Banned for life

[Bedrockgames]

Well, his silence on the matter is functionally identical to the first statement there, and CNN probably won't be able to get that kind of form* without a subpoena being filed by a party in a lawsuit. Now, the NBA and Sterling are going to court over his penalty, so you may see such show up, but it will be months, if ever, before that reaches the public eye.

I do not agree that they are functionally the same. The man is clearly out of touch, and by most accounts I have heard he didn't even have PR people present for that Cooper interview, so I can very easily see him not offering any information because it has simply not occurred to him. At the very least, I expect CNN to find out who has the consent and report what they can (i.e. she says Mr. Sterling has it, but mr. sterling has declined to comment). I understand why they are focusing on the sexier details here, I just would like to also see coverage of the recording dimension, and I think it is entirely fair to expect that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I understand- we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I want to be clear I am not saying whether it should or should not, just that something being legal does not automatically mean the "should" question is answered. There are tons of things I can legally do, but still should not do.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Certainly, but that is the sort of thing CNN or any other news outlet should be able to find out. My point is it simply isn't even addressed in these articles.

They can't find it out unless and until they get information from within Sterling's organization- she won't have that proof. Even if she (or any other employee) signed a document, it will be held in Sterling's possession.

The only proof one way or another will come via another/additional leak, a subpoena (which may happen), or a voluntary release from Sterling's side (which won't happen).

Until then, CNN et alia have nothing they can say on it besides she has made the as yet unrefuted allegation that the recordings were made at his order.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I want to be clear I am not saying whether it should or should not, just that something being legal does not automatically mean the "should" question is answered. There are tons of things I can legally do, but still should not do.

I understood you perfectly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do not agree that they are functionally the same. The man is clearly out of touch, and by most accounts I have heard he didn't even have PR people present for that Cooper interview, so I can very easily see him not offering any information because it has simply not occurred to him. At the very least, I expect CNN to find out who has the consent and report what they can (i.e. she says Mr. Sterling has it, but mr. sterling has declined to comment). I understand why they are focusing on the sexier details here, I just would like to also see coverage of the recording dimension, and I think it is entirely fair to expect that.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Occam's Razor applies here.

It's not just whether or not the PR people were present at his interview with AC on CNN.

His PR team has had WEEKS to get him refute the assertion that the recordings were made at his order, via interview or by verbal or written press release.

To say that Sterling has missed his PR team's assertion that he should deny issuing said order this whole time if he did not, in fact, issue said order raises mental competency issues. If he were indeed incompetent, then the PR staff would be under pressure to make the denial anyway, because it is their job to do so- doing otherwise is professional malpractice.

To say that the PR staff wouldn't tell him to deny he issued the order if he did not, in fact, issue said order would mean they're incompetent at their jobs to the point they should never work in the PR field again.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Occam's Razor applies here.

It's not just whether or not the PR people were present at his interview with AC on CNN.

His PR team has had WEEKS to get him refute the assertion that the recordings were made at his order, via interview or by verbal or written press release.

To say that Sterling has missed his PR team's assertion that he should deny issuing said order this whole time if he did not, in fact, issue said order raises mental competency issues. If he were indeed incompetent, then the PR staff would be under pressure to make the denial anyway, because it is their job to do so- doing otherwise is professional malpractice.

To say that the PR staff wouldn't tell him to deny he issued the order if he did not, in fact, issue said order would mean they're incompetent at their jobs to the point they should never work in the PR field again.

I disagree. I think it is entirely possible there are other reasons this hasn't been addressed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They can't find it out unless and until they get information from within Sterling's organization- she won't have that proof. Even if she (or any other employee) signed a document, it will be held in Sterling's possession.

The only proof one way or another will come via another/additional leak, a subpoena (which may happen), or a voluntary release from Sterling's side (which won't happen).

Until then, CNN et alia have nothing they can say on it besides she has made the as yet unrefuted allegation that the recordings were made at his order.

I am not saying they have to find proof. Just ask questions and report on the answers they do receive. To me this is basic reporting. It is a normal question for the reader to have and I feel like they just haven't made much effort to answer it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To say that Sterling has missed his PR team's assertion that he should deny issuing said order this whole time if he did not, in fact, issue said order raises mental competency issues. If he were indeed incompetent, then the PR staff would be under pressure to make the denial anyway, because it is their job to do so- doing otherwise is professional malpractice.

I am just presenting it as one possibility. I don't know what is going on his camp. It could be anything from him ignoring his PR people (and judging from the interview with him, he is more than capable of doing that) to his PR people thinking there is no point because the recording is out there and attacking how she got it won't help him in the court of public opinion. No idea. My only point was it doesn't have to be those two conclusions you provided (and I am not convinced it is either of those).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am not saying they have to find proof. Just ask questions and report on the answers they do receive. To me this is basic reporting. It is a normal question for the reader to have and I feel like they just haven't made much effort to answer it.

No story is going to include all of the questions asked and unanswered. CNN is a broadcast news agency, yes, but they're also a business. Assuming they did ask the question, that it was unanswered may simply have been deemed not worth their precious airtime. That they didn't include this issue may strike you as shoddy reporting, but that's a question of points for style. The issue is still out there like a Sword of Damocles.

None of which absolves Sterling's side from not issuing a refutation. I guaran-damn-tee if Sterling's people announced a press conference, all the agencies would show up to cover it. The assertion that Sterling ordered the creation of the recordings hasn't been refuted because Sterling's side can't or won't refute it. Because refuting it- if the refutation is true & accurate- only works to Sterling's advantage.. He has no reason not to refute the assertion if he can.

...unless, as I stated earlier, refuting the assertion would cause the release of other damaging information.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No story is going to include all of the questions asked and unanswered. CNN is a broadcast news agency, yes, but they're also a business. Assuming they did ask the question, that it was unanswered may simply have been deemed not worth their precious airtime. That they didn't include this issue may strike you as shoddy reporting, but that's a question of points for style. The issue is still out there like a Sword of Damocles.

I used to do reporting and this is exactly the sort of question I would be expected to ask and to include mention of in the article. I understand not including it on the air because time is precious, but I am talking about the text article on the webpage. The inverted pyramid news story structure is designed for exactly these kinds of questions being answered. It is a matter of thoroughness and relevance to the story (and this is highly relevant).