CSNbbs

Full Version: Baseball Hall of Shame?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
<a href='http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0409/1536711.html' target='_blank'>http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0409/1536711.html</a>

"The more people I meet, the more I like my dog."

By the way, let's not turn this into a thread about whether we agree or disagree with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. That's irrelevant.

Guest

Quote:In his letter, Robbins said he'd been looking forward to "a weekend away from politics and war." He said he remained "skeptical" of the war plans and told Petroskey he did not realize baseball was "a Republican sport."


03-lol 03-lol 03-lol 03-lol 03-lol 03-lol 03-lol 03-lol
Bad move by the HOF. They were the ones that made this whole thing an issue -- not the actors and actresses.

Just because two actors are against the war is no reason not to celebrate a great movie. This is getting darn close to blacklisting that went on in the 1950s.
Dodo Wrote:Bad move by the HOF. They were the ones that made this whole thing an issue -- not the actors and actresses.

Just because two actors are against the war is no reason not to celebrate a great movie. This is getting darn close to blacklisting that went on in the 1950s.
Say what?

I didn't realize the HOF was obliged to Robbins and Sarandon for anything.

'"I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement," Robbins wrote. "I know there are many baseball fans that disagree with you, and even more that will react with disgust to realize baseball is being politicized.'

Substitute ' movies' for the word 'baseball', and it's obvious what a hypocrit Robbins is. Why can't Pretroskey express his opinion?

Guest

Oh, it was only his opinion that the festivities would be cancelled! I see, that's completely different.
DrTorch Wrote:Substitute ' movies' for the word 'baseball', and it's obvious what a hypocrit Robbins is. &nbsp;Why can't Pretroskey express his opinion?
dumb***, there's a huge difference.

Tim Robbins is expressing his opinion. He is not passing his opinion off as that of a related organization, or even one he oversees. It's his opinion, and he's kept it at that.

Petrosky is entitled to his opinion, but, as president of the BASEBALL Hall of Fame, he has overstepped his bounds and ABUSED his power by cancelling a BASEBALL event celebrating a great BASEBALL movie as part of his political statement. He's saying his opinion represents the Hall of Fame's opinion. He has NO RIGHT to do what he did. None whatsoever. He should immediately be removed from his position.



<!--EDIT|Roberto Gato|Apr 10 2003, 03:17 PM-->
Oddball Wrote:Oh, it was only his opinion that the festivities would be cancelled! I see, that's completely different.
I don't see the Washington Post printing any of my writings.

I don't see CNN putting me in front of a camera.

I'm being censored too!!!

Robbins and Sarandon are movie stars...big f'n deal. They just got uninvited to a party...big f'n deal. It happens in the real world. Maybe it doesn't happen in Hollywood w/ all the pretty people... but it happens.

Rob Neyer and even you Dodo don't seem to have a clue as to what censorship really is.
[quote="Roberto Gato"][quote="DrTorch"]Substitute ' movies' for the word 'baseball', and it's obvious what a hypocrit Robbins is.

Guest

DrTorch Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:Oh, it was only his opinion that the festivities would be cancelled! I see, that's completely different.
I don't see the Washington Post printing any of my writings.

I don't see CNN putting me in front of a camera.

I'm being censored too!!!

Robbins and Sarandon are movie stars...big f'n deal. They just got uninvited to a party...big f'n deal. It happens in the real world. Maybe it doesn't happen in Hollywood w/ all the pretty people... but it happens.

Rob Neyer and even you Dodo don't seem to have a clue as to what censorship really is.
Man, you've been wrong before, but this time is mind-boggling. Kudos! 04-bow
[quote="DrTorch"][quote="Roberto Gato"][quote="DrTorch"]Substitute ' movies' for the word 'baseball', and it's obvious what a hypocrit Robbins is.
Robbins hit the nail on the head. Is baseball a Republican sport? Who knew?

This angers me, and if I get to it, I do plan to write the HOF a letter. They made politics an issue here, not Robbins. What next? Would they kick Al Kaline out of the Hall if he appeared at a protest of the war?

For baseball to use its heavy hand to punish a man or woman for a political opinion wholly unrelated to baseball and not expressed in a baseball setting strikes me as both wrong and stupid.

Legal? Probably (although baseball is exempt from antitrust laws, so a very clever lawyer might be able to spin something out of that). But it's unethical and wrong.

Let us agree that there are at least two definitions to the word censorship:

1. The government refusing to allow certain material to be published or aired because of its content. In most cases, the First Amendment prevents the government from donig this.

2. Any powerful person, organization, corporation or government using its influence to (a) discourage or punish people for opinions that are spoken, written or broadcast or (B) bar such transmissions of opinion.

The Washington Post does not have to print any letters at all and may be selective about what it publishes. The Post is a business owned by a corporation and, thus, could never be accused of censorship under defintion one.

But if the Post were to refuse to publish any letter opposing the war (or decide to publish *only* letters opposing the war), it could be accused of censorship in the second sense. It would certainly be highly unethical for the Post to refuse such letters for such ideological reasons, and people would be entirely justified in criticizing *any* major newspaper that would choose to screen letters in such a way, legal though it may be.

The HOF is wrong here. I certainly hope its president has a change of heart. He's acting like a *****, and his decision will (and should) draw criticism.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 10 2003, 03:41 PM-->
RochesterFalcon Wrote:Let us agree that there are at least two definitions to the word censorship:

1. The government refusing to allow certain material to be published or aired because of its content. In most cases, the First Amendment prevents the government from donig this.

2. Any powerful person, organization, corporation or government using its influence to (a) discourage or punish people for opinions that are spoken, written or broadcast or (B) bar such transmissions of opinion.
Just out of curiousity, did Robbins and Sarandon stand or protest Kazan's lifetime achievement Oscar?

As usual RF you have masterfully cut to the chase...I do not agree that #2 is censorship (at least not in all cases). And frankly, that's the hypocrisy (or inconsistency if you will) of the popular media.

What would Ford Motors do if their top executive went on record as driving a BMW, because "they're better cars"?

How many of the Hollywood elite are active among conservative causes? Do you think perhaps those folks just don't make it very far because they are discouraged or punished for those opinions? The success of Fox News at least demonstrates that based on a random sample, Hollywood is underrepresented by those holding more conservative political views.

And hitting closer to home RF, why is it that nearly 80% of US journalists favor the Democratic party? What are the odds of promotion for a reporter at the Wash Post if he holds conservative views?

Ever hear of the ACLU suing over a nativity scene? ol' #2 again.

BTW, did you write a letter to the baseball commissioner for punishing John Rocker? I would say that baseball's there actions fit squarely in definition #2.



<!--EDIT|DrTorch|Apr 10 2003, 04:07 PM-->
I think the bigger question is when will we hear the humble apologies from from Sarandons, Robbins, Sheens, Moores et. al?

Now that the <a href='http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_128508.html' target='_blank'>materials for WMD have been discovered</a>, the <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A850-2003Apr9.html' target='_blank'>Iraqi people are cheering their liberators</a> and showing <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2862-2003Apr10.html' target='_blank'>their contempt for the nations that opposed the war</a> and even the <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20030410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_france_iraq_2' target='_blank'>French have surrendered.</a>

<a href='http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/baghdadpoll_030410.html' target='_blank'>81% of Americans think going to war was the right thing to do and 77% approve of the job</a> President Bush is doing.

[Image: 31328310980.jpg]
Thoughts:

1. Ford executives endorsing BMWs is a different scenario. There are other legal considerations. We've studied this where I work, actually: Our union has discussed ad campaigns in which we would savage our newspaper for corporate penny pinching at the cost of our readers. We would have to word such a campaign carefully, however. Labor law prohibits workers from certain activity that would demean their employers' products.

2. 80 percent of reporters may very well be Democrats. That sounds a touch high, but it may be close. I can't explain it except to say I think it has to do with the type of people drawn to this business -- and not corporate design. (Not at all!)

3. As one move up the chain of command, in newspapers, those Democratic (and more socially liberal than economically liberal, it must be said) tend to change. Line editors are more conservative than reporters. Top editors are more conservative than line editors. And the suits are conservative indeed, at least in my company. Our union has been at the bargaining table for 11 years working on a contract. The suits aren't bargaining with us so much as they are trying to break us. Their point of view seems more ideological than practical. Our union is weak, with essentially no ability to force anything on the company. They don't care. They just want us out. They don't want to bargain.

4. It is also my honest opinion that my employer is now trying to turn the newspaper in a conservative direction in order to appeal to wealthier suburban readers, the type of people more advertisers would want to reach. This offends me, but it seems to be happening here.

5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have not seen confirmation of any reports of WMD yet. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've seen an awful lot of false reports. I wouldn't trust the the Tribune Review, incidentally; the publisher is kind of loopy. I've heard he once sent a reporter out into the woods around Pittsburgh convinced Russians were parachuting in or something like that.

6. France isn't being inconsistent. The country never supported Saddam. It just wasn't ready to go to war. Could it have been made ready? With better diplomacy, I think so. It could have at least been isolated to the point where it would have had to give in on a war. We'll never find out now.

7. The victory does not my change my views at all. I won't be apologizing.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 10 2003, 04:34 PM-->
Quote:I do not agree that #2 is censorship

The word has been used in this sense enough that it is, de facto, the meaning. I agree with you that the government is truly the only force in society that can truly censor, at least in a manner with First Amendment implications. But the fact that people use the word "censorship" in a manner less precise than you or I would like does not complete undercut what they are trying to say.

The HOF did a skunky thing here.
This was really ignorant. Not that the whole thing means a hill of beans when it's all said and done, but it is the HOF prez that made a political statement based on his position with baseball - he dragged baseball into the political debate, not Robbins and Sarandon.

Ask yourself, if Robbins & Sarandon showed up at this event and started spouting anti-Bush rhetoric during their entire time, would you have been disgusted. Personally, I would have been and I agree with them to a large degree.

The point is that the prez turned baseball and the HOF into warbackers. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen anything out of baseball officially supporting the war.
The only official action I've seen out of baseball was cancelling Ichiro's planned homecoming series. (The Mariners were supposed to open against the A's -- or Angels, I forget which -- in Tokyo.) That turned out to be a good idea but more because of SARS than because of the war.

I'm not touching the censorship debate, as it would appear that my education likely taints my opinion in the eyes of most of you.
DrTorch Wrote:
Dodo Wrote:Bad move by the HOF. &nbsp; They were the ones that made this whole thing an issue -- not the actors and actresses.

Just because two actors are against the war is no reason not to celebrate a great movie. &nbsp;This is getting darn close to blacklisting that went on in the 1950s.
Say what?

I didn't realize the HOF was obliged to Robbins and Sarandon for anything.

'"I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement," Robbins wrote. "I know there are many baseball fans that disagree with you, and even more that will react with disgust to realize baseball is being politicized.'

Substitute ' movies' for the word 'baseball', and it's obvious what a hypocrit Robbins is. Why can't Pretroskey express his opinion?
They're not obliged to do anything. However, they had already set up something to honor a great movie and because TWO of the principals in the movie spoke out against the war, he's cancelling THE ENTIRE event. Plus, he, as an individual, is speaking for the ENTIRE Hall of Fame. He has no right to do that. HE is the one turning the event into a forum for political grandstanding.

What would you think if, say, Don Sutton spoke out against the war, and the Hall of Fame said he was not welcome there anymore. Would that be the equivalent of "blacklisting"?

And while I'm totally for the war, I get really nervous with all this "speaking out against the President is Anti-American and can harm our troops" crap. Is not the right to speak freely and exercise dissent exactly what (in the big scheme of things) we are fighting for in Iraq?

Voltaire is credited with saying, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I get nervous when junk like this happens because it means our society is forgetting what we stand for in the first place. C'mon, man, you're a Ph.D. Surely you understand that?
Road Warrior Wrote:I think the bigger question is when will we hear the humble apologies from from Sarandons, Robbins, Sheens, Moores et. al?

Now that the <a href='http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_128508.html' target='_blank'>materials for WMD have been discovered</a>, the <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A850-2003Apr9.html' target='_blank'>Iraqi people are cheering their liberators</a> and showing <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2862-2003Apr10.html' target='_blank'>their contempt for the nations that opposed the war</a> and even the <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20030410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_france_iraq_2' target='_blank'>French have surrendered.</a>

<a href='http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/baghdadpoll_030410.html' target='_blank'>81% of Americans think going to war was the right thing to do and 77% approve of the job</a> President Bush is doing.

[Image: 31328310980.jpg]
Again, RW, I was for the war. However, I imagine that many folks out there believe that killing others is not a legitimate instrument of foreign policy until ALL OTHER means have been exhausted. Certainly, there were other steps that could have been taken, or the US could have waited a few months until other nations were "on board." I think that's what some former presidents have argued about this situation. It's also what Bush Sr. did.

I don't agree with the above opinion in this case, but it's a legitimate argument with which I respectfully disagree. To me, this issue with the HOF is not about censorship at all. It is about allowing each other to respectfully disagree without pulling some "you're not welcome at our festivities" crap.
"Censorship" really doesn't fit this situation from either a legal standpoint or a vernacular standpoint. From a legal perspective, censorship can only be carried out by a governmental or quasi-governmental entity. From a more vernacular perspective, censorship can be carried out by anyone in power. Censorship as used in the vernacular would apply here if they had been told to submit their comments in advance and had them edited.

This is nothing more than a bald faced political statement and we should recognize it for exactly that.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's