Blazers writer about Barkley: "let's not praise him too much"

Pass 1st and Stevie,

You are talking to a former media member here so you need to understand there is a big difference between what Vance does and what news writers do. News writers have an obligation to report as many sides to the story as possible. Columnists and editorial writers have no such obligation. As a political scientist I am committed to the concept that true understanding is only achieved through the free flowing of ideas. This is not necessarily a disertation on free speech but an explanation of what Vance's column really was: a rebuttal. Look at the headline for crying out loud. It was never Vance's intention to be even handed. He honestly believed he should take the entire space allotted to him to introduce the argument that Barkley shouldn't be heaped with praise. This argument assumes (and rightfully so) that Barkley WAS being heaped with praise. Of course, this doesn't mean that Barkley shouldn't be heaped with praise, but it also doesn't mean we should begrudge a editorial writer to focus on the other side. Barkley like anyone else has faults and virtues. It is only through the free flowing of ideas like this that we are able to see and appreciate both.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

Two words to describe this trash:

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

..... And he dares to call himself a reporter?

 

Here's a copy of the email I sent; I'll let you know if I get a response:

Mr. Vance:I'm sure you have received many messages concerning your article about
Charles Barkley. I just have to ask: why this article NOW?

One of the greatest players in NBA history has suffered a career-ending
injury and less than 24 hours later you write a scathing article about him.
It's obvious that you do not like the man, or the player, but the timing of
this piece was just in poor taste - down right disgusting.

I know the city of Portland hates Charles Barkley, as they showed when the
Rockets played there last month (I found the boos puzzling - after all, it
was Houston that sent Portland Scottie Pippen, and everyone in Houston feels
like we got a steal for him. Heck, Yinka Dare would have been too high!).
It is evident that this article was perfect for most of your readers. But
even with that, the timing was awful.

You have every right to say what you think, but could you not have waited a
few days? Even though you dislike the man, there are millions of people in
this world that are heartbroken. I was fortunate enough to have been at
every single game Charles has played in Houston - the only thing
basketball-wise I've enjoyed more was Karl Malone's college career. I, and
the rest of the world, will never see Charles rebound a ball again, or what I
find the saddest, shoot a free throw. This really is hard for a lot of
people. I'm sure you've had a player that you loved go out - say Michael
Jordan? How would you feel if this article came out about him? Since I've
never liked him, I would have considered writing it - but not less than 24
hours after he retired! I think we could have accepted your article on
Sunday or Monday, but not just hours after we were siting by our television
sets watching Barkley's knee pop out.

Timing is everything - I know you learned that in reporting classes. I did.
One of the greats is gone now, it would have been nice if you had shown a
tiny bit of respect - even if you had to fake it.

------------------
Jen
How long was I telling you Shandon was coming before you believed me????

 

Barzilla,
There is no excuse to be a tactless writer, whether you are a columnist or a "true reporter". That guy is myopic and biased, and even more importantly, disrespectful. Mr. Vance has no obligation to like Barkley, but did he write a nasty article about the Pete Rose of basketball, Mr. Michael Jordan, when he retired. I'm sure the public would have liked to know about about the many infidelities Jordan indulged in while he was a player. Does anybody have satelite coverage? If you guys do and watch the games, Michael's mouth didn't ring with churchbells, either. Point simple: Mr. Vance is like Scottie Pippen-he picked an easy target. Pippen wanted out and his dismay with the team had just as much to do with Hakeem as Charles. But Pippen knew better than to publicly disrespect Hakeem. An analogy can be drawn to Mr. Vance's article. Barzilla, maybe I expect too much from a writer, but that's not a bad thing in the least.

 

Pass 1st,

I wonder what would be more to your liking. A writer who you agreed with? Mr. Vance has no obligation to respect Charles Barkley. None of us have an obligation to repect anyone. As for Jordan, how much can we prove about his gambling? We can speculate, but to write a scathing article about something that we speculate he did is much worse than being "biased" with the facts. An editorial writer's only obligation is use facts to back up his or her opinion. Did Vance lie about Barkley?

Don't get me wrong, Vance's opinion was a little too extreme for me too, but it is his opinion. The only standard that I set for editorial writers is that they use facts to back up their opinion. Vance passed that test.

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

< sarcasm >

Great job, those of you who wrote Vance and filled your emails with expletives and idiotic comments. This type of behavior speaks very highly of Houston's fans and is sure to change Vance's mind.

As for Jenna, I don't know what you expect to achieve by writing a cogent, cohesive, and reasonable email to the columnist like that. Where did you learn to be a Rockets fan?

You must be a dumb Mormon or something.

In the future, please try to write something like "Dear Jerk, eff you and eff your mother, do you think we care about what you think? Huh? Right. Eff no!"

< /sarcasm >

You guys-- and you should know who I'm talking about-- need to grow up, or at least stop claiming to speak for Rocket fans, if that's the best you can do.

This guy obviously has a personal grudge against Barkley, and it certainly doesn't help that Barkley has publicly feuded with Portland's star off-season acquisition and plays for a Western Conference rival.

I'm sure the column angered you. But that is no excuse to zip off a profane and equally unreasonable reply to Vance.

All you've done is play right into his hands. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that he'll use your responses in a future column detailing what uncouth classless bozos we Rocket fans are.

Thanks, guys. Appreciate your efforts.


------------------
Nothing but NET--
http://www.clutchcity.NET

Don't Fight the Future



[This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited December 10, 1999).]

 

e-mail to Ken

I am very distressed by your apparent lack of research materials. In your article you implied that Barkley was too selfish to lead a team to success, yet he was given the league MOST VALUABLE PLAYER award. You specifically stated that he did not make those around him better, but there have been teammates that said and proved that he did just that(e.g. Othella Harrington, Steve Francis). If you have a fact checker on your staff, I would suggest that you fire them.

In addition, I don't think you timed the release of this article very well. It is one thing to criticize someone that you obviously dislike, it is another to do it publicly the same day that they learn that the most important thing in their life for 28 years has been taken from them.

In the future you might want to stick to writing about what you know, however limited that range of topics might be.

 

I am extremely upset at his article and am tempted to e-mail him right this second but think I will wait till I am not as mad.

I think it was about the sorriest, most biased article I have ever read. I thought news media were supposed to keep their personal feelings of hatred out of it. Guess columnists aren't held to that standard. He is definitely not a Top 50 writer that's for sure.

I am seething. That article belonged in the trash magazines such as the Star.

On the OregonLive forum, some of the Portland FANS were actually much more kind than this repugnant, so-called writer Vance. At least some of them said give Barkley his due.

It bugs me that lots of simple-minded idiots will take his article as fact. At the end

 

Here's Mr. Vance's response to my email:

I appreciate the mature way in which you expressed your opinions. Yours was
probably the nicest of all the e-mails I received in the last two days. As
for your question about timing, I think the timing was perfect for a
reflection on Charles' career because it just ended, and that is unfortunate.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Charles was a very good player, I never tried
to take that away from him. He's just not a saint, a hero or a role model (I
guess I should say to me), and I hate when guys like that are made out to be something they're not. Thanks.

Ken


I truly was not expecting him to be so kind. I still disagree with the timing - c'mon, let the career get cold!

BK - ROFL! Thank you for making my horrid day a whole lot better!


------------------
Jen
How long was I telling you Shandon was coming before you believed me????

 

Ken Vance can't hurt Charles with his spineless, spiteful words. Charles played at the highest level. Vance could only write about it. Probably made a lot of money writing about Charles. Getting paid for insulting people's intelligence. What a Country!! Since Ken is a sports writer with a sensitive nature, averse to vulgarity and the champion of 8 & 9 year olds everywhere, I must invoke a castigation worthy of his literary endeavor.

KEN VANCE PANTS ON FIRE!

 

Barzilla
"Too selfish
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Barkley never played on a championship team. He was too selfish. "

You find fact to support his opinion here? Barkley took the Suns to the Finals. So The Western Championship (I thought they got a banner for that)does not count. You can be selfish to get to the finals, but not to win. So Rodman never got a ring? I agree with his right to an opinion. Stating his opion as fact I don't agree with.

 

BrianKagy,
How clever of you (sarcasm)! You really showed us people who put a chewing on Mr. Vance just how intelligent we really are (more sarcasm).
But seriously (no sarcasm), nobody played into anybody's hand. Such an assertion means that that he had some ulterior, invidious purpose when he wrote that article. He had no such purpose. Mr. Vance conveyed to me that he just didn't like Barkley. True, I called him an a@@hole, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Writing a myopic and slanted article at such a time is Peter Vescey-ish and utterly uncalled for.

 

I'm just amazed at how pro-Barkley these boards are. Any of us who bring up any of his faults are automatically called detractors or anti-Barkley. Someone who writes a scathing article on him (half way accross the country) gets emails with so many vulgarities that they outnumber the real words. Has it come down to the point where anyone who plays in the NBA for over ten years deserves a 24 hour mourning period before anyone criticizes them in print? I'm going to have to side with Brian on this one. Writing him emails with nothing but expletives simply "proves" to him that he is right and we are wrong. It shows him that those comments hit a little too close to home. I truly believe that if Barkley played for another team we would silently chuckle at the article. So the question is, is the article so bad, or are we taking it a little too personally?

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

i will be at the rockets portland game on 12-21-99. anyone happen to know if mr vance will be coming to that game?

 

You think Kenny boy will apoligize at gunpoint. I mean, the way I see, why not kill two birds with one stone, Quiten and Ken. What a deal!

Mayur

------------------
In the tune of the Star Spangled Banner:

Whose veterans and bright news stars, thro' the perilous playoffs,
O'er the compaq center we watch'd, were so gallantly playing?
And the ROCKETS' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our team was still there.

- Long Live The Universe's Greatest Basketball Team!! -

 

come on guys, have a little perspective here. sure the article was a little extreme, but everything he said was true. he even left out that barkley threw a midget out a bar window. barkley was not the best guy in the world, the media (the majority anyway) painted him as such because he was such a great guy to them. can you really condone spitting on a nine year old girl? shouting out expletives where a young child can hear? be continually lazy (in practices) on every team he has been with? of course not! the man has a point. it might not be right, and you might not agree with it, but that is no reason to rip the man for it. when you disagree with someone and you resort to using insults and expletives to argue your point, you have already lost. props to jenna for the well thought out and above all respectful post.

i guarantee that jenna's post made him rethink his own point a lot longer than the ones that called him an "*******".

[This message has been edited by mhan (edited December 12, 1999).]

 

Yes, you are playing into his hands. It's obvious that Vance is happiest when he has a target to blast. The fact that you've provided him with another topic on which to vent his spleen-- in this case, that topic would be the vulgar responses incited by his Barkley column-- is icing on the cake to writers like this.

I'm not suggesting that we ignore his column completely. I'm saying that by using profanity, you instantly obfuscate the entirely valid points you're making.

And, you're providing fodder for a future column wherein this guy is likely to just blast Rocket fans.

Let's not make his job any easier, hmm?

------------------
Nothing but NET--

http://www.clutchcity.NET

Don't Fight the Future

 

Barzilla, you post that the pro-Barkley guys actions have proved the writer is correct is pure baloney. The anti-Barkley guys have taken shots about him in every way. Many of them confound personal things they don't like about him with his basketball skills as well--things like that we are better without him, that he was a detriment to the team, yadda, yadda, yadda. That is fine if some things Charles has done rubs you and others the wrong way, but the problem is that so often the anti-Charles guys slant their observations about all aspects of him based about a couple of their own issues. If you think the anti-Chuck people are quick to defend or even attack, try saying something that can be construed as critical toward Hakeem or Rudy. You will really see some unbalanced opinions then.

Sorry, but a lot of this stuff chafes my behind. I would much rather see a guy who is a fans-star, who calls it like he see's it regardless if it is PC or PG-13, who gives a lot to charity in money and effort, who battles to the end on the court, who appreciates all he is given, and who commits and better yet admits his mistakes and failings, than an overpaid, uncompetitive, cold, and withdrawn PC athlete who only looks after his wallet and commercial-making image (most of them). But this is my opinion, and I try not to let that taint my basketball observations even if I don't have a good impression of a particular players personal side from the little I can ascertain.

All you need to know about Barkley is he is still the #1 hero in all of Phoenix despite the problems he had with their basketball organization toward the end of his years there. And Phoenix is not exactly a liberal town who immediately welcomed his persona with open arms, it shows how many people he impacted in a personal way. We were lucky enough to have him a few years in Houston, many I think were blinded by this because he played next to such another great player (a player even greater in his peak) with a different, but non-the-less likable style.

 

Sir,

This is precisely my point. Everyone on this board is a Rockets fan, but all of us have our hangups.

We might say we want to see the Rockets do well, but......don't trade Hakeem or don't fire Rudy or........whatever.

Personally, the thing that Vance made the mistake in is focusing so much on the foul language on the court. I imagine that a lot of guys in the NBA are guilty of that.

From a personal perspective, his comments to tbe media don't bother me particularly except that Barkley is on the extreme. I agree that we would prefer an athlete who speaks his mind, but sometimes it is a distraction.

I think the bottom line is that Vance was right about Barkley's career. He was a great individual player caught in a team sport. I think when you look at the other greats of the game (MJ, Bird, Magic, Dream, David...) each have varying degrees of selfishness (MJ and Magic in particular) but each learned to subjigate their personal desire for team goals to win the championship.

I think we've already noticed a difference between Barkley's retirement and the retirement of players like MJ, Isiah Thomas, and the ilk. Barkley's fade seems to be more along the lines of Dominque Wilkens. Who remembers how great he was?

------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

How can anyone call Barkley an individual player in a team sport when he averages 3.9 assist in his career?

How does this # stack up to others who are considered team players?
Hakeem averages 2.6 in his career.
Karl Malone 3.3
Joe Dumars 4.5

Yes, Barkley has ego, but no worst than any other Pro basketball player. Having an ego does not mean he is not a team player. Selfish players does not dish out 3.9 assist a game.

You don't see as much fan fair for Barkley's retirement is not a reflection on him, but more of a reflection on time. Nowadays, you have more bandwagoners. When Hakeem retires after next year, his receptions will not be much better than Barkley's, except in Houston. These are players that are retiring at the tail end of their career, that's how people will remember them. Yes, it's sad...