# Blazers' New Media Policy Not Well Taken Here..



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

From: Calgary Sun



> By STEVE SIMMONS, SUN MEDIA
> 
> 
> The idiots who run the Portland Trail Blazers -- and believe me, they are idiots -- never have been able to control themselves, let alone their players.
> ...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

What a surprise, the media is all agasint it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

interesting that a guy in calgary, a city without an NBA team, and never will have one, thinks that we should believe he knows what he' talking about (from what, 700+ miles away...in a different country)?

yeah...ok.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> interesting that a guy in calgary, a city without an NBA team, and never will have one, thinks that we should believe he knows what he' talking about (from what, 700+ miles away...in a different country)?
> 
> yeah...ok.


That was my thought as well. Why does this hoser care?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

The biggest problem with the media policy is that it's not written out. There are no formal guidelines to refer to. That way, if someone submits an interview request and is turned down or anything like that, the Blazers don't have to explain why.

So in essence, they're trying to control what questions are asked, the tone of the questions, and because of those things, the outcome of the questions and interviews.

If Portland didn't have some real idiot players, the media wouldn't have the relationship with the organization it does. How about Rasheed Wallace embarrassing himself in post-game interviews (or that legendary sit-down interview where he dropped the n-word over and over)? Or Darius just being Darius? Or Damon taking pot through an airport?

By the way, it's not like Quick and Canzano hate all the Blazers; Quick has praised Telfair a lot (despite his incident, which wasn't beaten to death in the paper), he likes Zach, excited about Martell, etc ... Canzano was one of the first people locally to forgive and forget with Damon, likes Jarrett Jack, etc ... it's not all doom and gloom with these guys (but I will admit ... in these dark times ... with the worst team in the NBA and a messy front office and a sever roster imbalance ... there's not a ton to be real happy about).

What if, a few years down the line, Canzano and Quick are gone and the new beat writer and columnist are earnest in their efforts to fairly cover the Blazers? And, let's say a Portland player screws up somehow. If the new writers are turned down for an interview because their questions aren't very "nice" or to management's liking, what will happen to the flow of information that helps you form a complete opinion about the team?

The Blazers shouldn't have anything to hide. Granted, they are entitled to their secrets - who they're trying to acquire, draft possibilities, etc ... but if they operated with a reasonable amount of transparency (how about the team never drawing up the 'Darius document, for starters) and didn't go out of their way to hide everything, the media wouldn't have as much to go after. If they conducted their business on the level and were more accountable for their actions, you wouldn't have these problems.

I will admit this, though; Portland shed itself of most of the knuckleheads, and yet fans are still staying away because they STILL perceive the team as a group of idiots. The media has made a mistake in not emphasizing the fact that, hey, most of these guys are pretty nice guys.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> If Portland didn't have some real idiot players, the media wouldn't have the relationship with the organization it does. How about Rasheed Wallace embarrassing himself in post-game interviews (or that legendary sit-down interview where he dropped the n-word over and over)? Or Darius just being Darius? Or Damon taking pot through an airport?


I don't think it's just "idiot" players, per-say. 

Look at it this way. Earlier in the year Canzano and Quick tried to goad Joel into saying he was pissde that Theo was getting as many minutes as he was, but Joel didn't bite. So they slithered over to the PG trio, trying to make a story out of nothing. 

Those 3 weren't as "wiley" as Joel and Theo were. Joel and Theo wouldn't bite, but they might be able to get Blake, Jack or Telfair to say something that they could milk. Thankfully, Jack, Blake and Telfair didn't bite.

I think if you have a company that is asked questions (as the players are), it's your right to know what the questions are and have it on record. 

This is just for official interviews, right? not "off the record" stuff. 

So if you hve someone (let's call him John Canzano) who can take a timid quote and turn into a purposely vague article that leads you to believe something that wasn't said, it makes sense to have your own copy and show that's not what the player actually said.

All this is doing is taking away a "creative liberty" aspect of what Canzano and Quick claim is their "unbiased" articles.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I don't think it's just "idiot" players, per-say.
> 
> Look at it this way. Earlier in the year Canzano and Quick tried to goad Joel into saying he was pissde that Theo was getting as many minutes as he was, but Joel didn't bite. So they slithered over to the PG trio, trying to make a story out of nothing.
> 
> ...


How did Quick/Canzano try to bait Joel? Isn't it a fair question to ask if he was upset about not getting the minutes? Especially when Theo played the entire fourth quarter each night? But I don't remember seeing anything where I thought the writers asked really unfair questions about the center tandem.

And with the point guards, both Telfair and Jack DID say "someone's gotta go this summer," so it's not fair to say nothing came out of that. Then again, you NEVER saw headlines in the Big O that said "TELFAIR: TRADES MUST BE MADE" or something dramatic like that. And in their stories/columns, the writers even acknowledged that Telfair was a real cheerleader on the bench and had a good relationship with Blake and Jack. The positive relationship betwen the three has been given a good bit of press this past year, despite the uncertainties.

I wouldn't have a problem if the media had to submit questions and that was that. But the way this policy sounds, the Blazers can veto questions altogether. That's just shady right there.

And it's hard to say if this is all about "official" or "off the record" stuff; because the policy isn't written out, no one knows for sure.

Funny you mentioned "unbiased." Here's my take on all that. Canzano's a columnist, paid to write his opinions. A columnist without a bias is pretty damn boring. That doesn't mean I like Canzano, because the more I read, the more I don't think he really has anything to say. 

But with Quick, now I'm not defending him, just saying how I see the situation, but he writes his game recaps and articles with the overall big picture in mind. With the team losing 23 out of their final 24 games or whatever it was, there wasn't really ANYTHING to be excited or happy about at all. So that's the prism through which Quick writes his recaps. 

He at least tries to pull back and look at the big picture of what's going on with the team, and in the recaps, he takes that into account. With the worst record in the NBA, etc ... there wasn't a ton to be super excited about. Still, did I think he was unfair in some criticisms and used the game recap to pour gas on the flames? At times, absolutely.

But how can anyone forget when Quick even pronounced early in the season and again after the close loss to SA in Portland after the All-Star Break that the Blazers were good or close to being ready to make a run at the playoffs? At the very least, he gave credit where credit is due. And those came after LOSSES.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> How did Quick/Canzano try to bait Joel? Isn't it a fair question to ask if he was upset about not getting the minutes? Especially when Theo played the entire fourth quarter each night? But I don't remember seeing anything where I thought the writers asked really unfair questions about the center tandem.


by trying to make something out of nothing, thats what I mean by bait. If you ask a loaded question, expecting a loaded answer (think of all the questions asked of Ruben. you don't think they were baiting the hook for him? Or Damon?), you're doing so because you know you can make a story out of something.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I bet the reason they are worried is because some of them are not actually transcribing their recordings to get their quotes and they are going to get caught. A direct quote should be word for word. Knowing how the players talk, I've always found it a bit interesting that some of the direct quotes sound cleaned up. I guess there is an unwritten rule from the players that it is OK to do that for them. Anyway... there were many times when my notes didn't exactly match my recordings and I had to change them to use a quote. It's more work for sure. If you started slacking in that way years ago it would probably really piss you off. Interesting that Jaynes doesn't even record interviews. I always did... not just to make sure the quotes were right, but because a few times a year someone would call up and claim they didn't say this or that. 

The part about submitting questions is interesting. Obviously that doesn't work in many cases, but I don't think I ever went to an Interview without a list of questions... but then again... I was never a Journalist for a living. You can't script follow up questions though, and they can be where you get the most interesting information.

Anyway... I can see trying to do this for interviews with Allen or Nash or Patterson... but not the players. And even then... why? Just put a blanket statement out there that all interviews are subject to recording. That is what this is all about... someone believes something that was printed was not true...and the Blazers don't have a recording to prove it. Personally, if I was the reporter I'd have just sent them the copy of the tape... well... hmm... unless it didn't match what was printed. 

I think my bottom line with this is another stupid move by the Blazers. Pissing off the link between you and the public is not a good move. I don't believe Nash or Allen are behind this... I believe Steve Patterson is, and it appears that though perhaps he doesn't get a lot of the negative attention from this forum, he is probably responsible for more of the things that annoy us about the organization than we know. If I had to vote one non-player off the island it would be Patterson for sure. Moves like this seem petty and embarrassing.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> Portland shed itself of most of the knuckleheads, and yet fans are still staying away because they STILL perceive the team as a group of idiots.


They are staying away because the team is awful. 

Interesting that a columnist in Calgary picks up on this, but for a team that pledged openess internally and externally, the reaction isn't surprising.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> They are staying away because the team is awful.
> 
> Interesting that a columnist in Calgary picks up on this, but for a team that pledged openess internally and externally, the reaction isn't surprising.


Well yeah, the bad team bit doesn't help at all ... but ask around ... a lot of fans still think the team is comprised of morons and jailbirds.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> by trying to make something out of nothing, thats what I mean by bait. If you ask a loaded question, expecting a loaded answer (think of all the questions asked of Ruben. you don't think they were baiting the hook for him? Or Damon?), you're doing so because you know you can make a story out of something.


But it's still fair to ask Joel how he feels about the minutes breakdown or seeing if he IS unhappy about how things are playing out. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> But it's still fair to ask Joel how he feels about the minutes breakdown or seeing if he IS unhappy about how things are playing out. There's nothing wrong with that.


I'm not saying thats not ok. I'm saying that if you try to get an answer out of nothing, that IS a problem. thats what he tried to do.

as in, he tried to make something bigger than it was. Thats what the issue with them is, not that they can or can't ask it.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I'm not saying thats not ok. I'm saying that if you try to get an answer out of nothing, that IS a problem. thats what he tried to do.
> 
> as in, he tried to make something bigger than it was. Thats what the issue with them is, not that they can or can't ask it.


I don't know, I guess this is 'agree to disagree,' because I never remember thinking that the Oregonian's beat writers blew the Joel/Theo thing out of proportion.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> I don't know, I guess this is 'agree to disagree,' because I never remember thinking that the Oregonian's beat writers blew the Joel/Theo thing out of proportion.


they tried to egg them into it. I know that no one will believe it, since I'm using the "magical source" claim, but from people I asked, they tried to egg a controversy out of it.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

From Nash's blog:



> Some have made note of a new media policy enacted by the organization. It has been determined that interviews will be arranged through our Communications Department and that is standard operating procedure for many NBA and professional sports teams. There has been talk of taping interviews to have a record of all that was said. Frequently, I might talk to a reporter for five minutes or more and only a small fraction of what is asked or what is said is used in the published interview. Reporters often claim no control over editors, but both print and electronic media are limited by space and time. Naturally, they often select only the juiciest comments for the public. This way, the club can have a script of the entire content of the interview and reproduce it for the fans' benefit.


I think it's great! I love listening to coaches conferences on the Dallas Cowboys site. Lot of times I'll read something in a article taken from such conferences but when I listen to the whole thing I can see it was taken out of context. It also gives me all the info that the writers get which I love!

It's easy to see why the media hates this. They want to be the fans main source. They want to put their spin on stuff instead of letting us hear the whole story.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

That's exactly right. My beloved Redskins have set up their own webcasts that are just fantastic. It keeps the media honest and lets the team get their own message out. It also lets the fans decide which is true. 

I find it funny that people who believe they are charged with printing the "truth" would be so challenged by having essentially an auditor taping their interviews.

I think the Calgary guy is so flummoxed because who knows if the Stampede and the Flames will adopt this policy? It has to scare the life out of a sportswriter. Sports franchises becoming more like corporations in terms of restricting access to their employees is their worst nightmare.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

maxiep said:


> That's exactly right. *My beloved Redskins* have set up their own webcasts that are just fantastic. It keeps the media honest and lets the team get their own message out. It also lets the fans decide which is true.
> 
> I find it funny that people who believe they are charged with printing the "truth" would be so challenged by having essentially an auditor taping their interviews.
> 
> I think the Calgary guy is so flummoxed because who knows if the Stampede and the Flames will adopt this policy? It has to scare the life out of a sportswriter. Sports franchises becoming more like corporations in terms of restricting access to their employees is their worst nightmare.


You're a Skin fan?? And I just rep you in another thread! HMPH!


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mgb said:


> You're a Skin fan?? And I just rep you in another thread! HMPH!


I think we have given you enough games in the past decade for me to earn a few measly rep points  I mean, could my Skins find any more new ways to lose to the Boyz?

I prefer to look at it this way. Even though we hate each other's teams, we can also agree that the Giants and Eagles suck, can't we?

I'm already psyched for this season. We're back to NFC blood feuds. All four teams are going to be good.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

mgb said:


> From Nash's blog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the record, I go to the Cowboys web site too to watch Parcells' press conferences, especially post game. There isn't a better coach for absolutely dismissing a question as stupid. Also, Parcells did three years at Colgate before he transferred to Wichita State so he could start, so he can't be all bad.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> they tried to egg them into it. I know that no one will believe it, since I'm using the "magical source" claim, but from people I asked, they tried to egg a controversy out of it.


Of course. I'm sure they had already written the headline: "Nate Losing Team Over Playing Time!"


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> The idiots who run the Portland Trail Blazers -- and believe me, they are idiots -- never have been able to control themselves, let alone their players.
> 
> So now they have gone one stupid step forward.
> 
> ...


Great....

Well there goes the two Blazer fans in calgary....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Great....
> 
> Well there goes the two Blazer fans in calgary....



all will be well when they're playing in Vancouver.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

maxiep said:


> I think we have given you enough games in the past decade for me to earn a few measly rep points  I mean, could my Skins find any more new ways to lose to the Boyz?
> 
> I prefer to look at it this way. Even though we hate each other's teams, we can also agree that the Giants and Eagles suck, can't we?
> 
> I'm already psyched for this season. We're back to NFC blood feuds. All four teams are going to be good.


We can agree about the Giants and Eagles sucking! Should be a really interesting year. Add us picking up TO, which I was against, it should be real interesting.

My dad was a Skin fan. Well actually he was more a George Allen fan, but that was the last team he coach when my dad was alive.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I may be overlooking certain aspects of the "policy," since I haven't actually read it. But from reading the discussions and the negative press, I still don't get the beef.

1. Scheduling certain interviews will be a benefit to the person being interviewed. I don't see anything unusual about that practice. 

2. Providing questions in advance of certain interviews will be a benefit to the players being interviewed (but will make it harder to trick players into answering trick questions -- awe shucks). Maybe some interviews will then be more bland (as some have said). And maybe some of the answers in prearranged interviews will actually be somewhat intelligent or at least coherent, which far too often is not the case. (Edit: Clearly, players will still be available after games, etc, without prearranged questions, so I don't imagine this could have a huge impact anyway -- doesn't the league require players to be available?)

3. Broadcasting taped interviews will be a benefit to me, the fan. This is a good thing. One that I selfishly applaud.

If there is some other insidious harm being done that is not outweighed by these three benefits, I guess I'm still missing the seriousness of it (and I've read a lot of posts on this subject :biggrin: ).

This quote, from a hack writer in a land far, far, away, is unbelievable:



> The idiots who run the Portland Trail Blazers -- and believe me, they are idiots -- never have been able to control themselves, let alone their players.


And, um, this clairvoyant gentleman knows this, exactly, how? From reading Canzano, no doubt? Idiot.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

This guy is canadian what else can u say.All they care about is hockey and maple syrup and saying oh.He shouldnt be talking.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so how many of you emailed him?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

i emailed him like 13 times from differnt email accounts.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> I'm not saying thats not ok. I'm saying that if you try to get an answer out of nothing, that IS a problem.


How do you know if there's "something" or "nothing" unless you ask?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

chromekilla said:


> i emailed him like 13 times from differnt email accounts.


So, like, what did you say, eh?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> How do you know if there's "something" or "nothing" unless you ask?


have you stopped beating your wife?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> have you stopped beating your wife?


Asking a question that may raise a controversy is an entirely different thing from asking an intellectually dishonest question. There's nothing wrong with asking Przybilla if he chafes at sharing time. If there's "nothing" there, he can say no.


----------



## jameztown (May 22, 2006)

chromekilla said:


> This guy is canadian what else can u say.All they care about is hockey and maple syrup and saying oh.He shouldnt be talking.





chromekilla said:


> i emailed him like 13 times from differnt email accounts.


I'm sure that dozen of e-mails were well thought out and articulate, representing the Portland fan base with class.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I emailed him with this...



> Steve- As someone who has read most every article about the Blazers
> written for the 30 years I've rooted for the team, believe me, Portland's
> local press is comprised of the worst gossipy hacks/pot stirring idiots
> who've given the team's front office every reason to curtail their
> ...


his response...



Steve Simmons said:


> There's an old expression about fighting with the press - Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk
> 
> You can't win
> 
> Try keeping your players out of jail, or from carrying guns on planes, and DWIs or whatever the heck else they do and that's a good a place to start as any...


Typical self-rightous BS from a columnist. I've responded to this (noting that he equated his profession to a skunk) and will relay the back and forth if he responds again.

STOMP


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Dude that guy gives the media a bad name.

I mean, I'm a journalist, and I work with other journalists all day, every day. And seeing that self-importance, egotism and overall closemindedness is just discouraging.

It's a shame that he can dish it but can't take it.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

the sun is a tabloid magazine franchise that has outlets all over canada. steve simmons is based in toronto- as far as i know, anyway- and he comes up with this... garbage... as a force of habit. 

i'm as surprised as the lot of you that he decided to cover the trail blazers for a column- it makes me cringe to consider how low he must think of himself- but i'm not necessarily shocked here. the tabloid media across canada has gained momentum over the years, and i'm actually starting to get concerned.

that these employees _think_ they represent the collective view of the people is obviously untrue. but just the fact that they feel the apparent need to habitually bait their readership is a troubling matter for me. it's been around for awhile in this country, the backlash was extreme from the beginning, yet all it achieved was to pour more gas on the fire. canadian news has almost become as tabloid-dependent as any rag you now read in new york.

it's too bad. he knows it, too, rest assured- although he'll never do you the justice of acknowledging his own ignorance. but he certainly knows- i guess that's good enough. or maybe not.

peace


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

dishonest **** *** tabloid hack said:


> *Try keeping your players out of jail*, or from carrying guns on planes, and DWIs or *whatever the heck else they do* and that's a good a place to start as any...


Huh? What players have been in jail? Maybe he should just ask us to keep our teams name from rhyming with 'jail' instead? And "whatever the heck else they do?" He has no clue what our players do, but he writes a column in which he assures his readers that they should trust that he has intimate knowledge of the abilities, mental capacity, and actions of the entire organization, right up to upper management. It's just amazing that people like this have so much impact on what people think.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Nice work STOMP! :clap:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ding ding ding round two of our emails...

me


> Interesting that you'd compare your job to a skunk. Anyhoo... it's not a pissing contest with said skunk, it's putting the skunk in a box and avoiding the spray altogether.
> 
> Of course the written press can still write about whatever they want, and I'm sure that any future crimes committed by players will be covered by them in full... thats not the issue. What this policy will do is effectively take away the local hacks go to move of taking a single quote out of a bland throwaway interview and making a mountain out of a molehill. Fans will be able to listen and eventually watch these interviews in their entirety and place said quote into context to gather their opinions whenever they've got the time to watch the feed at their computer. It's a brave new world.
> 
> ...


and then this last exchange...



Steve Simmons said:


> you won't win when the team edits out what they don't want you to hear


me


> they won't be editing out 1/100th of what our local written press filters out to get to their desired nugget(s).


oh well, I got mean so he probably won't write back. I'll post it if he does, but I doubt it. 

STOMP


----------



## BrooklynBaller (Jun 25, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> That was my thought as well. Why does this hoser care?


You realize that nobody in Canada actually says 'hoser', right? Saying it repeatedly, like many posters on this forum, whenever there is a Canadian twist to a post (i.e. Canadian article, Canadian poster, etc.) shows the true level of the average american's intellect.

Oldmangrouch, do you find the word 'hoser' funny? How about actually growing up and refuting something written in the article instead of dismissing it as being written by a 'hoser'?

Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'? I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

BrooklynBaller said:


> You realize that nobody in Canada actually says 'hoser', right?


Wrong. You just said it.



> Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'?


If they don't know where to put apostrophes, I'd say yes, call them idiots.



> I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


Which countries have you travelled in, then? Once we have the list we can begin the bombing...

barfo

Edit: Upon reflection, it seems like this post could use a few smilies. Here they are. :biggrin: :banana: :clap: :cheers:  :curse: :angel: :clown: :cheers:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

BrooklynBaller said:


> You realize that nobody in Canada actually says 'hoser', right? Saying it repeatedly, like many posters on this forum, whenever there is a Canadian twist to a post (i.e. Canadian article, Canadian poster, etc.) shows the true level of the average american's intellect.
> 
> Oldmangrouch, do you find the word 'hoser' funny? How about actually growing up and refuting something written in the article instead of dismissing it as being written by a 'hoser'?
> 
> Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'? I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


Dude, chill.

I'm not one to call names, but if you read a article referring to the management of a Canadian team, or any Canadians as hosers then yes, by all means call them idiots and I'll concur. You have to remember he was the one calling names, though it's childish to do the same it's not all that surprising or offensive when taken in context. Did you write the article?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

BrooklynBaller said:


> You realize that nobody in Canada actually says 'hoser', right? Saying it repeatedly, like many posters on this forum, whenever there is a Canadian twist to a post (i.e. Canadian article, Canadian poster, etc.) shows the true level of the average american's intellect.
> 
> Oldmangrouch, do you find the word 'hoser' funny? How about actually growing up and refuting something written in the article instead of dismissing it as being written by a 'hoser'?
> 
> Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'? I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


Not true. I went to Lake Simitustus up in Canada a few years ago and hung out with many Canadians. I heard them say "hoser", "ey", and "aboot" (about) several times. Nothing against them for it, they were all very friendly and I had a great time drinkin' beer with them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BrooklynBaller said:


> You realize that nobody in Canada actually says 'hoser', right? Saying it repeatedly, like many posters on this forum, whenever there is a Canadian twist to a post (i.e. Canadian article, Canadian poster, etc.) shows the true level of the average american's intellect.
> 
> Oldmangrouch, do you find the word 'hoser' funny? How about actually growing up and refuting something written in the article instead of dismissing it as being written by a 'hoser'?
> 
> Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'? I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


we say it to mock canadians, not because we think they actually say that. it's called sense of humor.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BrooklynBaller said:


> You realize that nobody in Canada actually says 'hoser', right? Saying it repeatedly, like many posters on this forum, whenever there is a Canadian twist to a post (i.e. Canadian article, Canadian poster, etc.) shows the true level of the average american's intellect.
> 
> Oldmangrouch, do you find the word 'hoser' funny? How about actually growing up and refuting something written in the article instead of dismissing it as being written by a 'hoser'?
> 
> Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'? I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


Allow me to apologize.

Said reporter is self-righteous and bitter. He is an ego-maniac, an ignoramus, and a parasite on the world of sports. I wouldn't be the least surprised if he is into bestiality, neo-facism, and Amway sales.

He is not, however, a hoser. (Thank heaven I didn't call him a "wanker" or a "bloody twit")  

Oh, and for the record - feel free to rip American sports writers. We may be "idiots", but we don't equate critical remarks aimed at ONE reporter as an attack on the whole country.

P.S. I still haven't heard an answer to the question: why does this writer even care what the the Blazer policy is??


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Allow me to apologize.
> 
> Said reporter is self-righteous and bitter. He is an ego-maniac, an ignoramus, and a parasite on the world of sports. I wouldn't be the least surprised if he is into bestiality, neo-facism, and Amway sales.
> 
> ...


I'll go one further.

when someone in the US (btw, when did it become kosher to refer to us as "Americans"?) is dissed world-wide, it's usually the anecdotal, stereotypical "american". Same here.

Just as someone will say we're a "typical yank" or "ugly american", by far most of us (well, maybe just those of us on the west coast) AREN'T like that.

hey BC and Alberta...want to join Oregon, Washington and California in our own country? Californias economy is big enough that the 5 of us could survive...plus, we'd own the ports!!!


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> hey BC and Alberta...want to join Oregon, Washington and California in our own country? Californias economy is big enough that the 5 of us could survive...plus, we'd own the ports!!!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

BrooklynBaller said:


> Should I refer to articles written by american's as being written by 'idiots'? I've travelled in many countries throughout the world and, believe it or not, the majority of the world view Americans as idiots ... now I'm starting to see why.


 I love how this worldly traveler is now starting to see why Americans are idiots based on few posts on a chat board. I don't know if Americans are idiots, but BrooklynBaller is an idiot for using this thread to decide his view on Americans.


----------



## VancouverBall (Apr 29, 2006)

The reason why the Trailblazers are being silent to the media is because they are quietly negotiating with the Vancouver group.

And I can tell you we haven't heard a peep out of the Vancouver group since news up here first broke that they were interested in your team......


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

VancouverBall said:


> The reason why the Trailblazers are being silent to the media is because they are quietly negotiating with the Vancouver group.
> 
> And I can tell you we haven't heard a peep out of the Vancouver group since news up here first broke that they were interested in your team......


You make me laugh almost every day....:rofl: 

What other conspircay theories do you believe in?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

VancouverBall said:


> The reason why the Trailblazers are being silent to the media is because they are quietly negotiating with the Vancouver group.
> 
> And I can tell you we haven't heard a peep out of the Vancouver group since news up here first broke that they were interested in your team......


dude, seriously..give it a ****ing rest.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

VancouverBall said:


> The reason why the Trailblazers are being silent to the media is because they are quietly negotiating with the Vancouver group.


You know, that makes sense! And if the Blazers were being very outspoken to the media, it would make sense that _that_ also is a sign that they are imminently moving to Vancouver, because who needs better press than a team about to move?

It must be nice when every action is a sign that what you want to happen is actually happening.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

IF a team became available, I would expect Vancouver to make a bid. So would several other cities. That and $4 will buy you a Latte. :|


----------



## VancouverBall (Apr 29, 2006)

You all seem to have this "problem" with the Blazers moving to Vancouver, but you don't have a problem with Anaheim, Las Vegas, Nashville, San Diego getting the team. It's best if the Trailblazers stay in Portland, but if they move, as long as they stay in the United States, right?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

VancouverBall said:


> You all seem to have this "problem" with the Blazers moving to Vancouver, but you don't have a problem with Anaheim, Las Vegas, Nashville, San Diego getting the team.


well in that case, you have no point..

we have a problem with you coming in here and bringing up pathetic, poorly thought out and mostly pipe dream pipe dreams of "reasons why" vancouver stands a shot in hell.



> It's best if the Trailblazers stay in Portland, but if they move, as long as they stay in the United States, right?


if they move, I don't think any of really care where they move, just THAT they moved. This isn't a US vs Canada thing. This is a you're making a lot out of nothing thing. This is a talking out your *** thing. This is someone trying to think they know how it's really happening (when they don't) thing.

good day sir.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

VancouverBall said:


> You all seem to have this "problem" with the Blazers moving to Vancouver, but you don't have a problem with Anaheim, Las Vegas, Nashville, San Diego getting the team. It's best if the Trailblazers stay in Portland, but if they move, as long as they stay in the United States, right?


Umm..Hello?? We live in Portland so of course we have a problem with our team moving to any of the cities mentioned above. We would have a problem with them moving to Eugene just 75 miles away. (not that it is possible)

We have no bias whatsover against Canada, although you may be changing that for some folks.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

VancouverBall said:


> You all seem to have this "problem" with the Blazers moving to Vancouver, but you don't have a problem with Anaheim, Las Vegas, Nashville, San Diego getting the team. It's best if the Trailblazers stay in Portland, but if they move, as long as they stay in the United States, right?


Wrong. We've got a problem if they move anywhere. It's just that there's nobody from Nashville, etc. in here posting the same things you are. If they did, they'd get the same reception.

barfo


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

VancouverBall said:


> You all seem to have this "problem" with the Blazers moving to Vancouver, but you don't have a problem with Anaheim, Las Vegas, Nashville, San Diego getting the team. It's best if the Trailblazers stay in Portland, but if they move, as long as they stay in the United States, right?


Get off the cross already.

If someone came from any other city and came off the same way you have so far, they'd get the same type of responses. We're fans of the team and don't want to see it move period.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Umm..Hello?? We live in Portland so of course we have a problem with our team moving to any of the cities mentioned above. We would have a problem with them moving to Eugene just 75 miles away. (not that it is possible)
> 
> We have no bias whatsover against Canada, although you may be changing that for some folks.


I wouldn't mind if they moved to Gresham. :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mgb said:


> I wouldn't mind if they moved to Gresham. :biggrin:


 Beaverton Blazers . . . catchy isn't it?


----------



## VancouverBall (Apr 29, 2006)

Hey folks, the Portland media hates the team ownership. I've read the articles and heard the press conferences where Paul Allen and the media have knives at each others throats. Who in their right mind would want to continue operating the team, or buy the team and keep them there, in such a poisonous environment?

One thing I would be interested to know is, if TBI files for bankruptcy, does that reduce the net worth of the team? Could filing for bankruptcy cause the Blazers to be sold for a much lower price? That may or not be beneficial to Paul Allen as it may help him get rid of the team quicker.

And does filing for bankruptcy mean the team would still stay?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

VancouverBall said:


> One thing I would be interested to know is, if TBI files for bankruptcy, does that reduce the net worth of the team? Could filing for bankruptcy cause the Blazers to be sold for a much lower price? That may or not be beneficial to Paul Allen as it may help him get rid of the team quicker.


If selling the team quicker by reducing the price is Allen's goal, he doesn't need to declare bankruptcy to do that. He could just reduce the price.



> And does filing for bankruptcy mean the team would still stay?


No. It doesn't mean it would leave, either. It appears that if the team was going to leave, it probably would be done via bankruptcy - but that doesn't mean that if it declares bankruptcy it intends to leave.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

VancouverBall said:


> Hey folks, the Portland media hates the team ownership. I've read the articles and heard the press conferences where Paul Allen and the media have knives at each others throats. Who in their right mind would want to continue operating the team, or buy the team and keep them there, in such a poisonous environment?
> 
> One thing I would be interested to know is, if TBI files for bankruptcy, does that reduce the net worth of the team? Could filing for bankruptcy cause the Blazers to be sold for a much lower price? That may or not be beneficial to Paul Allen as it may help him get rid of the team quicker.
> 
> And does filing for bankruptcy mean the team would still stay?


yep, the team is moving to vancouver. you got us there.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

VancouverBall said:


> Hey folks, the Portland media hates the team ownership. I've read the articles and heard the press conferences where Paul Allen and the media have knives at each others throats. Who in their right mind would want to continue operating the team, or buy the team and keep them there, in such a poisonous environment?
> 
> One thing I would be interested to know is, if TBI files for bankruptcy, does that reduce the net worth of the team? Could filing for bankruptcy cause the Blazers to be sold for a much lower price? That may or not be beneficial to Paul Allen as it may help him get rid of the team quicker.
> 
> And does filing for bankruptcy mean the team would still stay?


So a franchise should move cities (or countries) just because the media in that particular city annoys the heck out of them?....

If that were the case New York and Chicago wouldn't have any pro sports teams...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

He So Funny! 

Commish, David Stern, on the Blazers' new media policy:

From: Chicago Tribune



> The Portland Trail Blazers, the NBA's most repressive regime, appear to be becoming more so with a new media policy that includes tape recording interviews between reporters and players. Not surprisingly, the dysfunctional Blazers already have had to apologize to the Portland Oregonian for getting quotes wrong in their transcript.
> 
> Commissioner David Stern, during a media session last week in San Antonio in which no member of his staff thought to record the questions and answers, was asked about Portland's new policy, unheard of in the NBA, and responded: "I haven't had the opportunity [to see the policy], but I think they ought to have some discussions with the Chinese government to see if they can align their policies."
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wow, someone in the media is defending the oregonians stance. whats next?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Yeah, I always love the media's outraged response to media lack of control. How very objective. Also, it's not like the media has been doing such fine, intrepid work that it's simply a damage to the American people to reduce some of the media's control over the story.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's actually David Stern quoted in that article, is it not? So it would seem to me that Stern, and not the Chicago Tribune, is directly criticizing the Blazers.

-Pop


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's actually David Stern quoted in that article, is it not? So it would seem to me that Stern, and not the Chicago Tribune, is directly criticizing the Blazers.


Sam Smith wrote a piece of an article blasting it, and used a David Stern quote to support his view. So, both Stern and Smith are criticizing the Blazers.

And yes, I have no doubt Stern doesn't like this. Stern is pure PR...he's not concerned with media fairness as it relates to one franchise, he just wants the best possible PR for the league.

Therein lies the conflict between each team doing what's good for itself, as a business, and the league doing what's good for itself as a whole.


----------

