his words were malicious and insulting and that freedom of speech has no place in this discussion. By saying that someone should slap her, he's implying that she was doing something wrong. He wasn't saying she should be slapped for being named Kidd, or for being attractive. He was saying she had no right to be where she was and doing what she was doing. Well, she wasn't doing anything wrong, and most certainly did not deserve any form or degree of violence for anything.
On that you think the punishment was excessive, you have to consider that Ryan represents the Globe. In many aspects he is their face and in every aspect he is one of their voices. The Globe has a responsibility to it's readers, it's integrity, it's objectivity and it's reputation to allow it's voices to express ideas and opinions that may be contrary to some of the best interests of The Globe itself. But they also have a responsibility to curb expressions based solely in malice, as this one was. Public reprimand was in order because it is important for a media outlet to send a clear message that this is not an expression they care to be associated with, much less a position they hold. That the national media jumped on it was a natural, unavoidable reaction. I have no idea why you are making Ryan out to be the victim in all this. The very nature of his job is such that he knows better than to say what he did, but he was arrogant enough to think that he was above anything happening to him about it. I don't care how good a reporter he is, how insightful or thorough, it was an incredibly stupid thing for a person in his position to say and not only did he get what he deserved, but he's lucky that that's all he got - and I'm sure he knows it. It's very satisfying to see a lout like him eat some well deserved crow and get knocked down a few pegs.
|
| 47 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 14:00
|
However in Ryan's opinion, she was doing something wrong, that's why he thought she should be slapped, by him in particular no one else. He thought that her parading that kid around and all that was her starved for attention, to him that's wrong, she he thinks she should be slapped.
Does he have a right to think that, hell yes
Does he have a right to say his opinion that he wishes he could slap her, hell yes
Does the Boston Globe have the right to suspend him because he is a represenative of them, you bet they do.
What I'm getting from you is that, because what he said was malicious and insulting he has no right to say that. I'm sorry but I don't agree with that. It's his personal opinion, he has the freedom of expression and freedom of speech to say whatever he wants to say. I don't know how else to put it. He has the right to do it, but is it wrong to do. Yeah
If that sounds contradictory, I'm sorrying but it's like a catch 22. You can say what you want, but you're gonna pay for it...
|
| 48 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 14:10
|
Matt G, now it is you who is confusing legal issues with other issues. When you ask, "Does he have a right to say his opinion that he wishes he could slap her"?
If you mean a constitutional right? Of course he does. You imply that somewhere I have suggested the contrary. I most certainly haven't. But within the frame of his job obligations, he has no right to say what he did. And that's why they have the right to reprimand him.
And this isn't a freedom of speech issue. If it was, Ryan would have a civil case against The Globe - and he doesn't.
|
| 49 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 14:17
|
Guess we got confused, or missworded, I don't think his job limits his rights to say that but it is his Job to act responsibly. Say what he said, was not very responsible, therefore he is being punished.
The word "rights" gets thrown around a lot. I see Rights as granted by the Constitution, however, duties, responsibilitys, liabilities, etc. Those are limited by occupations. Which he has, and crossed...
Just a missunderstanding. ;-)
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 14:21
|
OK, I see where I did not express myself clearly. In post 29 I wrote, "In no way, regardless of prior history between the Kidds, are the words of Ryan protected by our Constitutional right to free speech."
Obviously, in that stand-alone context, I am wrong. That statement was in response to MattG's suggestion that his suspension was a reflection of the erosion of FOS. So what I should have wrote was that in no way was his suspension a violation of Ryan's freedom of speech.
|
| 51 | SillySpheres
ID: 58512252
Wed, May 07, 2003, 15:09
|
re MITH in 28:
I have in fact been to numerous Sox - Yankees games at Yankee stadium (always wearing my red sox gear) and sat with both intelligent and obnoxious yankees fans. The point of my analogy was if Mrs Kidd goes to another arena parading around in Nets gear, she can expect to get heckled. The fact that Ryan believes that she is doing it to attract attention is what angered him and has angered a lot of other people. This point has already been belabored in this thread so I wont push it further
Re Dave R in 30:
Some of the blame has to be placed on the interviewer. Lobel (the interviewer) knows Ryan very well and knew he was exaggerating the statement, but still continued to push him. Lobel could have easily laughed it off and changed the subject, but instead he chose to push and push and push. That was really uncalled for. Lobel has had his fair share of poor comments over the years so he had to know what road he was going down.
|
| 52 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:06
|
Lobel immediately interrupted Ryan, asking him to retract the statement.
"You just don't want to smack her, you don't mean to say that. No, do you, really? Tell me you don't," Lobel said.
That's pushing?
|
| 53 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:18
|
And sillyspheres, I for the life of me have no idea what your point regarding cheering in the stands is. It sounds to me like you are saying that if you go to a NY/Bos game at Yankee stadium with your young son wearing a Sox jersey and cheering your team, that an announcer who pointed you out on his live TV broadcast and criticized you for having your son there and said that someone should slap you, he would be telling the truth - and that you would have deserved it.
|
| 54 | SillySpheres at Work
ID: 582492810
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:23
|
MITH:
My point is that Ryan was not far off base in his rationale for his comments. I never said anything about the slapping comment being necessary or correct. He just went a little overboard in his thoughts in an attempt to get Boston fans more excited for the series. I also think that the situation was perperuated by Lobel not cutting Ryan off, but rather egging him on. If Lobel just said, 'ok, thats good Bob, we gotta go to commercial now' things would have been ok. Instead Lobel kept pushing him to continue.
|
| 55 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:35
|
Your words from post 54:
I never said anything about the slapping comment being necessary or correct.
Your words from post 3:
Ryan's comments were harsh, but he wasnt saying anything that isnt the truth
Which is it?
I'll agree that Lobel and the broadcast in general would have been better off if he'd downplayed the comments, but the guy was clearly taken aback by what Ryan said, and understandably so. It's pretty appalling to even suggest that any one who hasn't done anything wrong, especially a woman deserves to be on the receiving end of any violence. But that Lobel isn't a great broadcaster or at least could have handled that situation better does not make what Ryan said any easier to take.
Along the lines of your reasoning, one could just as easily argue that Lobel gave Ryan an opportunity to make the situation better, to take back what he said right away on the air, something like, "Of course I didn't mean it! I'd never advocate violence!" in an irate tone. But as his response to Lobel shows Ryan proved too arrogant to even consider taking it back, and he's paying for it. Bottom line is that no one is to blame for Ryan's punishment except for Ryan. If you think that Ryan feels otherwise, then you are in effect calling him spineless for not standing up for his convictions. A columnist who reaches his level can always find work these days, even after a scandal like this.
|
| 56 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:37
|
Necessary and Correct are different from the truth.
My take is that, it isn't necessary or even correct for him to say it, but it is the truth to him...
|
| 57 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:38
|
Uh, Matt G, last time I checked, if something is "correct", then it is also "true" in any case where both words apply.
|
| 58 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:47
|
It's not correct for him to say that... But what he was saying was the truth :)
|
| 59 | Dave R
Leader
ID: 103182910
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:48
|
Ok I've made my points and feelings expressed before. We can blame Lobel, cite freedom of speech, trying to rally the Celtic fans and on and on.
Bottom line is Ryan stepped over the edge on this, and obviously the Globe felt so as well. I'm not defending Kidd's prior actions, for sure they were wrong.
We can all debate this forever and this thread has gone way beyond my intentions. Rest assured any who have posted would be insulted by Ryans comments if the were directed at their wife, regardless of the circumstance.
|
| 60 | Matt G
ID: 1645269
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:48
|
Correct was refering to Ryan's conduct, truth was referring to the information that he said. It is the truth that he wanted to slap here, but it was not correct for him to say so....
|
| 61 | SillySpheres at Work
ID: 582492810
Wed, May 07, 2003, 16:52
|
Good point Dave R, I think this arguement has pretty much run its course.
But, what I was talking about in post 3 (the truth) was I believe Ryan's comments are true excluding the slapping comment. I believe the slapping comment went way beyond what was necessary or correct to say, even though it was a hyperbole.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|