# Stern compares Blazers to communists



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> 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."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ory?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

yikes! if stern really said that

i hope the blazers management take a good look at what they have done to this franchise in the eyes of the rest of the league and now even stern

it just keeps gettin worse doesnt it


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Wow.

Violent overthrow, anyone?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

:clap:

Don't think he'll be seeing the policy, either, since the team hasn't actually written it up or anything.


----------



## CaptK (May 29, 2006)

And you actually believe the league will let the Blazers get Oden next summer? He'll be their golden child along with Lebron.... good luck with that! :biggrin:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

:rofl: Go Stern. I agree with him...the Blazer paranoia is simply ridiculous..I would like to see more focus on team improvement, community relations / service, fan relations etc. That will bring a more positive media spin IMO.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> :rofl: Go Stern. I agree with him...the Blazer paranoia is simply ridiculous..I would like to see more focus on team improvement, community relations / service, fan relations etc. That will bring a more positive media spin IMO.


You really think so? I doubt anytihng the present management can do that would make the media happy. They can put their own spin on anything they do.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i think MGB makes a good point


both parties here are at fault but no matter where the blame falls, its us fans who are forced to suffer


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> :rofl: Go Stern. I agree with him...the Blazer paranoia is simply ridiculous..I would like to see more focus on team improvement, community relations / service, fan relations etc. That will bring a more positive media spin IMO.


they spun the money zach donated to (whatever it was), and concentrated on him bouncing a check. And people here, and the radio idiots at the fan, concentrated soley on the bounced check as tho he farted in church, pissed on a homeless man or just got arrested in miami like gilbert arenas did.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Fascinating how this is being spun into "Blazers are trying to control what the media says." Considering the Blazers are simply recording all interviews so they can put out their own transcripts and versions of the interview, it seems like the only thing the Blazers are "controlling" is the media's ability to lie and distort.

Wait, I undermined by own point...since lies and distortion are the only tools in the Portland media's repitoire, I guess the Blazers _are_ controlling the media.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't get it. In what way does the policy remotely resemble anything from the Chinese goverment? It seems to be just the opposite of censorship: openness on demand. I can see why reporters everywhere wouldn't like this, since they make their money off of selling their version of events. Being opposed to having a full transcript or recording shown is a little like being opposed to CSPAN. We the fans are the winners in this competition, like consumers given choices generally are.

Stern must still not like the Blazers, presumably over the whole Jailblazers thing (and the his legal loss to them over Dudley). He's a merketing guy, and he probably views most image problems as a matter of professional skill. The Blazers' local media animosity is just a job poorly done for someone like him. For me as a fan, it matters more than spin, though, as I'd rather have the franchise run in a way that amounts to getting wins rather than in a way that pleases local sports journalists. I'm all for ignoring them when they're in the way.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Maybe the Blazers should focus on improving on and off the court rather than focus on being media watchdogs.

Who's with me?

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Maybe the Blazers should focus on improving on and off the court rather than focus on being media watchdogs.
> 
> Who's with me?
> 
> -Pop


I wasn't aware it was an either or situation. good to know.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Maybe the Blazers should focus on improving on and off the court rather than focus on being media watchdogs.


Maybe, like all other entities, the Blazers should protect their own interests, which includes precautions against media distortion.

And, as SMiLE said, the franchise can be active in both regards.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> :rofl: Go Stern. I agree with him...the Blazer paranoia is simply ridiculous..I would like to see more focus on team improvement, community relations / service, fan relations etc. That will bring a more positive media spin IMO.


:laugh: Ya, all Patterson, Nash, and Pritchard are doing 24 hours a day is writing up new media policy's. The office secretary and accountant is taking care of the pre-draft workouts.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

In my opinion (and it sounds like mine is shared by the non Blazer apologists among us), this whole new media policy smacks of paranoia and not accepting blame for their bad PR. And it also smacks of having a whole different set of priorities (i.e. getting the ownership mess sorted out, the draft, the offseason, John Nash's contract, etc.) than the fans have. And that in and of itself is a bad PR move.

Regardless of whether they can focus on the important stuff as well as watching the media, it comes off a certain way to fans. And the organization really is in no position to alienate itself from fans any more than it has.

My main message: just get better on and off the court. The PR stuff will sort itself out. And if the media continues to bash the team, trust that the moves you are making will appease the fan base, and TRUST THE FAN BASE TO KNOW WHEN THE MEDIA IS SENSATIONALIZING.

****. It's really not that difficult.

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Maybe the Blazers should focus on improving on and off the court rather than focus on being media watchdogs.
> 
> Who's with me?
> 
> -Pop


Nobody. Do you really think they arent trying to improve on and off the court? If the media wasnt so harsh, dont you think that would HELP the team on the court? I'll bet free agents would be a little more willing to come here if they didnt have to deal with the likes of Crapzano and Quicksand.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mgb said:


> You really think so? I doubt anytihng the present management can do that would make the media happy. They can put their own spin on anything they do.


Yes I absolutely believe it can be done..it would take time though 3-4 years probably.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i find it rather ironic the stalin/ceaser that stern would call us china lol


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Nobody. Do you really think they arent trying to improve on and off the court? If the media wasnt so harsh, dont you think that would HELP the team on the court? I'll bet free agents would be a little more willing to come here if they didnt have to deal with the likes of Crapzano and Quicksand.


In many ways the media should be harsh. The team sucks, is poorly managed, is bleeding money, has a rich but unknowledgable owner, has miscreant players. If you don't want someone telling the world how messy your house is then simply clean it the hell up.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Nobody. Do you really think they arent trying to improve on and off the court? If the media wasnt so harsh, dont you think that would HELP the team on the court? I'll bet free agents would be a little more willing to come here if they didnt have to deal with the likes of Crapzano and Quicksand.


Are you guys seriously so dense that you don't think the fans will realize the difference between a legitimate bad move or if the media reports on someone farting the wrong direction? Trust the public to know the difference.

And if you seriously think the media is even 10% to blame for this current mess the franchise is in, you haven't been paying attention.

Most people I talk to about the Blazers are just like me. We could give a rat's **** that Darius Miles got into a fight outside of a strip club. We're more concerned about having a more talented team and an organization that's not in financial limbo. The media has nothing to do with the latter.

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Webster and Jack... prime examples of how the Trail Blazers ARE improving on and off the court.

So, you all (and the media) want the Trail Blazers players and management to be held accountable for their actions. Whats wrong with the Trail Blazers taking action to make sure the media is held to their own standards?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> In my opinion (and it sounds like mine is shared by the non Blazer apologists among us), this whole new media policy smacks of paranoia and not accepting blame for their bad PR. And it also smacks of having a whole different set of priorities (i.e. getting the ownership mess sorted out, the draft, the offseason, John Nash's contract, etc.) than the fans have. And that in and of itself is a bad PR move.


posting the interviews online is bad pr? asking the media to actually be accurate with their interviews is bad pr?

whats the color of the sky on your world?



> Regardless of whether they can focus on the important stuff as well as watching the media, it comes off a certain way to fans. And the organization really is in no position to alienate itself from fans any more than it has.


to the fans who want to gripe about everything the management does, it does. To those who realize that the media has blown things waaaaaaaaaaay out of porportion, it doesn't.


> My main message: just get better on and off the court. The PR stuff will sort itself out.


the media said that when the team got rid of the "trouble makers" they'd start writing the good PR pieces. Have they?

nope. they just make mountains out of mole hills (see: darius credit card issue, zach's "bounced checK" issue, the grgs thing, etc).



> And if the media continues to bash the team, trust that the moves you are making will appease the fan base, and TRUST THE FAN BASE TO KNOW WHEN THE MEDIA IS SENSATIONALIZING.


so, the team should just allow the media to continually sensationalize things? 

how about they just continue what they're doing? Posting interviews online, recording interviews, and asking for a list of questions that the media gives to the players on *TEAM* mandated interviews (read: not personal interiews with the players)? 

Doesn't seem like they're really asking the media to do anything difficult. All they want is the media to actually be fair on what they report. 

In the past, if the Blazers responded to something the media said, certain fans (and kfxx idiots) would just say that's the teams "spin".

now if they post interviews with the players/coach/gm/management, they can say "ok, here's the interview, judge for yourself"...and they can't be blamed for "spinning" it their way.



> ****. It's really not that difficult.
> 
> -Pop


you're right, it's not that difficult for the media to just report things as they are and have to (god forbid) actually have proof of what they say.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> In many ways the media should be harsh. The team sucks, is poorly managed, is bleeding money, has a rich but unknowledgable owner, has miscreant players. If you don't want someone telling the world how messy your house is then simply clean it the hell up.


the media asked them to get rid of "bad" players, and they still *****. 

the Oregonian just wants negative stories, even if it's made up or embellished. Now that the team has taken away that ability, the media is crying.

it's no coincidence.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

It takes more then 1 year of semi good behavior before the media is going to change or the teams repuptation is going to change. I agree the O' ebeliishes alot of crap but once the team completely cleans up it's image they will lose interest and move on to somehting else for their current witchhunt.


SMiLE said:


> the media asked them to get rid of "bad" players, and they still *****.
> 
> the Oregonian just wants negative stories, even if it's made up or embellished. Now that the team has taken away that ability, the media is crying.
> 
> it's no coincidence.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> In my opinion (and it sounds like mine is shared by the non Blazer apologists among us)


How are yoou judging who's a "Blazer apologist?" By whether they agree with you on this? In that case, you're saying that your opinion is shared by all the people who share your opinion?

If that's _not_ how you're defining "Blazer apologist," how are you doing it? I've been highly critical of this team's direction and actions over the past few years and I certainly don't share your opinion.



> this whole new media policy smacks of paranoia and not accepting blame for their bad PR.


Why is it paranoid to keep your own records of interviews and want to offer your side of the story? It sounds like the media are the paranoid ones; after all, they're blasting the team's desire to keep them honest.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Denial is a really bad color on some people. Wow. I had no idea people could have such misdirected blame for the current state the franchise is in.

It has nothing to do with management making some really stupid decisions. The decisions were actually good decisions, but the media made them out to be bad decisions, so the lemmings here in Portland believed them, and the bad reaction from the fan base has made the team lose money and games.

OK - now I get it. 

-Pop


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Denial is a really bad color on some people. Wow. I had no idea people could have such misdirected blame for the current state the franchise is in.


I had no idea people could have such unabashed desire for the media to strictly control what people read. Imagine the nerve of the team to want to tell its side of the story. It's certainly not the type of thing we should allow in a free society. Freedom has limits, and publishing your side of the story is beyond those limits.



> It has nothing to do with management making some really stupid decisions. The decisions were actually good decisions, but the media made them out to be bad decisions, so the lemmings here in Portland believed them, and the bad reaction from the fan base has made the team lose money and games.


Well, that _is_ a pretty silly argument. And one that nobody made. But I imagine it's a much easier argument to ridicule. So go to it. You deserve a press credential for that!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Denial is a really bad color on some people. Wow. I had no idea people could have such misdirected blame for the current state the franchise is in.
> 
> It has nothing to do with management making some really stupid decisions. The decisions were actually good decisions, but the media made them out to be bad decisions, so the lemmings here in Portland believed them, and the bad reaction from the fan base has made the team lose money and games.
> 
> ...


You appear to be in the minority on this, so maybe you are the one that doesnt "get it".


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I had no idea people could have such unabashed desire for the media to strictly control what people read. Imagine the nerve of the team to want to tell its side of the story. It's certainly not the type of thing we should allow in a free society. Freedom has limits, and publishing your side of the story is beyond those limits.


The Blazers have all sorts of vehicles (blazers.com, 750 KXL, community events, etc.) to tell its side of the story. It just seems silly to me to record and then post every interview word for word on its website. Never in my life have I seen a public entity do this. And in the first three interviews that have been posted on blazers.com, the Blazers have already altered two of the interviews (conveniently in two spots where it either prevented the Blazers from looking bad or falsely made the reporter look bad).

I'm sorry, but so far I've seen nothing to believe the team won't hide or change certain information to their benefit. They have an agenda themselves.

This is just a slippery slope. What happens the next time Steve Patterson accidentally says something stupid and the Blazers conveniently omit that from the posted interview? You don't think the media will call them on it, making matters even worse? As sa said - if you don't want people to think you have a messy house, clean it up. Simple as that.

The fans lose in this policy. Where we used to get inside information and more info on potential draft picks, trades, etc., all of that will be watered down. I've already seen posted complaints on here about a lack of info about the draft workouts. I'm sure the media has probably just said, "**** it, I really don't want to jump through all the hoops to write a story on the draft workouts, so I'll just bag it."

I have to deal with the media several times a week in my job. If my company told them they had to submit questions ahead of time and their interviews would be recorded in full and disclosed, the media wouldn't waste their time dealing with us. Simple as that. Anyone who's even taken a basic PR class in college can tell you you don't do things like that when dealing with the media. And I've said it before on these boards, and I'll say it again: You don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

-Pop


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> The Blazers have all sorts of vehicles (blazers.com, 750 KXL, community events, etc.) to tell its side of the story. It just seems silly to me to record and then post every interview word for word on its website.


Why on Earth would that be inappropriate? What's wrong with publishing the entire interview for people to see? Isn't the only way for the media to get burned by this is if they were trying to be deceptive and the full interview spoils that?



> I'm sorry, but so far I've seen nothing to believe the team won't hide or change certain information to their benefit. They have an agenda themselves.


And if they were to edit it, why is that different from the media editing interviews? Why is it okay for the media to have an agenda, but it's scummy for the Blazers to have an agenda? Aren't the media the ones who are supposed to be "working for the public?" The Blazers are just a business, albeit a business the community cares about. But I see no reason why it's inexcuseable for the Blazers to have an agenda yet it's fine for the media to edit things to meet its own agenda.



> The fans lose in this policy. Where we used to get inside information and more info on potential draft picks, trades, etc., all of that will be watered down.


So why do you jump to blame the Blazers for that? Why not blame the media for creating a hostile environment that creates a lack of trust, such that the team is wary of what it says?



> I'm sure the media has probably just said, "**** it, I really don't want to jump through all the hoops to write a story on the draft workouts, so I'll just bag it."


Equally, the Blazers might be saying, "**** it, I really don't want to be mischaracterized and my every word second-guessed if it's wrong but not praised if it's right, so I'll just bag it."



> If my company told them they had to submit questions ahead of time and their interviews would be recorded in full and disclosed, the media wouldn't waste their time dealing with us. Simple as that. Anyone who's even taken a basic PR class in college can tell you you don't do things like that when dealing with the media.


You don't demand fairness? Well, evidently not, considering so many people seem desperate to protect the meda's right to control the story.



> And I've said it before on these boards, and I'll say it again: You don't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.


The Bush administration seems to be fine doing it. Maybe the Blazers are taking a lesson. Today's media is pretty spineless and petty anyway, this isn't Edward R. Murrow's world of journalism...why _not_ stand up to them?

I guess I don't understand the world view that goes "The media deserves to do anything they want, no one deserves to offer their side of the story and you don't EVER limit how you deal with the media." Blind obediance to anyone seems like a bad idea, let alone the media who theoretically has such great power.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> It takes more then 1 year of semi good behavior before the media is going to change or the teams repuptation is going to change. I agree the O' ebeliishes alot of crap but once the team completely cleans up it's image they will lose interest and move on to somehting else for their current witchhunt.



it didn't take long AFTER the team had 2 winning seasons for the witch hunt to start..infact, it started almost the next year.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

What business does Stern have comparing us to China, when he runs the NBA like Hugo Chavez. When a player can't vent his frusteration over obviously bad officiating without being fined thousands of dollars, the situation turns into some sort of competition between pots and kettles and the color black. I dont know, I never full got that metaphor


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Well, first, assuming Stern said that, it is absurd. NSA, maybe, except they did not announce they were recording.
People forget that what is said by the Snoregonian is also what is carried elsewhere in the country where NBA fans have no other source. In the past 2 days I have seen 2 irrelevant and absurd Blazer smacks. In yesterday's SF Chronicle a columnist, Bruce Jenkins, ranted about how glad he was the Blazers got shafted in the lottery due to the presence of Miles, Randolph and Ruben Patterson (no longer on the team, Paul Allen's wealth (relevance?) and the team's record (like it is the first time in history a team has had a bad record), finishing by saying that Portland deserves to lose all draft picks for the next 50 years. Jenkins is not honest enough to say that he is a Laker lover and a Warrior apologist, and that he has hated the Blazers since at least the Drexler days. Then, in the Sporting News, an article on the Detroit-Cleveland overtime playoff game dragged in, totally and completely irrelevant, apropos of nothing at all, Portland not drafting Michael Jordan. I mean, Jordan was not mentioned in the article, neither were the Blazers, it was totally and completely outside the scope of the article, just taking a chance at a cheap shot on Portland even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.
And how posting the text of interviews is harming anyone's free speech is beyond me as well.
I would, however, want to check that David Stern really made that comment as the originator of this thread has a history of posting false statements as "fact" or "official".


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> I would, however, want to check that David Stern really made that comment as the originator of this thread has a history of posting false statements as "fact" or "official".


Well, it's from a Sam Smith article. Not that I consider Sam Smith a particularly solid source on anything, but I'd be surprised if he'd make up quotes from the commissioner.

This is where I saw it:



> *Don't quote us*
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...mith,1,6441224.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> it didn't take long AFTER the team had 2 winning seasons for the witch hunt to start..infact, it started almost the next year.


While I certainly do partially blame the media, look how terrible the management has been during that time.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Just my two cents. I'd say that the Blazers are pretty silly in picking a fight with their only media outlet. There is no way to win this war...short of starting the Paul Allen daily news!


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

While I don't understand Stearns comments, I do think the Blazers should spend there energy elsewhere. It is becoming apparent the Patterson is becoming obsessed with himself vs. the Oregoneon and in the end he will lose. He has no control over the press and all this just fuels more negative press especially when there new media process ends up different then the intent. I really think this is a giant grudge match from the Canzano Miles agreement. No matter what side you are on on that whole fiasco, Patterson needs to move on. How about bring in good players who are not idiots and win a few more games. How about talking to your boss about making the Blazers more profitable which is your job, instead of me vs the Oregoneon. Portland is not in the minority with tension between the media and it's main sports team.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Peaceman said:


> How about bring in good players who are not idiots and win a few more games. How about talking to your boss about making the Blazers more profitable which is your job


How about doing those things _and_ keeping the media accountable, which is all this action does?

This media policy doesn't "control information" or tell the media what to print; it just allows the Blazers to give their side of the story and provide the real interview, so that everyone can see the true context of statements.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> My main message: just get better on and off the court. The PR stuff will sort itself out. And if the media continues to bash the team, trust that the moves you are making will appease the fan base, and TRUST THE FAN BASE TO KNOW WHEN THE MEDIA IS SENSATIONALIZING.
> 
> ****. It's really not that difficult.
> 
> -Pop


 :rotf: 

Yep, the fans have done a great job of seeing through the tabloid crap so far.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> While I certainly do partially blame the media, look how terrible the management has been during that time.


I dont think it's as bad as people (you particularly) do.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

1) Have we heard at all from the Columbian on this issue? Any complaints from them? Or from any other print media that covers the Blazers?

2) What "secret questions" would an interviewer not be willing to present in advance? Especially in regards to a basketball team?

3) At least the Blazers were willing to admit that they made a mistake in transcription. How many mistakes have we pointed out on this board alone by Portland print media that have never been retracted? Personally, I can think of 3-4 that I have emailed to point out mistakes and have yet to see one admission of a mistake being made....

4) As for the public being able to make up its own mind, I agree that a well-informed public should be able to do that. Unfortunately, that public often exists more in a sort of Fantasyland than in the real world. How many people, for example, read a column that suggests that Shaq could have been acquired for Miles and Randolph (BTW, this is not true and is one of the mistakes that I mentioned earlier) and then are angry because such a deal was not made? How many of them know that such a deal could not have happened? So, how can the public be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood in a case like this?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I had no idea people could have such unabashed desire for the media to strictly control what people read. Imagine the nerve of the team to want to tell its side of the story. It's certainly not the type of thing we should allow in a free society. Freedom has limits, and publishing your side of the story is beyond those limits.



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

There is only ONE reason for the media to object to what the Blazers are doing - they don't want any accountability. 

Canzano, Quick, et al protray themselves as public watchdogs........but they are pissing their pants over someone keeping an eye on them! 

I really feel sorry for the people here who just don't see what is going on.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> 1) Have we heard at all from the Columbian on this issue? Any complaints from them? Or from any other print media that covers the Blazers?
> 
> 2) What "secret questions" would an interviewer not be willing to present in advance? Especially in regards to a basketball team?
> 
> 3) At least the Blazers were willing to admit that they made a mistake in transcription. How many mistakes have we pointed out on this board alone by Portland print media that have never been retracted? Personally, I can think of 3-4 that I have emailed to point out mistakes and have yet to see one admission of a mistake being made....


I wondered why the article did say that the blazers "already had to apologize" (like that's such a horrible thing) without mentioning the dozens (at BARE MIN) that the Oregonian NEEDED to apologize but never did.

go figure.

oh wait, I'm just a blazer apologist. my bad. 



> 4) As for the public being able to make up its own mind, I agree that a well-informed public should be able to do that. Unfortunately, that public often exists more in a sort of Fantasyland than in the real world. How many people, for example, read a column that suggests that Shaq could have been acquired for Miles and Randolph (BTW, this is not true and is one of the mistakes that I mentioned earlier) and then are angry because such a deal was not made? How many of them know that such a deal could not have happened? So, how can the public be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood in a case like this?


preach on, Padre!


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

another recent article said:


> here
> The television ratings, which were mediocre during the regular season, are up for the playoffs, and the NBA is increasing its presence internationally with the intent of capturing a sizeable portion of China's sports market. Having Yao Ming in the league is, of course, helpful in that regard, and sending the NBA's best to the Beijing Olympics in the summer of 2008 should enhance the league's image that much more.


Make up your mind man, is China good or bad?


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> How about doing those things _and_ keeping the media accountable, which is all this action does?
> 
> This media policy doesn't "control information" or tell the media what to print; it just allows the Blazers to give their side of the story and provide the real interview, so that everyone can see the true context of statements.


This policy doesn't accomplish hardly any of that. If you believe that a mis-quote by JQuick or Canzano will send 1000's of customers away from the paper your crazy. The fact is most of the bad Blazer PR came from a downward spiral from dumb players and lack of management accountability. The media did overkill and pile on, but this would have happened in any media market. Nearly all media only prints small quotes and censors other parts. Do you think this will bring back fans by saying once in a while "look, we said this and they printed this." I seriously doubt it. Will it bring back more advertising dollars? No chance. Putting a good product on the floor with a couple players the city can get excited about will go a long way. Pattersons job is to do that and I have wondered if he is the biggest problem with the team moving on, or is he more interested in a grudge match with the Oregoneon who he has a grudge match.


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

Yikes!


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Not very professional david stern comparing blazers to the commies.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Peaceman said:


> This policy doesn't accomplish hardly any of that.


The policy ensures that interested fans can see what was actually said. That's all.

It may not have a huge effect, but I'm having a hard time seeing where the Blazers are doing anything unethical, unfair or inappropriate. They're simply providing the whole transcript so that quotes taken out of context and/or distorted can be quickly and effectively neutralized. That's a positive thing, if you believe in responsible journalism.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Peaceman said:


> If you believe that a mis-quote by JQuick or Canzano will send 1000's of customers away from the paper your crazy.


No, but the Oregonian has much the same problem the Blazers do, albeit for entirely different reasons. The Oregonian's 'fanbase' is melting away - subscriptions declined about 5% in the past year. 

To those who say that the Blazers need to worry about their business and not worry about the Oregonian, by the same token perhaps the Oregonian should focus on fixing up its own business, instead of wasting time worrying about what the Blazers may or may not be smoking.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hm....

We do wear red uniforms...

red= commie!

and we ARE moving to Vancouver..

Vancouver = socialist

socialist = commie!!!!


OMG!!! Stern basically just told us the team is moving to Vancouver!!!

READ BETWEEN THE LINES PEOPLE!!!


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The policy ensures that interested fans can see what was actually said. That's all.


IMO, the policy ensures that the Blazers will look defensive and paranoid in every media take on their new stance. Sure, the Oregonian hasn't played fair at times, but taking this approach with the media is an enormous PR blunder. The Blazers need to get to where their efforts to retool the image of the team are seen in a positive light around the league. The best way to achieve that is to borrow from Nike and just do it. Put a better and cleaner product on the court and stop worrying about what the press says. If they do that, the press will eventually buy into the positive spin of the rebirth of a franchise. There's no way this new move is going to play to their advantage.



> It may not have a huge effect, but I'm having a hard time seeing where the Blazers are doing anything unethical, unfair or inappropriate. They're simply providing the whole transcript so that quotes taken out of context and/or distorted can be quickly and effectively neutralized. That's a positive thing, if you believe in responsible journalism.


Unethical or unfair; no. Stupid, defensive, and shortsighted; yes.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

OMG, poor Karl Marx... being compared with the Chinese and Cuba regimes (everybody that have the opportunity to read his books, read, and can see that Marx wasn't proposing nothing even close with this authoritarian regimes), and now with the Blazers!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> hm....
> 
> OMG!!! Stern basically just told us the team is moving to Vancouver!!!
> 
> READ BETWEEN THE LINES PEOPLE!!!


Nope. Stern meant that Houston is going to trade Yao to Portland. 

Then the franchise will be relocated to Beijing.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Nope. Stern meant that Houston is going to trade Yao to Portland.
> 
> Then the franchise will be relocated to Beijing.
> 
> barfo


man, the chinese are taking over!

first they have like 8 billion people on the planet and now they're stealing our pro team!?

what a jip.

stick to daming rivers china!!!


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> OMG!!! Stern basically just told us the team is moving to Vancouver!!!
> 
> READ BETWEEN THE LINES PEOPLE!!!


omg 1337 HaxOrZ111


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> stick to daming rivers china!!!





Beijing Daily News said:


> The Government announced today that they would construct a massive dam near the mouth of the Columbia River, located several hundred kilometers north of California. The dam will generate electricity which will be traded to the USA for steel. Several small villages will be flooded by the lake formed behind the dam, including Portland and Hoot River. The villagers will be relocated to unused land in Utah and given $100 cash compensation. USA President Bush gave his approval to the project yesterday, saying "May your dam runneth over, Bubba". The meaning of that expression is unknown.


barfo


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> IMO, the policy ensures that the Blazers will look defensive and paranoid in every media take on their new stance.


If the media already has it in for the Blazers, it hardly matters if the media now really has it in for the Blazers. At least fans who are interested in knowing the truth have a venue to do so.



> Unethical or unfair; no. Stupid, defensive, and shortsighted; yes.


I don't think so. I think with the fans that matter (that is, those hardcore enough to be on the fence about buying tickets for a bad team), they'll appreciate the added information that the Blazers are giving them that the media won't.

When/if the team starts winning again, the team will be successful again. At which point, the Oregonian will have no choice but to cover them with stories of interest to the fans (and fans like to read positive stories when their team is winning), or risk losing even more readership.

The media has a lot of power, but in the end the dog wags the tail, not the other way around. The Blazers make the news, the papers cover it. Like them or not, the papers will have to be back on the Blazers side when the team is successful again.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Since there is no free press in China to be "repressed" by a "regime", a better analogy for Stern to have used might be the Bush Administration's obvious string-pulling of their puppet media voice, Fox News.

Professional reporters often refuse to interview subjects if they are not allowed to record it. Why not the other way around?

Bottom line is the Blazers are just recording the facts and no reporter should be worried in the slightest, unless he plans on lying or distorting.

I know from what I've read in the Oregonian that their reporters seldom let the facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

That, and also Chinese Checkers.


----------



## neplife (May 9, 2006)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but dont other teams in the major leagues have similar if not the same policies that the Blazers are just now putting into place? If that is true than why is Stern even bringing this up and making it an issue, when there is nothing to be made an issue of?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

neplife said:


> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but dont other teams in the major leagues have similar if not the same policies that the Blazers are just now putting into place? If that is true than why is Stern even bringing this up and making it an issue, when there is nothing to be made an issue of?


You don't see the same content on the websites for most other NBA teams. The Blazers took this step for one simple reason: to get back at what they view as local media outlets with an anti-Blazers bias.

Plus, someone asked him about it. It's not like Stern went ahead and made it a point to mock the Blazers' policy.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> There is only ONE reason for the media to object to what the Blazers are doing - they don't want any accountability.
> 
> Canzano, Quick, et al protray themselves as public watchdogs........but they are pissing their pants over someone keeping an eye on them!


"The Media" consists of a lot more than Canzano and Quick. There is no doubt in my mind that the Blazers new media policy is targeted specifically at these two morons - which is exactly why it's a bad, self-defeating policy. It makes it harder for legitimate members of the media to do their jobs, and makes writing an article about the Blazers or any of their players more trouble than it's worth. We still haven't seen the actual policy in writing but the perception (thanks in no small part to NBA Comissioner David Stern) is that it is onerous, Orwellian, and downright evil. The Blazers now have the reputation as being the most media unfriendly team in the entire league. If that was Steve Patterson's goal he nailed it.

I write articles for a magazine (not sports related). This includes product reviews, interviews, product "round-ups", company histories, etc. I can tell you that if I approached a company to write an article on one of their products, or an interview with one of their employees, and was told:

1) You must submit all questions for approval in writing in advance.

2) We will record the entire interview.

3) We will post a complete transcript of the entire interview on our web site.

I'd tell them, "thanks, but no thanks", and I'd go do an article about some other company's products or interview somebody else's employees.

1) and 2) alone would not necessarily be enough to stop me, but 3) is a killer as far as I'm concerned. I get paid for my articles, for my thorough research, my expert oninions and my personal insights. I'm not going to waste my time coming up with insightful, unique questions and the research required to write an accurate, complete article/review only to have the company whose product/employee is the subject of my article/review give it away for free on their web site. I have a good working relationship with the companies in the industry I cover, and I usually give them permission to publish my reviews/articles on their web sites, but not until at least six months after it appears in print. Otherwise, there is no incentive for people to buy the magazine I write for if they can get the same content for free elsewhere.

So, you say Canzano and Quick aren't "professional" journalists who do thorough research and ask insightful questions. Honestly, I can't argue with you there. However, the Blazers' new media policy punishes everybody for the misdeeds of these two clowns. If I was any other member of the media, I'd be offended to be lumped into the same pot as these two, but that's exactly what the Blazers' new media policy does. 

If I was a feature writer for some national magazine and was looking to do an article on an up-and-coming member of the rookie class of 2005-2006, Martell Webster would be a likely candidate. He's a great kid who had a tough childhood and is mature and professional way beyond his years. It would be a great feel-good story about how this young man triumphed over a very difficult situation, turned his life around and is determined to continue to work hard to achieve his goals. It's the kind of story that sells magazines, and exactly the kind of positive PR the Blazers could use. However, as soon as I got wind of the Blazers' new media policy, I'd drop that idea in a heartbeat and look to cover some other player, perhaps Deron Williams, Chris Paul or Raymond Felton, from some team that makes it easier to do my job, doesn't require me to jump through hoops, and then turn around and give my interview away for free on their web site. Believe me, legitimate members of the media will be put off by this policy and won't even bother to consider covering the Blazers or their players. They won't yell, scream and cry foul like Canzano and Quick, they will just quietly go about doing their jobs and covering other teams and players. The Blazers will loose positive national media coverage without even knowing it.

And ultimately, this new policy won't have any impact at all on the way John Canzano does his job, or what he writes (other than make him even more determined in his campaign against the Blazers front office). When was the last time Canzano quoted anyone not named Anonymous Source? Do you think his mystery sources are going to consent to having their interviews recorded by the Blazers and posted on blazers.com? Do you think this new media policy is going to stop the internal leaks that have caused Patterson so much embarrassment (Miles agreement, etc.)? No, if anything, you will see even more leaks and articles in the local media relying on anonymous sources. This policy is bush league, will have little impact on the two idiots who inspired it, and penalizes all other members of the media. It really makes the Blazers front office look petty, vindictive, small-minded and extremely short-sighted. It gives the two idiots a rallying cry for their campaign of hate and misinformation and offends all legitimate members of the media who are not yet your enemies. Worst case, it makes you some new enemies in the media, best case, it gets your team and players ignored by legitimate members of the media - not exactly a good PR move.

Personally, I think it makes Patterson look just as bad as Canzano and Quick. It makes it seem like he is so wrapped up in his own little personal war with Canzano and Quick that he is failing to see the big picture. A much better approach would be to simply ignore them. Rather than putting hurdles in the way of legitimate members of the media, he should be bending over backwards to reach out to other writers. Once the public, both locally and nationally, start to see some positive articles about players like Martell Webster, Jarret Jack, Viktor Khryapa, etc. the tide will turn. Canzano and Quick will be exposed for the biased hacks that they are, and the general public will begin to question what they write and their motivation for writing it. And that will have a much bigger impact on Canzano and Quick than some poorly thought out media policy.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

neplife said:


> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but dont other teams in the major leagues have similar if not the same policies that the Blazers are just now putting into place?


No other NBA team has a similar policy. Other teams actually like to have people write articles about the team and their players.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, you say Canzano and Quick aren't "professional" journalists who do thorough research and ask insightful questions. Honestly, I can't argue with you there. However, the Blazers' new media policy punishes everybody for the misdeeds of these two clowns. If I was any other member of the media, I'd be offended to be lumped into the same pot as these two, but that's exactly what the Blazers' new media policy does.


Well, the Blazers might choose to enforce the new policy selectively. Don't know if they will or not, but that would be a rational decision.



> Rather than putting hurdles in the way of legitimate members of the media, he should be bending over backwards to reach out to other writers.


I agree. That would be a very good approach. 

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> Well, the Blazers might choose to enforce the new policy selectively. Don't know if they will or not, but that would be a rational decision.


Then they should not have announced it publicly as a "policy". Why threaten to penalize everyone equally, even if you may later decide to grant exceptions for those you deem worthy.

The problem now is one of perception. When the commisioner of the NBA compares your media ploicy to that of communist China it's not going to inspire writers to cover your team and players. So, guess what, now you've scared off the legimate writers and are left with the two hacks you targeted the policy at in the first place. Bad move, self-defeating and short-sighted.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Then they should not have announced it publicly as a "policy". Why threaten to penalize everyone equally, even if you may later decide to grant exceptions for those you deem worthy.


Because then the people you are targeting can't as easily claim you are targeting them.



> The problem now is one of perception. When the commisioner of the NBA compares your media ploicy to that of communist China it's not going to inspire writers to cover your team and players.


Let's face, it, no one is inspired to cover our team at present, at least not positively. The only way to get others to cover it is what you (more or less) suggested: give scoops to those that are willing to play ball.

barfo


----------



## letsmakeadeal (Feb 23, 2006)

*Re: blazers new PR guy*









bagdad bob" no matter the reality he sees a brite future :cheers:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

BNM, thank you for your insights. I can see the Blazers point, but honestly, if you get into a, well, let us say urinating contest with the media (since I can't use the more common term here), you are generally going to lose. They hold the cards and can make you look pretty bad. And their brethren (and sometimes sisters) in other media will follow suit. 
Much as it sticks in our craw, and as reprehensible as the Snoregonian and other media have been, dragging in insults thrown at the Blazers no matter how irrelevant and how factually incorrect, trying to get back at them won't work. No matter how logical or reasonable you try to present yourself in a war with media, they will be the ones doing the presenting.
That being said, it is absurd to make political judgments (unless it does land the team Yao Ming!) I agree with Maris as to who it more resembles.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> BNM, thank you for your insights. I can see the Blazers point, but honestly, if you get into a, well, let us say urinating contest with the media* (since I can't use the more common term here)*, you are generally going to lose. They hold the cards and can make you look pretty bad. And their brethren (and sometimes sisters) in other media will follow suit.
> Much as it sticks in our craw, and as reprehensible as the Snoregonian and other media have been, dragging in insults thrown at the Blazers no matter how irrelevant and how factually incorrect, trying to get back at them won't work. No matter how logical or reasonable you try to present yourself in a war with media, they will be the ones doing the presenting.
> That being said, it is absurd to make political judgments (unless it does land the team Yao Ming!) I agree with Maris as to who it more resembles.


pissing? Im fairly certain you can say pissing contest.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> If the media already has it in for the Blazers, it hardly matters if the media now really has it in for the Blazers. At least fans who are interested in knowing the truth have a venue to do so.


Minstrel, something you said in an earlier posts is a bit curious. You're saying it's bad if the media want to take quotes out of context, frame stories, and generally show a biased view (I'm paraphrasing here), but then you go on to say it's okay for the Blazers to do it because, gosh darn it, they are a business so why shouldn't they? 

That's like telling a bunch of kids it's not okay to hit someone unless it's your kid, then it's their right!

I honestly don't believe that replicating the worst traits of despised people (the local media) will get you liked anytime soon unless it's by people who already favored you in the first place.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> Im fairly certain you can say pissing contest.


A woman can say it, but she can't do it. :biggrin:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> but 3) is a killer as far as I'm concerned. I get paid for my articles, for my thorough research, my expert oninions and my personal insights. I'm not going to waste my time coming up with insightful, unique questions and the research required to write an accurate, complete article/review only to have the company whose product/employee is the subject of my article/review give it away for free on their web site.


I don't understand this. They're going to post the _transcript_ of the interview on their site not your (or whoever's) article. You just said that you're paid for your "thorough research, expert opinions and personal insights." If you consider the raw, unedited transcript "giving your article/review away for free," what value are you adding via research, opinions and insights?

If you _are_ adding value with those things, then you can't possibly claim the Blazers would be giving your work away for free by posting the transcript, because that's not where your work really comes, and that's not what your readers pay for. What your readers pay for is only in your article, not in the raw transcript, right?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Minstrel, something you said in an earlier posts is a bit curious. You're saying it's bad if the media want to take quotes out of context, frame stories, and generally show a biased view (I'm paraphrasing here)


Paraphrasing but getting it wrong. You're conflating two different things I said into one. I said *A.* that if it's okay for the media to edit an interview, it should be okay for the Blazers to do it as well and *B.* the whole idea is to prevent journalists from distorting or taking out of context....which would be bad for the Blazers to do, as well.



> but then you go on to say it's okay for the Blazers to do it because, gosh darn it, they are a business so why shouldn't they?


That's not quite what I said. I said, if it's okay for the media to edit interviews, it should be okay for the Blazers. Of the two, the media is the one that's supposed to be "out for the people," so, if anything, they should have the higher standard. But even if not, nobody thinks it's wrong to edit transcripts if the edits don't lie about the speaker's intent...editing an interview concisely and accurately is the crux of an article involving an interview. So, if it's not wrong for the media (and it isn't), it shouldn't be wrong for the Blazers.

That's different from distortions, which are wrong for either party.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Am I the only one who finds the China analogy from Stern ironic? Let's point out a few NBA policies that could be similar to China's government.

1) Rule not allowing a legal aged citizen play in the league until an arbitrary age is reached. However, that citizen may be jailed, killed in war, must pay taxes, etc. based entirely on some concept of age and social norms

2) Rule of collective bargaining to ensure that different classes of players get paid contracts regardless of performance

3) Rules of equalizing the lottery to allow less talented teams to improve so that all teams are competitive regardless of how badly the team was managed and/or coached. 

4) Salary caps and luxury tax to keep small market teams competitive

I could go on and on, but lets face it, the NBA, NFL, etc all impose rules to control competition, establish structured minimum salaries, revenue sharing, etc. Call me crazy but it isn't like professional sports uses a free market capital system. It's very socialistic. So for Mr. Stern to call out Portland for controlling the media by using a "communist" tatic is kinda hypocritical considering. Granted there is a difference between socialism and communism, but there are a lot of similarites.

So I'm gonna compare Stern's NBA to China's controlling business policies....holds just as much weight.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

O. M. Freaking G! I am simply amazed at the lengths some people will go to, to attack the Blazers, a professional basketball company. Otherwise reasonable, censorship-fearing people actually arguing on and on about how no one or no business should have the right to publish actual recordings of actual conversations (involving said entity) if those recordings upset the agenda of a news organization? Amazing. One has to wonder why the Oregonian and its writers are so afraid that people will be able to read or listen to the actual conversations. One would think. I think I know. 

Stern compared the Blazers' policy to censorship in China? I honestly doubt Stern said this. If he did, he's an uninformed ******* (donkey). 

Nothing, NOTHING in the Blazers' policy controls the media or what they write. NOTHING! For one thing, there will still be ample opportunities for interviews and to gather information for stories without submitting questions in advance. For another, Quick and Canzano can write factual articles, or they can misrepresent the facts, and they can write opinion articles, if they chose. What's stopping them? 

The Blazers' policy isn't that the Blazers will edit newspaper articles. The policy is that they will record certain interviews. And include those interviews in the content on their web site. Big freaking deal. I can think of only good reasons why the Blazers, a basketball-entertainment company, should make this positive addition to the content of their web site. 

The frenzied and cynical response by the Oregonian to the Blazers' posting a minor transcription error was laughable, but very sad. I think it should be submitted to the Guinness Book of Records as the most hypocritical posting by a news organization in history. They could have simply posted a correction of their own without acting like it was some kind of aggregious smear campaign against them by the Blazers. It wasn't. But acting like it was a smear campaign by the Blazers, when it wasn't, was completely consistent with the kind of negative spin the Oregonian puts into almost everything they publish concerning the Blazers (i.e. the relentless negative articles about the player's credit card that didn't scan properly at the gas station; the relentless negative articles about an accounting error by a player while generously giving a financial donation to a charity; you get the idea).

As a fan, I'm ecstatic that I can read entire interviews posted on the Blazers' site. To me, this is a welcome and long overdue positive PR and marketing move.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd hope that there are no distortions, but there *is* a difference between the responsibility that the Oregonian has to its readers and the responsibility that the Blazers have to their fans.

The Oregonian is an institution built upon journalistic integrity. Its whole reason for being is to educate its readers and to provide (in the case of sports) insights into the games, the players, and the teams. These insights should be consistent with the paper's overall mission.

The Blazers exist to play basketball. To get fans to attend games. To make money (or lose as little as possible, I suppose).

Just as movie studios don't play up negative reviews, and just as they set up favorable appearances and interviews for actors, directors, etc., so too (IMO) are the Blazers justified in attempting to manage the flow of information about their team, players, etc.

Again: I'm not in favor of distortions. And this information management isn't necessarily a good thing for the fans, but the Blazers are justified in walking a line between management and manipulation IMO. We just all need to remember what their motivations are as we get our news from them.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> I don't understand this. They're going to post the _transcript_ of the interview on their site not your (or whoever's) article. You just said that you're paid for your "thorough research, expert opinions and personal insights." If you consider the raw, unedited transcript "giving your article/review away for free," what value are you adding via research, opinions and insights?
> 
> If you _are_ adding value with those things, then you can't possibly claim the Blazers would be giving your work away for free by posting the transcript, because that's not where your work really comes, and that's not what your readers pay for. What your readers pay for is only in your article, not in the raw transcript, right?


Because the questions I ask would be unique, based on my research, insight and knowledge of the subject. If I ask questions nobody else asks, the answers will provide unique insight into the person being interviewed. If the Blazers turn around and post my questions, and the subsequent answers, on their web site, I have just lost the exclusive use of the source material I generated. In effect, I have become a non-paid contributor to blazers.com. They have taken the questions (and responses) I worked hard to generate and given them away for free with no compensation - and in the process also devalued my print version of the story. I know we're used to dealing with hacks like Canzano and Quick, but there are actually sports journalists out there capable of providing unique and interesting perspectives on players and teams. None of these journalists are going to be interested in putting in the work necessary to write insightful articles about the Blazers or their players if their research (the basis for their questions) and source material is given away for free on the team web site.

BNM


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Much of the complaints about the negative media is that is is coming from two people you just can't trust, no matter what they write. I tried to argue the merits of some of their articles only to get shot down that it is comning from Quick or Canzano.

Well for those who stick by that rationale, I suggest you apply the same rationale to Stern. Stern is a knowledgable person who has shown time and time again his understanding and command of the business and it's relationship to the media. The comments he made about the Blazers' new policy is not a good one. Considering the sourse, I would have to give Stern the benefit of the doubt that this is another bad move by Blazer management.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Because the questions I ask would be unique, based on my research, insight and knowledge of the subject. If I ask questions nobody else asks, the answers will provide unique insight into the person being interviewed. If the Blazers turn around and post my questions, and the subsequent answers, on their web site, I have just lost the exclusive use of the source material I generated. In effect, I have become a non-paid contributor to blazers.com. They have taken the questions (and responses) I worked hard to generate and given them away for free with no compensation - and in the process also devalued my print version of the story. I know we're used to dealing with hacks like Canzano and Quick, but there are actually sports journalists out there capable of providing unique and interesting perspectives on players and teams. None of these journalists are going to be interested in putting in the work necessary to write insightful articles about the Blazers or their players if their research (the basis for their questions) and source material is given away for free on the team web site.
> 
> BNM


Good post and good points. In your scenario, even the fans may suffer in certain ways (but benefit in others). However, having lived through the Oregonian's crusade for so long -- whether it's specifically anti-Blazers or simply a tabloid policy designed to sell papers doesn't change the outcome -- I blame Canzano, Quick and their editors for any such negative outcomes, not the Blazers. If someone keeps hitting you with a stick, eventually self preservation has to kick in.

It's too bad that I have to add this disclaimer for some posters, but for the record: I realize that certain Blazers executives and numerous Blazers players have made, collectively, numerous mistakes over the past several years. I certainly expect news organizations to report on those. I want them to report on those. Accurately. In addition to those, unfortunately, some news organizations have been on a frenzied witch hunt for juicy negative bits, even to the point of spinning things to develop the product to which they've become so cravenly addicted. For those who, for whatever reason, haven't noticed that, good for you. (Not you, BNM!)

:cheers:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Because the questions I ask would be unique, based on my research, insight and knowledge of the subject. If I ask questions nobody else asks, the answers will provide unique insight into the person being interviewed. If the Blazers turn around and post my questions, and the subsequent answers, on their web site, I have just lost the exclusive use of the source material I generated. In effect, I have become a non-paid contributor to blazers.com. They have taken the questions (and responses) I worked hard to generate and given them away for free with no compensation - and in the process also devalued my print version of the story.


Fair enough, though I wasn't aware that most of the value existed in the raw interview. I interned with a newspaper in college, and the unedited interview wasn't considered too valuable. It was the edited interview, supplemented by the writer's own observations and additions, that really comprised the value there. But I guess it's different in magazines.

Thanks for the insight from someone in the industry.



> I know we're used to dealing with hacks like Canzano and Quick, but there are actually sports journalists out there capable of providing unique and interesting perspectives on players and teams. None of these journalists are going to be interested in putting in the work necessary to write insightful articles about the Blazers or their players if their research (the basis for their questions) and source material is given away for free on the team web site.


I suspect, like anything else, that this will be an organic system--that is, it will grow and evolve as appropriate. Good journalists, who are only interested in providing honest attempts at real stories rather than creating distortions designed to imply scandal and ugliness where there is none, will probably not be affected very much. Muck-racking journalists will probably be subjected to every bit of the procedure.

I doubt the moment the Blazers announced this, all journalists forever renounced their willingness to talk to the Blazers. I think there will be a feeling-out period, in which both sides will adapt to the other. Sure, if the Blazers are draconian with every journalist, this will probably burn them. But if they're willing to compromise with the honest journalists and stone the dishonest ones, I think this will really hurt the muck-raking element of the media, not the Blazers.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Paraphrasing but getting it wrong. You're conflating two different things I said into one. I said *A.* that if it's okay for the media to edit an interview, it should be okay for the Blazers to do it as well and *B.* the whole idea is to prevent journalists from distorting or taking out of context....which would be bad for the Blazers to do, as well.


Ok, and the Blazers said specifically that they were putting up the entire transcripts so that things wouldn't be taken out of context. Then they proceed to go and edit the first interview. Doesn't that seem at all like a bit of false advertising?




> That's not quite what I said. I said, if it's okay for the media to edit interviews, it should be okay for the Blazers. Of the two, the media is the one that's supposed to be "out for the people," so, if anything, they should have the higher standard. But even if not, nobody thinks it's wrong to edit transcripts if the edits don't lie about the speaker's intent...editing an interview concisely and accurately is the crux of an article involving an interview. So, if it's not wrong for the media (and it isn't), it shouldn't be wrong for the Blazers.
> 
> That's different from distortions, which are wrong for either party.


I don't know. In my mind just because someone goes out and starts torching buildings and gets away with it doesn't mean that we should all be allowed to start torching buildings. I don't claim to apologize for Quick or Canzano, but if I were the Blazers, rather than adding even more fuel to the fire I think I'd take the higher road and just publish the entire interviews word for word, take the good with the bad, and even further alienate those two from the public. 

This way it just looks like mud-slinging, which is primarily what e_blazer pointed out - it just makes the Blazers look bad (whether or not they CAN do it vs. SHOULD do it....)


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

crandc said:


> BNM, thank you for your insights. I can see the Blazers point, but honestly, if you get into a, well, let us say urinating contest with the media (since I can't use the more common term here), you are generally going to lose. They hold the cards and can make you look pretty bad. And their brethren (and sometimes sisters) in other media will follow suit.


Exactly. Unless you control the printing presses, it's never a good idea to wage war with the media - and that's exactly what this policy does. It was a hostile attack directed at a few members of the local media. Perhaps that hostility was justified, but it should not be the basis for changing the team's media policy. I can certainly understand why Steve Patterson and the rest of the Blazers' front office would have hostile feelings towards John Canzano and Jason Quick, but their hostile counter-attack has been greeted by, guess what, hostility from members of the media in other cities.

Sam Smith in Chicago and Steve Simmons in Toronto have denounced the Blazers' new policy and word has spread fast throughout the league that the Blazer are hostile towards the media. It's just another reason to pile on the Blazers. Like everyone else, I'm sick and tired of all the negative articles written about the Blazers and the tired "Jailblazers" references. Unfortunately, for a team that can ill afford more negative publicity, that's exactly what this policy change has spawned.

In this case Patterson behaved like an idiot and calling him one is justified. Because of his intense hatred for a couple local hacks, he has offended and disrespected all members of the media. As they are subjected to the same "rules" as Canzano and Quick, all members of the media have been branded as guilty by association - and they don't like it. Don't believe me? Then why are reporters in distant cities going out of their way to blast the Blazers over this. And if the goal was to improve the Blazers' image, it has severely backfired. Unless you think quotes like:

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

"_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._"

actually improve the team image.

Patterson *is* an idiot. He's fighting a war he can't possibly win and his recent actions have given his enemies new alies. He has let his personal agenda negatively affect team policy, and in turn the image of the team. I'm not sure exactly when this got personal. Perhaps it was when the Mile's agreement was leaked. It goes back way before that, but I think that was the turning point. It doesn't really matter. This is a personal feud between Steve Patterson, John Canzano and Jason Quick. Unfortunately, all three have lost their focus. They are so fixated on bringing each other down that their campaign of mutual hatred is dragging down the whole team, the fans and the city of Portland. Rather than take the high road and ignore the clowns, Patterson eggs them on and encourages others to join them. It is a stupid policy born of hatred and destined to perpetuate the atmosphere of hostility between the Blazers and the media - all members of the media, not just those who were already your enemies.

BNM


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

for all we know, this might catch on with other teams in the nba tired of having media miss-represent what the players say.

which are they whining more about tho? that the team asks them to have questions submitted (common place in the nfl) or that the team is posting the interviews word-for-word on their web site?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Ok, and the Blazers said specifically that they were putting up the entire transcripts so that things wouldn't be taken out of context. Then they proceed to go and edit the first interview. Doesn't that seem at all like a bit of false advertising?


Evidently, it was a mistake. We can all harbour our own opinions as to whether it was or not, but I think how future transcripts are handled will be illuminating.



> I don't know. In my mind just because someone goes out and starts torching buildings and gets away with it doesn't mean that we should all be allowed to start torching buildings.


When was the last time you read a full, unedited interview in an article? Probably never. Interviews aren't meant to be published in full...part of the journalist's _job_ is to edit down the interview to the key elements and buttress it with their own opinions and research.

It's not wrong or analagous to torching buildings...unless the editing is done in such a way as to change the intent of the speaker, make it sound like he/she was trying to say something that they weren't.

The first is perfectly acceptable and expected in the media, and I think it's perfectly acceptable from the Blazers, if they want to do that. The second is unacceptable from either side.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Then why are reporters in distant cities going out of their way to blast the Blazers over this.


Media, especially the blowhards, don't like any limits on their power or more accountability. Sam Smith has long been considered a blowhard and recently a respected Toronto poster mentioned on this board that Simmons is not taken very seriously in Toronto.

I think it says volumes _which_ journalists in distant cities are blasting this. All we need now is Peter Vecsey to weight in.

I wouldn't consider reporters who probably are prime violators of journalistic integrity to be an objective source on this. As Storyteller asked, what is the _Columbian_ saying about this? What of any other non-_Oregonian_ media outlet? I've heard no hue and cry from those quarters. Probably because they know it doesn't affect them, since they're not in the distortion business.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> for all we know, this might catch on with other teams in the nba tired of having media miss-represent what the players say.
> 
> which are they whining more about tho? that the team asks them to have questions submitted (common place in the nfl) or that the team is posting the interviews word-for-word on their web site?


That's a good question. I can understand the former - since the next logical step is to censor the questions.

With all due respect to BNM, I *don't* understand the latter. Some of the best sports writers around (EG Neyer, Hollinger) base their work almost entirely on *analysis*. Player quotes are a tiny fraction of their work. 

Maybe sports writers need to leave the interviews to Leno and put some thought into their stories! The 2006 Baseball Prospectus is 554 pages long. I bet player quotes = no more than 1 page! :clap:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

good points omg. I do wonder tho, if this policy applies to post game interviews, or what not.

To me, that is impractical so they probably don't do it. I think it's the one on one interviews where there's no other "witnesses" that this policy applies to.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Fair enough, though I wasn't aware that most of the value existed in the raw interview. I interned with a newspaper in college, and the unedited interview wasn't considered too valuable. It was the edited interview, supplemented by the writer's own observations and additions, that really comprised the value there. But I guess it's different in magazines.
> 
> Thanks for the insight from someone in the industry.


Just to be clear, the industry I cover is not sports related. I write everything from half-page product reviews, to "artist profiles" to 5000 word features. For me personally, I do a lot of research to come up with a very specific list of questions before I attempt to interview someone. It makes the process much more productive and when you show up well prepared it shows the subject that you are a professional and worthy of their time. As such, my interview questions are the culmination of my research and the answers the basis for the completed article.

Of course, this is a much different environment than the typical post game interview, but I don't think it's the quotes in the post game interviews that have lead to this new policy. It seems targeted at making it more difficult for Canzano and Quick to dish dirt on the Blazers when all it has really done is inspire them to continue their campaign of hatred.

It seems like Patterson drafted this policy specifically to get back at Canzano and Quick - to teach them a lesson. The problem is there isn't a lesson in the world that will magically transform Canzano and Quick into legitimate journalists.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> TWith all due respect to BNM, I *don't* understand the latter. Some of the best sports writers around (EG Neyer, Hollinger) base their work almost entirely on *analysis*. Player quotes are a tiny fraction of their work.


I'm thinking of articles like this one on Martell Webster. This is exactly the type of positive PR the Blazers need - not articles in other cities calling them idiots and comparing them to a communist government. An article like this in a national publication would do wonders for the Blazers' team image.

If Martell gets off to a good start next year, writers beyond the local media will be interested in writing about him in a positive light. However, if they have the impression, right or wrong, that the Blazers are hostile and unreasonable to deal with, they won't bother to got to the trouble. While this policy is designed to counteract stories with a negative slant, it also stands as a road block to potentially positive press coverage. Due to the already widely held perception that the Blazers' media policy is onerous, they will miss out on opportunities they won't even know existed. It dismotivates writers from even attempting to give them positive press.

BNM


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Media, especially the blowhards, don't like any limits on their power or more accountability. Sam Smith has long been considered a blowhard and recently a respected Toronto poster mentioned on this board that Simmons is not taken very seriously in Toronto.
> 
> I think it says volumes _which_ journalists in distant cities are blasting this. All we need now is Peter Vecsey to weight in.
> 
> I wouldn't consider reporters who probably are prime violators of journalistic integrity to be an objective source on this. As Storyteller asked, what is the _Columbian_ saying about this? What of any other non-_Oregonian_ media outlet? I've heard no hue and cry from those quarters. Probably because they know it doesn't affect them, since they're not in the distortion business.


There was a thread a week or so ago about Dwight Jaynes article in the Trib taking a dig at this change. Mostly slamming Patterson but also taking a dig at this change.

Keep in mind, I especially don't like Jaynes, but still...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm thinking of articles like this one on Martell Webster. This is exactly the type of positive PR the Blazers need - not articles in other cities calling them idiots and comparing them to a communist government. An article like this in a national publication would do wonders for the Blazers' team image.


but who wrote that article? not an oregonian writer...and it wasn't an interview per-say...and that kind of article *could be done* even WITH the policy.



> If Martell gets off to a good start next year, writers beyond the local media will be interested in writing about him in a positive light. However, if they have the impression, right or wrong, that the Blazers are hostile and unreasonable to deal with, they won't bother to got to the trouble.



bologna. they're just whining to whine. you know, and I know it and most importantly, THEY know it.

think about what they're whining about. They don't want to have their golden goose taken away (liberty to take quotes out of context with no one calling htem out on it..and making mistakes and having no one call them out on it).

If the issue is that when they personally interview the player they have to include questions, bfd. Do more questions _off the record_...The policy just talks about team sanctioned interviews.



> While this policy is designed to counteract stories with a negative slant, it also stands as a road block to potentially positive press coverage. Due to the already widely held perception that the Blazers' media policy is onerous, they will miss out on opportunities they won't even know existed. It dismotivates writers from even attempting to give them positive press.
> 
> BNM


only the bad writers would be "dismotivated"


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Minstrel said:


> Media, especially the blowhards, don't like any limits on their power or more accountability. Sam Smith has long been considered a blowhard and recently a respected Toronto poster mentioned on this board that Simmons is not taken very seriously in Toronto.


The problem is, even if they are blowhards the message they are spreading is a negative one about our Blazers. And when Sam Smith quotes David Stern comparing the Blazers' media policy to the Chinese government, it automatically gives him an air of credibility. All this new media policy has accomplished is to expand the hatred of the Blazers by the media from a local campaign to one of international scope. Now, instead of a couple local idiots bashing the Blazers, we have comparable idiots in other cities and other countries joining them. How could Blazers' brass possibly think this is a good thing? Did they not see this coming? The policy is poorly conceived and the results predictable.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

SMiLE said:


> but who wrote that article? not an oregonian writer...and it wasn't an interview per-say...and that kind of article *could be done* even WITH the policy.


That's the problem with the Blazers' media policy. It doesn't just apply to Oregonian writers, it applies to all members of the media - and that is one of my main points. They are "punishing" everyone for the actions of a few. That makes it self-defeating. That article is full of quotes from Martell and the author obviously spent some time interviewing him. Would the author have been as eager to write the article if he had to jump through hoops and knew his source material was going to end up on somebody else's web site? 

Due to this new policy you will see fewer articles like this in other publications. If the Blazers have a problem with a few local writers, they should have just told those writers that due to problems with misquoting and publishing quotes out of context all interviews they conduct will be recorded and complete transcripts will be made available to the public on the Blazers' web site. Punish those who are guilty, not everybody else.



SMiLE said:


> only the bad writers would be "dismotivated"


I disagree. It also discourages writers who value their work and don't want it given away from free on somebody else's web site.

BNM


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Posting transcripts in and of itself may not be so bad, but presentation is important. When it is presented as "those so-and-sos in the media can't get things right so we will print transcripts and everyone can check and see what idiots they are" it is NOT going to go over well. However much Crapanzo may deserve it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> There was a thread a week or so ago about Dwight Jaynes article in the Trib taking a dig at this change. Mostly slamming Patterson but also taking a dig at this change.
> 
> Keep in mind, I especially don't like Jaynes, but still...


I never really cared for Jaynes until Canzano came along. Suddenly Jaynes didn't look so bad. Out of all the articles bashing the Blazers' new media policy, Jaynes was the only one that kept things in perspective. Rather than shout and scream, he poked fun at this ridiculous policy and the motivation behind it.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

crandc said:


> Posting transcripts in and of itself may not be so bad, but presentation is important. When it is presented as "those so-and-sos in the media can't get things right so we will print transcripts and everyone can check and see what idiots they are" it is NOT going to go over well. However much Crapanzo may deserve it.


Yep, this policy paints all members of the media with a very broad brush. And guess what, even those not targeted by this policy are going to be offened by it. No surprise there.

BNM


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> That's the problem with the Blazers' media policy. It doesn't just apply to Oregonian writers, it applies to all members of the media - and that is one of my main points. They are "punishing" everyone for the actions of a few. That makes it self-defeating. That article is full of quotes from Martell and the author obviously spent some time interviewing him. Would the author have been as eager to write the article if he had to jump through hoops and knew his source material was going to end up on somebody else's web site?


who covers 99% of the trail blazers? 

the oregonian.

so why wouldn't it be geared towards them?

they can "control" the print media, but they cannot control the web media. All the blazers have to do is hav ecommercials saying "want the whole story? Come to blazers.com and read the whole interviews for yourself".


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> they can "control" the print media, but they cannot control the web media. All the blazers have to do is hav ecommercials saying "want the whole story? Come to blazers.com and read the whole interviews for yourself".



I couldn't help but chuckle. Yea, I want the whole story! Why do declare BK, force to cut jobs in the community, then threaten to sell or move unless you can come to an agreement with the frakenstien you created by declaring BK. I want the whole story Paul, do you plan to sell, buy out PAM or continue things as status quo. Because maangement people are saying one thing and you are saying another.

Oh you're talking about the statements from Blazer players . . . yea I'm like the rest of the community, I could give a rat's *** what the player's say or how the media interprets them. I just want them to start to win.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I couldn't help but chuckle. Yea, I want the whole story! Why do declare BK, force to cut jobs in the community


my guess is that they realized that they had hired almost twice as many employees as the rest of the league's teams had hired.



> then threaten to sell or move unless you can come to an agreement with the frakenstien you created by declaring BK. I want the whole story Paul, do you plan to sell, buy out PAM or continue things as status quo. Because maangement people are saying one thing and you are saying another.


do not confuse business practices which are realistically none of our businesses, and what the players say which is publically mentioned in the papers.

they're two seperate issues.



> Oh you're talking about the statements from Blazer players . . . yea I'm like the rest of the community, I could give a rat's *** what the player's say or how the media interprets them. I just want them to start to win.


I hate to break this to you, but thats now how the "rest of the community" thinks.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> my guess is that they realized that they had hired almost twice as many employees as the rest of the league's teams had hired.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree on so many levels. This is an entertainment business and they are asking for my support financially. You bet it's our business what their business practices are. This isn't one sided. They trumphet out all the good deeds the Blazer players do for the community with nice pictures and all. What about the bad business practices they have exhibited . . . I want to know the whole story. The fact you said "you guess" is very telling. A die hard fan like you has to guess why the hell they beclared BK and laid off employees.


And I doubt you "hate to break it to me" that the rest of the community cares . . . I know you are the voice for the community and all, but as a spokesman for such you better get back in touch with the them and tell them they care. Because the Blazers are a dying organization with the fan interest and attendance dropping while the rest of the NBA is increasing in that area.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I disagree on so many levels. This is an entertainment business and they are asking for my support financially. You bet it's our business what their business practices are.


When you go to a movie, do you need to know how much the actors were paid? The director? How much the studio is making from outlicensing? Revenue from European box office? 

Personally, I find the business side of sports very interesting, but to say 'it is an entertainment business and therefore we need to know where the dollars go' doesn't seem to make sense. Do you demand that of any other type of entertainment? 

barfo


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

barfo said:


> When you go to a movie, do you need to know how much the actors were paid? The director? How much the studio is making from outlicensing? Revenue from European box office?
> 
> Personally, I find the business side of sports very interesting, but to say 'it is an entertainment business and therefore we need to know where the dollars go' doesn't seem to make sense. Do you demand that of any other type of entertainment?
> 
> barfo


 Well if Brad Pitt is going to go around and tout that he is doing good in the world when he is harming the world . . . personally I would not go to his movies. If the director says profits will go to a cause then I would want to know if the profits are indeed going to a cause. I guess the difference is the movie industry generally doesn't try to show the community all the good things they are doing for the community.

Also, the Blazers are an organization that represents the city and rely on support because of that fact. Doesn't mean they aren't allowed to make a profit or have out of state owners or management, just means I'm more intersted in how they are impacting the community more than the national entertainment industry.

But overall, yes I would like to know the whole story in a broad range of politics and entertainment . . . assuming those are different.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I disagree on so many levels. This is an entertainment business and they are asking for my support financially. You bet it's our business what their business practices are. This isn't one sided. They trumphet out all the good deeds the Blazer players do for the community with nice pictures and all. What about the bad business practices they have exhibited . . . I want to know the whole story. The fact you said "you guess" is very telling. A die hard fan like you has to guess why the hell they beclared BK and laid off employees.


they laid off a bunch of employees like 3-4 years ago. That was well before OAC (a seperate thing) "declared bk".


> And I doubt you "hate to break it to me" that the rest of the community cares . . . I know you are the voice for the community and all, but as a spokesman for such you better get back in touch with the them and tell them they care. Because the Blazers are a dying organization with the fan interest and attendance dropping while the rest of the NBA is increasing in that area.


well, fans got tired of being insulted by the players, and we're (for the first time in most of the fans lifetimes) a sucky team. A lot of the "dying organization" is because fans don't know how to handle or react to a team that's in the low point. They over-react and hyperbole.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> well, fans got tired of being insulted by the players, and we're (for the first time in most of the fans lifetimes) a sucky team. A lot of the "dying organization" is because fans don't know how to handle or react to a team that's in the low point. They over-react and hyperbole.


OK, I disagree, but you just got done breaking it to me that the community care. So which is it? 

Without speaking on behalf of the community, I think there is a serious apathetic attitude to the Blazers in Ptd right now.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK, I disagree, but you just got done breaking it to me that the community care. So which is it?
> 
> Without speaking on behalf of the community, I think there is a serious apathetic attitude to the Blazers in Ptd right now.


which is caused by what? them still thinking the team has idiots on the team.

hell, I still hear people saying that the team needs to sign a guy who has a "criminal record" so he'll fit in.

it's not about the team sucking, or not winning..it's about the "jail blazers".


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> which is caused by what? them still thinking the team has idiots on the team.
> 
> hell, I still hear people saying that the team needs to sign a guy who has a "criminal record" so he'll fit in.
> 
> it's not about the team sucking, or not winning..it's about the "jail blazers".


The problem is there is no one catch-all reason for people's apathy towards the Blazers.

There are other people on this board (we know who these posters are) who complain more about the record and are becoming more apathetic about that than which crime has been committed.

Painting with such a broad brush either way is dangerous.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> The problem is there is no one catch-all reason for people's apathy towards the Blazers.
> 
> There are other people on this board (we know who these posters are) who complain more about the record and are becoming more apathetic about that than which crime has been committed.
> 
> Painting with such a broad brush either way is dangerous.


 Agreed. There are many reasons for the apathy. Personally I think it is because of the fact they are the worst team in the league. Although after reading this I took my "informal poll" (no one at work is into the Blazers . . . sucks) and found out a lot are turned off by the fact they think PA has no interest in the team, so why sould they.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

but the only reason they think he has no interest in the team is because of the local media thelling them that, a guy in seattle who thinkings the blazers are moving to vancouver and the losing. 

stern is funny manly because he is the czar of basketball of the world its interesting that he would call the blazers the chinese government.

i find it hard to get upset at the policy, research paper you have to quote properly and not take it out of context and have to reference the qoute why cant cannedhamzano and jason slows do this? why would they whine and cry? 

thats easy no longer can they do what they have done in the past and would get them a failing grade in a research paper, misqoute.

bnm why dont you do a write up on the blazers? prove these non-local writers at the snoreonian how its done properly?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

the funniest thing about the whole "policy" is it doesn't apply to game day interviews (like post game stuff)...but it does apply to interviews that the paper does outside of game day and etc...

so really, what is the issue? It's not like this really applies to a significant # of interviews. Most of the quotes we hear from the players are from post-game stuff, and it's hard to spin those bad. Only occasionally will we hear a private one on one interview (which is where they slant things). 

So why does this bother people so much? It gives us access to more info than we had before, and doesn't really change the majority of the interviews that the players have with the paper.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> the funniest thing about the whole "policy" is it doesn't apply to game day interviews (like post game stuff)...but it does apply to interviews that the paper does outside of game day and etc...
> 
> so really, what is the issue? It's not like this really applies to a significant # of interviews. Most of the quotes we hear from the players are from post-game stuff, and it's hard to spin those bad. Only occasionally will we hear a private one on one interview (which is where they slant things).
> 
> So why does this bother people so much? It gives us access to more info than we had before, and doesn't really change the majority of the interviews that the players have with the paper.


I can see it not including post game questions but I'd hope they'd still record post game interviews so we could hear if a player just said something like we need to make some trades or if the person doing the interview ask him if they thought they should make some trades. Just as one example.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> I can see it not including post game questions but I'd hope they'd still record post game interviews so we could hear if a player just said something like we need to make some trades or if the person doing the interview ask him if they thought they should make some trades. Just as one example.


I think the biggest issue is that the team wants a list of questions first, not that it's recording the interviews. I don't know why recording the interviews would be something people complain about. Thats a smart thing to do.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> So why does this bother people so much? It gives us access to more info than we had before, and doesn't really change the majority of the interviews that the players have with the paper.


 You are assuming the Blazers will grant the interviews. Given thier relationship with the media, I don't make that assumption. So this could in fact give us less access to information if the number of interviews conducted decrease given the policy. Us fans may be reduced to getting information only from post game interviews (if the Blazers are handling things the way you say).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You are assuming the Blazers will grant the interviews. Given thier relationship with the media, I don't make that assumption. So this could in fact give us less access to information if the number of interviews conducted decrease given the policy. Us fans may be reduced to getting information only from post game interviews (if the Blazers are handling things the way you say).


most of our info is from post game stuff anyways.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

What about CSMN. Will a Blazer employee have to submit questions to a Blazer PR person to ask a Blazer player a question on the Blazer broadcasting network? 

What about a charity event. Will a HS editior have to submit questions and tape record the answer before asking a Blazer player or management a question at a charity event?


Inquiring minds want to know :biggrin:


----------

