OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

Well said. ESPN can't prevent Paul Shirley from voicing his opinions, but they also don't have to pay him for those opinions, or provide him the resources to help broadcast those opinions.

BNM

 

What is being labeled as political correctness I see as a free market economy at work. It's simple supply and demand. Paul Shirley overestimated the market's demand for the writings of insensitive, marginally talented basketball players.

BNM

 

This is an interesting viewpoint, because it seems like you need to have an objective standard for when a writer may be legitimately fired, to prevent this from being "Writers should be able to write anything, free from fear, until I think it is too much."

Since I doubt you believe that hypothetical position, what is that objective standard? The only objective standard I can imagine is that writers should be able to write anything at all, without fear of being fired. Which would make writing positions lifetime appointments.

So, that's what I'm unclear on about your perspective: when can professional writers be fired, without being oppressed?

 

The whole world knows that Kuwait, the most oil-rich province of Persia, was ripped apart from Iraq when the British drew up national borders and granted independence circa 1960. The purpose was to divide and conquer, to create a tiny state easily controllable by the West, containing a third the wealth of the Mideast. Iraq, even pre-Saddam, disputed the fake borders recognized by the West, and was always, even pre-Saddam, looking for an opportunity to reintegrate Kuwait. The Kuwaiti people are spoiled rich boys who bring in foreigners to do all the work. If their wealth were spread among the far larger population in Iraq, it would be for the good of all.

You don't bring up all the UN votes against Israel ignored by Israel. You only refer to the UN votes against Iraq ignored by Iraq. You are selective in your choice of when to follow the UN and when to oppose it. By the way, the UN votes all opposed the US in the 2003 Iraqi invasion. You forgot to mention that, too, when you tried to use the UN to your benefit.

So yes, when Iraq tracked harrassing American warplanes with radar beams after the planes soared through cities at 500 feet altitude, and the planes bombed the radar sites, and Iraq shot at them, that was subjective compared to an objective natural disaster like an earthquake. There is no comparison between the moral imperative to help in a natural disaster, and the immoral imperative to attack and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

 

Let's be honest about why Shirley was fired. It wasn't because he said something offensive, or something callous, or something conservative (coded as "politically incorrect" by some), or something that might garner criticism of his employer. You notice that torture advocates don't get censored by news sites.

It was because he said something contrary to American foreign policy. Same example--You notice that torture advocates don't get censored. Another example--If he had written an article saying that Saddam ran a far more humane government than the American-installed regime, he would have been fired. If I said that in a regular column on a leading mainstream website, I'd soon be writing on a little message board somewhere. Can't imagine which one.

So I don't think he should have been fired any more than any other pro-selfishness conservative. But in exchange, I'd like to see the opposite extreme in the media extolled just as often. It would be refreshing to read the alternative point of view, i.e. pushing an economic system full of powerful incentives toward unselfishness and humane love. I'm against censoring the right as long as the left doesn't get censored either. In this rare case of the Haitian earthquake, liberal sentiments dominate the media, so Shirley should have survived, to balance the media.

 

I don't know why you try to put me in the position of defending his comments. I'm defending his right to say them. One shouldn't have to fear for your job every time you say something unrelated to your employment. Should I fear to be a Blazer fan if I worked for Jerry Buss?

I'm fine with ESPN's rights to fire him. I think people should be able to be fired at any time. I just think it's sad that was their knee-jerk reaction. They're so fucking limp-wristed, they're so culled by political correctness, they'll bow to the unthinking mob because that's what they're expected to do. That's what bothers me.

 

Wow, have you misunderstood my point.

 

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.

 

That's absolutely right. I'm not debating that point. All I'm saying is it's too bad that companies live in fear of being perceived as being insensitive. I think when people self-edit, we're all poorer because those ideas never make it into the public sphere.

 

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

Actually, I can sympathize that you get tired of posting, so you give answers like that sometimes. I think you spread yourself too thin.

You notice that I enter very few threads, so that I can write fully in those that I do enter. 90% of OT threads, I haven't even read the first post.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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