Sports Journalism Tumblr: A Black self-insert character called Jabaal Abdul-Simmons

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > Sports Journalism Tumblr: A Black self-insert character called Jabaal Abdul-Simmons

«‹›688 »

morestuff: Aug 2, 2008; You can't stop what's coming

Eric the Mauve posted:

Yes, and it's inconceivable that the NFL could be lyiohwait.

fakeedit: Oh, it was "a source". Well then.

It's not inconceivable, but in general I would believe a reporter with "sources" over baseless speculation. Besides, ESPN already knows well enough where their bread is buttered.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 05:27

MourningView: Sep 2, 2006; Is this Heaven?

I totally believe that. ESPN is all about their stupid brand over anything else and has suspended him for trashing their product in the past. He's not the only guy associated with the network to go after Goodell. The difference is that he baited them immediately after doing it, and they stupidly responded without thinking about how it would look.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:22

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

The suspension has nothing to do with his relationship with ESPN, according to what ESPN has literally said itself.

The suspension was ESPN saying that what he said about the NFL wasn't accepted. EMBRACE DEBATE

# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:00

BIZORT: Jan 24, 2003

Gigantic leaps in logic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/no-hope-solo-is-not-like-ray-rice/380626/

quote:

Soccer star Hope Solo is alleged to have assaulted her sister and 17-year old nephew in June of this year. Unlike Ray Rice, Solo is still plying her trade as a goalkeeper for the national team. This led several people to claim that Solo is the beneficiary of a double standard. In The New York Times Juliet Macur makes the argument:

quote:
One can argue the differences between an N.F.L. player punching his soon-to-be wife and a soccer star brawling with her family, but it is indisputable that both qualify as domestic violence. The glaring contrast in Solo�s case is that while several football players recently accused of assaults have been removed from the field, she has been held up for praise by the national team.

On Thursday she was even given the honor of wearing the captain�s armband in celebration of her setting the team�s career record for shutouts in its previous game. The question is why.

Celebrating Solo�s achievement right now is like allowing running back Adrian Peterson, who has been accused of child abuse, to continue to play for the Minnesota Vikings � and then awarding him the game ball for his next 100-yard game.
This analysis strikes me as incorrect, as it does for Slate's Amanda Hess. It also exists outside the bounds of human history. Ray Rice did not so much "brawl with his family" as he pummeled his fianc� into unconsciousness. Contrary to the flimsy notion that Real Men don't hit women, Real Men have been pummeling women for much of human history.

It is now becoming fashionable to ignore human history and dump all manner of insupportable violence committed by athletes into the same bucket. The label on that bucket reads "Something Bad, Which We Should Punish." It is true that what Ray Rice did was violent and wrong. It is also true that what Adrian Peterson did was violent and wrong. And it also true that what Hope Solo is alleged to have done is violent and wrong. But they are not the same specimen of violent and wrong.

In our society we recognize different kinds of violence. We understand, for instance, that lynching enjoys a particular place in American history. We generally grant that Emmett Till was not merely murdered, but that he was murdered in a fashion that places his death in a specifically heinous tradition in our history. And thus we understand that what happened to Till, or what James Byrd, or what happened to Sam Hose is not the same thing as what happened to Tupac Shakur or Sam Cooke. This does not mean that what happened to Shakur or Cooke was good. It means that it wasn't a lynching.

In the history of humanity, spouse-beating is a particularly odious tradition�one often employed by men looking to exert power over women. Just as lynching in America is not a phenomenon wholly confined to black people, spouse-beatings are not wholly confined to women. But in our actual history, women have largely been on the receiving end of spouse-beating. We have generally recognized this in our saner moments. There is a reason why we call it the "Violence Against Women Act" and not the "Brawling With Families Act." That is because we recognize that violence against women is an insidious, and sometimes lethal, tradition that deserves a special place in our customs and laws.

This is the tradition with which Ray Rice will be permanently affiliated. Hope Solo is affiliated with a different tradition�misdemeanor assault. If she is guilty she should be punished. And perhaps we do need to have a conversation about punishing athletes for assaulting people. But we don't need Ray Rice to make that case. And we should not pretend that if Ray Rice were accused of assaulting his younger brother and his 17-year old nephew, we would be having this conversation.

Hope Solo only becomes Ray Rice through the annihilation of inconvenient history�through some forgery that implies that there is no tradition of men controlling women through violence. We are familiar with other such forgeries. It is how a conversation about the racism of Richie Incognito becomes a conversation about banning black people from using the word "friend of the family." Or how the destruction of Mike Brown's body becomes a debate about "black-on-black crime." Or how Ray Rice knocking his wife unconscious morphs into, "Yes, but women do it too." Indeed they do�but neither with the consistency, nor urgency, nor lethality of men.

There is a tradition of men hitting women in the past so this isn't the same, guys. After all, she's just a woman. She doesn't know any better. And hell, she's so weak compared to a man! People in the past that were also women were hit so this is the reason why her transgression is not the same as male professional athletes who have committed the same acts of aggression. Kiss the screen and click submit.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:11

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

I was hoping so badly for that article to get to the real reason why nobody cares about what Hope Solo did.

Because nobody cares about women's sports.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:30

soggybagel: Aug 6, 2006; The official account of NFL Tackle Phil Loadholt.

Let's talk Football.

The funniest thing about this is that ESPN once again has made the story about themselves. Silly stuff.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:09

Lockback: Sep 3, 2006; All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.

There are tons of NFL players who have domestic violence in their history too. This is a straw man that all players with domestic violence can never play ever again. Solo also has not been convicted, Ray Rice confessed and took a plea deal. Rice was indicted on Felony charges, Solo is facing misdemeanor charges. There is a world of difference between the cases besides gender.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:09

Mahoning: Feb 3, 2007

Lockback posted:

There are tons of NFL players who have domestic violence in their history too. This is a straw man that all players with domestic violence can never play ever again. Solo also has not been convicted, Ray Rice confessed and took a plea deal. Rice was indicted on Felony charges, Solo is facing misdemeanor charges. There is a world of difference between the cases besides gender.

One could then argue that the justice system, in addition to society, views a woman committing domestic violence acts different than a man. Which is also wrong.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:20

MourningView: Sep 2, 2006; Is this Heaven?

Gerund posted:

The suspension has nothing to do with his relationship with ESPN, according to what ESPN has literally said itself.

The suspension was ESPN saying that what he said about the NFL wasn't accepted. EMBRACE DEBATE

But there are a shitload of ESPN people who have been critical of how Godell has handled things with no repercussions. Olbermann called for him to step down, Whitlock blasted him, they did a big OTL piece on it. Most of their radio people seem to have been critical of him whenever I'm subjected to that in my carpool. They're not playing cheerleader for the NFL or Goodell at all. The only difference with Simmons is that he ended his rant with a big middle finger to his bosses, and decided to make it sound like he was rebelling against them by being critical of the NFL (which, again, isn't the case at all and implying it is undermines ESPN's coverage of the story). The suspension is still ill advised because it's going to make it look like ESPN is in the NFL's pocket, but I'd be annoyed if I were them too.

You can make the point he did without making a big deal about what a brave iconoclast you are for doing it. He was trying to push the image of himself as a rebel who doesn't toe the ESPN line as much as he was trying to express his opinion about the NFL.

MourningView fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Sep 25, 2014

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:34

OrangeKing: Dec 5, 2002; They do play in October!

BIZORT posted:

There is a tradition of men hitting women in the past so this isn't the same, guys.

I actually think this is a legitimate point. But only in that it makes what Rice did even worse, not what Solo did somehow less of a problem.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:51

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

MourningView posted:

But there are a shitload of ESPN people who have been critical of how Godell has handled things with no repercussions. Olbermann called for him to step down, Whitlock blasted him, they did a big OTL piece on it. Most of their radio people seem to have been critical of him whenever I'm subjected to that in my carpool. They're not playing cheerleader for the NFL or Goodell at all. The only difference with Simmons is that he ended his rant with a big middle finger to his bosses, and decided to make it sound like he was rebelling against them by being critical of the NFL (which, again, isn't the case at all and implying it is undermines ESPN's coverage of the story). The suspension is still ill advised because it's going to make it look like ESPN is in the NFL's pocket, but I'd be annoyed if I were them too.

You can make the point he did without making a big deal about what a brave iconoclast you are for doing it. He was trying to push the image of himself as a rebel who doesn't toe the ESPN line as much as he was trying to express his opinion about the NFL.

No matter what you think about Simmons, ESPN literally said they were suspending him for what he said about the NFL.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:18

morestuff: Aug 2, 2008; You can't stop what's coming

Gerund posted:

No matter what you think about Simmons, ESPN literally said they were suspending him for what he said about the NFL.

quote:

�Every employee must be accountable to ESPN and those engaged in our editorial operations must also operate within ESPN�s journalistic standards. We have worked hard to ensure that our recent NFL coverage has met that criteria. Bill Simmons did not meet those obligations in a recent podcast, and as a result we have suspended him for three weeks.�

Meeting an obligation to journalistic standards is a pretty wide umbrella.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:26

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

An obligation to journalistic standards when covering the NFL is hardly a catch-all statement.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:29

MourningView: Sep 2, 2006; Is this Heaven?

It's generic press conference speak, and doesn't necessarily mean that's why they actually suspended him. If they did suspend him for being critical of Goodell it would be a drastic shift from the way they've covered the story thus far.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:32

morestuff: Aug 2, 2008; You can't stop what's coming

The "Every employee must be accountable to ESPN" part feels more telling to me, but it's generic enough that it's open for interpretation.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:33

Lockback: Sep 3, 2006; All days are nights to see till I see thee; and nights bright days when dreams do show me thee.

Simmons was also much more juvenile in the comments he made vs others. But Journalistic Standards would apply to not saying "You can't touch me and if you do I'll throw a fit".

That said, no way this is even a suspension if it was about the NHL commissioner or something.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:45

C. Everett Koop: Aug 18, 2008

You can argue that the three-week suspension is due to Simmons being suspended for conduct before, so a longer than usual punishment is necessary since a normal person would have been fired but Simmons isn't on the normal person scale. ESPN would rather not acknowledge that Simmons has stepped on toes before so they'll take the backlash as being tone deaf as the better option.

Simmons might be directly untouchable, but if they wanted to get back at him they'd fire a couple Grantland staffers in the next wave of cuts. I'd be curious to see the reaction if that happened.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:54

Rick: Feb 23, 2004; When I was 17, my father was so stupid, I didn't want to be seen with him in public. When I was 24, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in just 7 years.

Wouldn't be a suspension if he said it about David Stern, because you need to find a body to suspend it.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 20:59

Whirlwind Jones: Apr 13, 2013; by Lowtax

Rick posted:

Wouldn't be a suspension if he said it about David Stern, because you need to find a body to suspend it.

Haha.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:14

Truther Vandross: Jun 17, 2008

ESPN is basically saying "We've desperately wanted to suspend employees criticizing Roger Goodell for his handling of this matter, however Bill Simmons is the first to actually use bad words that we can pretend are the real reason we're doing this"

# ? Sep 25, 2014 23:10

MourningView: Sep 2, 2006; Is this Heaven?

sportsgenius86 posted:

ESPN is basically saying "We've desperately wanted to suspend employees criticizing Roger Goodell for his handling of this matter, however Bill Simmons is the first to actually use bad words that we can pretend are the real reason we're doing this"

Alternatively he was the only one who went out of his way to act like a dick to his employer and embarass them by calling their journalistic integrity into question.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 23:53

Pvt. Public: Sep 9, 2004; I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

MourningView posted:

Alternatively he was the only one who went out of his way to act like a dick to his employer and embarass them by calling their journalistic integrity into question.

Yes, but what if their journalistic integrity needs to be called into question? Even if he was trying to provoke them (and he clearly was), why not just say the reason they suspended him was because he wasn't expressing his opinion in a manner ESPN found to be reasonable irrespective of said opinion and say it directly and not allow for this speculation to exist? It is ESPN's own fault for releasing such a bullshit ambiguous reply as to why the suspension happened which has now made them the story and shined an even bigger light on their actions than Simmons' tirade ever would.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 00:11

Declan MacManus: Sep 1, 2011; damn i'm really in this bitch

Pvt. Public posted:

Yes, but what if their journalistic integrity needs to be called into question? Even if he was trying to provoke them (and he clearly was), why not just say the reason they suspended him was because he wasn't expressing his opinion in a manner ESPN found to be reasonable irrespective of said opinion and say it directly and not allow for this speculation to exist? It is ESPN's own fault for releasing such a bullshit ambiguous reply as to why the suspension happened which has now made them the story and shined an even bigger light on their actions than Simmons' tirade ever would.

He's not wrong but ESPN probably has a case in that he's a) not using the correct forum for his opinions and b) is expressing his opinion in such a way that is damaging to ESPN's public image, both of which are cause for disciplinary action

It's dumb and farcical but let's not act like other employers wouldn't suspend their employees for badmouthing them in public

# ? Sep 26, 2014 02:36

Badfinger: Dec 16, 2004; Timeouts?!

We'll take care of that.

Bill Simmons is probably their biggest writer and ESPN is the biggest network and suspending him made everyone talk about this for 3 pages so ESPN and Bill Simmons both win.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 03:10

MourningView: Sep 2, 2006; Is this Heaven?

Declan MacManus posted:

He's not wrong but ESPN probably has a case in that he's a) not using the correct forum for his opinions and b) is expressing his opinion in such a way that is damaging to ESPN's public image, both of which are cause for disciplinary action

It's dumb and farcical but let's not act like other employers wouldn't suspend their employees for badmouthing them in public

ESPN does a ton of lovely stuff, but as it pertains to this issue he actually is kinda wrong though. They're not going out of their way to protect the NFL when it comes to the Ray Rice story. They've allowed talent to be critical of the league and Goodell.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 04:05

Tokyo Sex Whale: Oct 9, 2012; "My butt smells like vanilla ice cream"

MourningView posted:

ESPN does a ton of lovely stuff, but as it pertains to this issue he actually is kinda wrong though. They're not going out of their way to protect the NFL when it comes to the Ray Rice story. They've allowed talent to be critical of the league and Goodell.

There's real videotape of Ray Rice killing that girl so I dunno if it's really going over the top to be extra critical of a 2-game suspension.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 04:35

MourningView: Sep 2, 2006; Is this Heaven?

Tokyo Sex Whale posted:

There's real videotape of Ray Rice killing that girl so I dunno if it's really going over the top to be extra critical of a 2-game suspension.

Well obviously. I don't think they should get a medal or something but at also dumb to imply something that straight up isn't true like he did.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 04:50

hcreight: Mar 19, 2007; My name is Oliver Queen...

Robert Lipsyte put up another ombudsman piece where he deems the Simmons suspension justifiable.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/462/strengths-weaknesses-and-suspensions

# ? Sep 26, 2014 05:35

Truther Vandross: Jun 17, 2008

A suspension is justifiable. A suspension longer than Stephen A. Smith's is laughable.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 06:18

Codependent Poster: Oct 20, 2003

Yeah, it seems like a lot of words to say nothing of value. He brings up two letters that support Simmons then just goes "I don't agree!" and that's it.

And he doesn't mention the other shorter suspensions for worse things.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 06:21

Crazy Ted: Jul 29, 2003

Robert Lipsyte posted:

Simmons is, in my opinion, ESPN�s franchise player, but by no stretch a leading journalist. On his 45th birthday today, my gift to him was recounting my favorite quote from the late basketball coach Butch van Breda Kolff: �Everyone�s strength is their weakness.� He said he liked it.

In Simmons� case it has to do with his driving energy and creativity, which can also morph into tunnel vision and self-absorption. What makes him always think something�s right just because he thinks it is? Or that his sometimes loopy declarations are easy to interpret? Another provocative transcription from that podcast (since pulled by ESPN):

�I really hope somebody calls me or emails me and says I'm in trouble for anything I say about Roger Goodell,� Simmons said. �Because if one person says that to me, I'm going public. You leave me alone. The commissioner's a liar and I get to talk about that on my podcast. Thank you. � Please, call me and say I'm in trouble. I dare you.�

It sounded a little like Gary Hart�s nutty 1987 dare to the media to catch him in the act of adultery. That challenge eventually denied Hart a presidential bid. In Simmons� case, the �dare� was widely interpreted as a challenge to ESPN President John Skipper, who just happens to be Simmons� most important booster at the company. When asked, Simmons refused to comment on whether it was directed at Skipper.

Can't say I disagree with any of this.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 12:21

DJExile: Jun 28, 2007

Crazy Ted posted:

Can't say I disagree with any of this.

Yeah I'm with simmons up until he calls his employer out the way he does. For better or worse there's basically no way that isn't going to get you suspended. Granted, the length of it is really dumb, but it strikes me as something an angsty teenager would do.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 12:42

Niwrad: Jul 1, 2008

I get the suspension if it's about calling out his employer. But the press release they put out made it about his journalistic integrity regarding the NFL. Why even mention the NFL if that wasn't the reason for the suspension? It makes it look like they're spinning after the backlash they likely didn't expect.

Regardless, it's great for his career. He gets a ton of publicity over it and is being portrayed as some anti-establishment voice who got shut down by his corporate bosses.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 12:54

OrangeKing: Dec 5, 2002; They do play in October!

Niwrad posted:

I get the suspension if it's about calling out his employer. But the press release they put out made it about his journalistic integrity regarding the NFL. Why even mention the NFL if that wasn't the reason for the suspension? It makes it look like they're spinning after the backlash they likely didn't expect.

Simmons basically said "I'm accusing Goddell and stating it as fact, even if I have no proof. I know ESPN won't like that, but I dare them to suspend me for it." ESPN execs may well have been pissed about them calling him out, but it's the former that they're suspending him for (as Simmons himself predicted they might). They just probably wouldn't have if he hadn't included the I DARE YOU - that more or less forced ESPN's hand.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 14:45

Crazy Ted: Jul 29, 2003

I'm kind of glad that Lipsyte brought up Gary Hart because the Gary Hart affair/scandal/thinger makes for some hilarious reading.

[YEAR = 1987]
[April 13] HART ENTERS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
[April 16] Did Gary Hart have an affair?!?!?
[April 17] HART CAMPAIGN: "gently caress you. He's a faithful husband."
[May 3rd] Hart tells the press "Follow me around. I don't care."
[LITERALLY FIVE DAYS LATER] Miami Herald gets photographs of models on his lap on a boat that isn't his two days after models are seen entering and exiting his house.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:47

zakharov: Nov 30, 2002; Tater Love

Crazy Ted posted:

I'm kind of glad that Lipsyte brought up Gary Hart because the Gary Hart affair/scandal/thinger makes for some hilarious reading.

[YEAR = 1987]
[April 13] HART ENTERS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
[April 16] Did Gary Hart have an affair?!?!?
[April 17] HART CAMPAIGN: "gently caress you. He's a faithful husband."
[May 3rd] Hart tells the press "Follow me around. I don't care."
[LITERALLY FIVE DAYS LATER] Miami Herald gets photographs of models on his lap on a boat that isn't his two days after models are seen entering and exiting his house.

Fun fact: that's not really what happened. This is a long article but it picks apart that timeline pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/magazine/how-gary-harts-downfall-forever-changed-american-politics.html

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:26

R.D. Mangles: Jan 10, 2004

Kanye et Kim: 11 French New Wave GIFs That Perfectly Sum Up the Kardashian-Wests� Paris Fashion Week Experience

# ? Sep 27, 2014 16:21

The_Hat: Sep 24, 2008

R.D. Mangles posted:

Kanye et Kim: 11 French New Wave GIFs That Perfectly Sum Up the Kardashian-Wests� Paris Fashion Week Experience

# ? Sep 27, 2014 21:44

Crazy Ted: Jul 29, 2003

zakharov posted:

Fun fact: that's not really what happened. This is a long article but it picks apart that timeline pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/magazine/how-gary-harts-downfall-forever-changed-american-politics.html

Well that's what happens when you go back and read about things that happened when you were six.

# ? Sep 28, 2014 02:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 05:27

davecrazy: Nov 25, 2004; I'm an insufferable shitposter who does not deserve to root for such a good team. Also, this is what Matt Harvey thinks of me and my garbage posting.

http://thebiglead.com/2014/09/26/bill-simmons-suspension-part-of-larger-issues-at-the-network-that-could-lead-to-him-leaving-espn/

quote:

A confluence of events led to the blow up by Simmons on his podcast: His genuine outrage against NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, his desire to crowbar his way into the national conversation on Goodell, and then there are these two rumors floating around ESPN:

* Inside ESPN, there has been a lot of talk about the struggles of Nate Silver�s 538 website. It hasn�t even been online for a year yet, but from lack of revenue to lack of traffic to lack of advertising, it is already being billed as a �disaster� by some at the network. [An ESPN spokesman said Friday about 538: "Traffic is ahead of where it was with the New York Times."] More than a couple ESPN suits have been trying to pin these failures on Bill Simmons, I�m told. Their reasoning: Simmons wanted him, he got him, and the site is not delivering. You�re giving Simmons too much freedom, ESPN President John Skipper�s underlings complain. [Silver, you may recall, ran into these problems at the New York Times, another large media entity plagued by bureaucratic problems, partially stemming from a generation gap.]

* Multiple sources have told The Big Lead that Simmons has been attempting to get his pal of successful 30-for-30 fame, Connor Schell, into Skipper�s executive inner circle. Schell, a young executive on-the-rise, could add a completely different perspective to a team led by John Wildhack, the Executive VP/Production, who has been with the company since 1994. Ed Durso, one of the men who helped determine the Simmons suspension, has been at the network since 1989.

Shame 538 is struggling, but I don't know anybody who reads it regularly.

Will Simmons be happy going off on his own after ESPN does their best to blackball him from the NBA?

# ? Sep 30, 2014 14:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > Sports Journalism Tumblr: A Black self-insert character called Jabaal Abdul-Simmons

«‹›688 »