OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

[maxiep]

political correctness exists to protect ppl that can fend for themselves in the public sphere of ideas because their voices arent often heard for the most part. is it a double standard? of course but history is uneven and there are clear "winners" and "losers". political correctness is a mechanism to ameliorate the disparities that exist between different ppl and its also an observation of basic decency (respect) towards your fellow man. nevertheless, what shirley said wasnt about contravening political correctness, no, it was espn not wanting to stand beside a liability (shirley).

Political correctness is about power, period.

Exactly how much of a liability had Shirley become? I haven't seen a widespread outcry for him to be fired. I don't recall seeing large numbers of people cancelling their ESPN subscriptions or boycotting the station. He was canned out of fear. And that's too bad.

 

[maxiep]

Maybe because of skimpy posts like that, in which you make no points?

I've stated my point repeatedly. There was no point to rehash it.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't wish to put a standard on people, unlike the politically correct who demand blood everytime they perceive an offense. I just think we'd all be better off if companies weren't so hypersensitive, not to the market at large, but to those who use political correctness as a weapon.

When can a writer be fired without it being "hypersensitivity?" Or is any firing of a writer an example of hypersensitivity?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It was an example of someone you wouldn't expect protecting free speech, not an example of political correctness. I told you I wasn't doing a good job of stating my case.

I just think political correctness is a cancer that has slowly seeped into our consciousness.

Okay. I can see that, and even agree with it to some degree. However, that is not "just" what you think. You keep referring to political correctness with a degree of agency, such as:

they're so culled by political correctness, they'll bow to the unthinking mob

I don't wish to put a standard on people, unlike the politically correct who demand blood everytime they perceive an offense

...to those who use political correctness as a weapon.

the watchdogs of the politically correct

the forces of political correctness simply use intimidation.

You've been making it sound as though someone, or a group of people, is doing all this. I just don't see it. I mean, you said it yourself:

I haven't seen a widespread outcry for him to be fired. I don't recall seeing large numbers of people cancelling their ESPN subscriptions or boycotting the station.

That's right, there hasn't been a public outcry. Is it not possible that the director of ESPN simply did not want to employ Shirley based on their disparaging views? That may fly in the face of freedom of speech, but it is not uncommon.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Re: the Shirley firing, my hyper-compartmentalized brain can't understand why people (employers included) are unable to separate personal opinion from professional contribution.

Unless I'm misinformed, I was under the impression that Paul Shirley was paid by ESPN to be a basketball analyst, not a political commentator. Also, the controversial article in question was not posted on ESPN's site, but via a separate medium.

If ESPN felt compelled to make a statement regarding the compatibility of Shirley's post with their own position, couldn't they have simply stated that they didn't agree with his position, but that those statements did not compromise his ability to analyze basketball?

I understand the "ad revenue" concept, but I'd like to know if that's really a viable argument. For example, do advertisers on ESPN's website specifically select the locations of their ads? Is it a pay-per-click system? Do the "Make Money Online" or "Air Jordans On Sale" people really care about the political views of the bloggers on whose pages their ads are placed? Or is ESPN simply convinced that by continuing to employ Shirley, that they'll lose page hits site-wide?

It almost seems that rather than being concerned about Shirley's opinions having a negative impact on them, they're using his notoriety as an opportunity for self-promotion. "See how great we are--we won't tolerate any employees who promote inhumane opinions. Come visit our decidedly uncontroversial website."

Essentially, it seems that they're causing someone's misfortune specifically for the purpose of profiting from it. That just feels wrong to me.

 

[maxiep]

When can a writer be fired without it being "hypersensitivity?" Or is any firing of a writer an example of hypersensitivity?

Writers can be fired if they're bad at their job. It didn't appear ESPN had any problem with Shirley until he brought a little controversy.

 

[maxiep]

Okay. I can see that, and even agree with it to some degree. However, that is not "just" what you think. You keep referring to political correctness with a degree of agency, such as:













You've been making it sound as though someone, or a group of people, is doing all this. I just don't see it. I mean, you said it yourself:



That's right, there hasn't been a public outcry. Is it not possible that the director of ESPN simply did not want to employ Shirley based on their disparaging views? That may fly in the face of freedom of speech, but it is not uncommon.

Political correctness started in academia, where it became a lever for power over speech and then thought in universities. It then spread to politics, where "black" somehow became a "racist" thing to say and we now use "African-American". Jesse Jackson is a purveyor of political correctness. It has now taken on a life of its own and has become self-policing and self-editing. God forbid anyone call you a "racist" a "homophobe" or "insensitive". That ends the debate. In other words, if you hold ANY politically incorrect ideas, ALL your ideas are illegitimate.

 

[Minstrel]

Writers can be fired if they're bad at their job. It didn't appear ESPN had any problem with Shirley until he brought a little controversy.

Yeah...but ESPN probably considers hurting their bottom line to be bad performance from a writer, since they're in the business of attracting customers, not taking stands.

 

[maxiep]

Yeah...but ESPN probably considers hurting their bottom line to be bad performance from a writer, since they're in the business of attracting customers, not taking stands.

Shouldn't they wait to see if their bottom line were hurt before reacting? This is my beef with ESPN. They had every right to fire him, but they are on a hair trigger to show how politically correct they are. I just don't like to see people cowed, no matter how stupid and ill informed their opinions are. And if I'm a writer for ESPN, the message has been sent loudly and clearly.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Shouldn't they wait to see if their bottom line were hurt before reacting? This is my beef with ESPN. They had every right to fire him, but they are on a hair trigger to show how politically correct they are. I just don't like to see people cowed, no matter how stupid and ill informed their opinions are. And if I'm a writer for ESPN, the message has been sent loudly and clearly.

I meant to post this earlier, but was busy watching the Blazers beat the Mavs...

The more I think about this whole situation, the more I think it was a deliberately orchestrated career move by Paul Shirley.

This is a guy who parlayed an 18-game NBA career into five year stint writing for ESPN and a book deal with Random House. Whether you like his writing or not, you can't deny the guy is pretty media savvy - he knows how to use his writing to gain attention and keep his name in the spotlight for five years after his practically non-existent NBA career ended.

To be honest, prior to his latest controversy, I didn't even know Paul Shirley was still writing for ESPN. Back when he was a marginal (very marginal) NBA player his tales of being a guy who wasn't quite good enough to make it in the NBA struck a cord with a lot of people. But, prior to his comments on Haiti, Paul Shirley had fallen off the map. He had become irrelevant - which is death to the career of a media personality.

I don't know what Shirely's contact status was with ESPN, but given that he first started writing for them five years ago during his very brief NBA career, perhaps his contract was about to expire - and since he was coming up on five years removed from the NBA, perhaps they were considering dropping him anyway.

With his controversial comments on flipcollective.com, Paul Shirley is relevant again and his career reborn. He is now a household name - with a new writing gig. Notice that flipcollective.com has not pulled his blog or fired him. His article has also put them on the map and is driving tons of traffic to their site. All it took was a very hot news story (earthquake in Haiti) combined with some very controversial comments. Given Shirley's media savvy, he had to know his comments would likely get him fired by ESPN - but I don't think he cared.

He is now more famous than ever and has branched out to new audience. I'm mean, lets face it, he milked his 18-game NBA career for all it was worth. How many more interesting anecdotes could he possibly have on that topic? The ESPN firing only adds to the controversy and keeps his name in the spotlight. In terms of his writing career, by firing him ESPN is actually helping him transition for a sports writer to a social commentator. I doubt if they were a knowing participant, but in the end I suspect they gave Paul Shirley exactly what he wanted (attention) and kept his name in the news longer than if they would have just ignored the issue and kept him on their payroll.

BNM

 

[barfo]

Shouldn't they wait to see if their bottom line were hurt before reacting? This is my beef with ESPN. They had every right to fire him, but they are on a hair trigger to show how politically correct they are. I just don't like to see people cowed, no matter how stupid and ill informed their opinions are. And if I'm a writer for ESPN, the message has been sent loudly and clearly.

Do you wait to see what the market says before making any decisions in your business? I'm going to guess not. You try to anticipate what the market will say, and act accordingly. Why shouldn't ESPN do the same?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Do you wait to see what the market says before making any decisions in your business? I'm going to guess not. You try to anticipate what the market will say, and act accordingly. Why shouldn't ESPN do the same?

barfo

It's apples and oranges. My business experiences strong, slow and steady trends; media firestorms are intense and short. Lots of letters to the editor, lots of threats from readers, threatened boycotts by self-appointed leaders of movements, etc. There weren't many of these signs in this case.

Perhaps you really are in favor of Bush's policy of pre-emption? barfo, you ol' neocon, you!

 

[MrJayremmie]

barfo, you ol' neocon, you!

Don't want to enter this discussion, but I just had to say +1 to this.

Carry on.

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't want to enter this discussion, but I just had to say +1 to this.

Carry on.

+1 also

 

[Ed O]

The more I think about this whole situation, the more I think it was a deliberately orchestrated career move by Paul Shirley.

Do you mean that he feigned the opinion or deliberately wrote an honest, unpopular opinion knowing it might jump-start his writing career (even if it cost him his ESPN gig)?

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Do you mean that he feigned the opinion or deliberately wrote an honest, unpopular opinion knowing it might jump-start his writing career (even if it cost him his ESPN gig)?

Ed O.

Oh, I think that is his honest opinion, but I do think he deliberately stated it in a more inflammatory manner just to draw attention and generate controversy. With so many media outlets these days, you REALLY need to stand out to get attention, and without that attention, your career is short lived.

When it comes to getting attention, Paul Shirely knows how to do it. A guy who can milk an awful 18-game NBA career into a book deal with a major publishing house and a 5-year run writing for a major sports network obviously knows how to work the media to his advantage.

BNM

 

[barfo]

It's apples and oranges. My business experiences strong, slow and steady trends; media firestorms are intense and short. Lots of letters to the editor, lots of threats from readers, threatened boycotts by self-appointed leaders of movements, etc. There weren't many of these signs in this case.

That's not apples and oranges. That's big oranges and little oranges.

Perhaps you really are in favor of Bush's policy of pre-emption? barfo, you ol' neocon, you!

Damn, I've been busted.

barfo

 

[ABM]

I quit reading following this line..

.....Based on past experiences, I don’t think the guy with the sign that reads “Need You’re Help”...

 

[Ed O]

I quit reading following this line..

Why?

Do you think that an intellectual laziness when it comes to making cardboard begging signs is in NO way indicative of any other type of laziness?

Clearly Paul spelled that incorrectly to make fun of the individuals who are too stupid to spell correctly (or are smart enough to spell incorrectly for sympathy) when they're asking strangers for money on the street...

Ed O.

 

[ABM]

Clearly Paul spelled that incorrectly to make fun of the individuals who are too stupid to spell correctly (or are smart enough to spell incorrectly for sympathy) when they're asking strangers for money on the street...

Ed O.

You may very well be right. I simply took it as journalistic laziness. My bad if otherwise.

Oh, and for the street beggars...I simply hand them free chalupa coupons collected from Blazer games.

 

[Ed O]

You may very well be right. I simply took it as journalistic laziness. My bad if otherwise.

Oh, and for the street beggars...I simply hand them free chalupa coupons collected from Blazer games.

Heh.

Yes, it's possible he made a mistake, but I think he spelled it incorrectly to make a point (that people who can't spell probably won't do well with the dollar he gives them). His point might not be that strong, but I think his spelling was intentional

Ed O.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Oh, I think that is his honest opinion, but I do think he deliberately stated it in a more inflammatory manner just to draw attention and generate controversy. With so many media outlets these days, you REALLY need to stand out to get attention, and without that attention, your career is short lived.

When it comes to getting attention, Paul Shirely knows how to do it. A guy who can milk an awful 18-game NBA career into a book deal with a major publishing house and a 5-year run writing for a major sports network obviously knows how to work the media to his advantage.

BNM

I'm betting 50 bucks that he'll be a commentator for Fox News by March.