All Stern did was give a douchebag answer to a douchebag question. It was funny to me for someone like Rome. It would've been even funnier, if he said something along the lines of,"Does your wife enjoy having sex with you?" Most of all, Stern began everything by saying in simple response of . . . No. Even if the NBA lottery is rigged, what moron actually thinks Stern is going to actually tell them that on national television? At this point, he should just say it's rigged to see what type of reaction people will get. As usual, people will take a counter position and say that he is lying...misleading the public by saying the league does set up it's lottery to generate ratings and more interests to NBA . . .explaining that they intentionally wanted people to believe that the lottery was rigged meaning that it really wasn't. :grin:
Puedlfor, First, you make it sound like the opportunity for Stern to give a real answer is forever lost in time. Don't be silly. He just objected to the tone and fashion Rome asked the question. That's completely fair. It was a BS, loaded question, as I explained to MadMax, and the phrasing would not be allowed in a courtroom, and an ex-lawyer like Stern would know that. Now another journalist can interview Stern about the Rome interview and get the real answer. peace
In no way does the question assume facts not in evidence....it asks as to the very fact that's in question! He's not saying, "since you rig the lottery, how do you do it?" That would be assuming a fact not in evidence. But asking a yes/no question does not assume jack crap. He can answer yes or no...nothing is asserted as fact but his own response. Buy thanks for explaining to me how to ask questions in the courtroom and depositions, heypartner! very helpful
Trying to prove the existing of beating: Have you stopped beating your wife? -- Objection...loaded question assuming beatings exists Trying to prove aliens exist Was the alien in your lab? -- Objection...loaded question assuming aliens exist Trying to prove a fix exists Was the fix in? -- Objection...loaded question assuming a fix exist. You would not have been allowed to phrase the question that way. Admit it and move on.
"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a question that assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes you were beating your wife...and then asks if you stopped. "Is the lottery rigged" is not in any way a question that assumes facts not in evidence. It doesn't assume jack crap. It asks the question outright and allows the respondent to fill the space entirely. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.
got it. i see that he ultimately answered the question. i don't think it's wise for stern to continue to attempt to look like a smug jackass though. rome is no better, but he's also not running a sports league either.
A trap? That's not how Rome interviews. He usually kisses the ass of anyone he's interviewing. Stern comes on there all the time, so he knows that. Rome himself was indicating it was a stupid question by his tone. There wasn't going to be any peppering. You're making Rome out to be Bill O'Reilly or Skip Bayless, when he's more like Matt Lauer or Larry King. I'm not sure you've ever heard a Rome interview or even listened to this one.
However, the transcript does a poor job assessing the tone of Stern. Stern almost had an "I can't believe you asked me that" tone, even saying to him "shame on you" for asking that question. He can ask that question. It's a fair question. If we can ask our president if he was really born in this country, we can ask the commish if he is busy fixing the lottery to get an albatross of the NBA's shoulders. Stern was on the attack long before Rome was. Rome went beyond where he should have, but it's not his job to be civil. Rome doesn't represent the NBA, CBS or anybody else. Stern does.
I have listened to him. (not in awhile, but enough to know you are right about him.) And you're right that I haven't listened to this one. I suppose I was being more theoretical "why people avoid questions" than referring to how Stern and Rome normally get along. okay, just listened. I actually think they have a fairly OK (maybe even pleasant conversation) for almost half the lottery portion of the interview--even after the wife beating line. Stern actually did FULLY answer it, with E&Y, etc. That was the full answer, but it didn't seem to end the questions. And Rome continued trying to speak further for the fans. By the time it got contentious they both had the fair opportunity to drop the lottery questions. I think Rome was stuck (not with a "nefarious plot") trying to convince Stern that fans are asking this and are concerned and it is a fair line of question. But Stern did fairly answer, completely. Was being talked over a little, and was trying to be convinced of something by Rome. And Stern crossed a line of becoming contentious. It actually reminds me of an interview between Amy Goodman and Bill Clinton. That's my honest assessment. TheFreak, why did Rome keep insisting on Stern hearing what fans think after Stern gave the full answer mention the Media, Team Reps and E&Y. I don't know. I think it's fair to say Stern believes it's futile for him to answer that question any further than giving the complete facts of how it is run...and he got annoyed that the interview didn't end.
From where I sit, both Stern & Rome were at fault here. Rome could have asked the question in a more respectful way. instead, he blatantly asked Stern if the "fix" was in which naturally pissed off Stern because it directly implied dishonesty on Stern's part so yeah, Rome was being a douche. He framed the question in order to trap Stern and I believe that Rome wasn't interested in getting an answer anyway. Rome should have simply asked: "Commissioner, as you are aware, there has been a lot of implications in the media that the lottery was fixed in favor of NO - a team that was under NBA ownership at the time of the lottery. Would you please explain what steps the league has taken to guarantee that such an event is not the case? Had he asked a serious question in this manner, he would have afforded Stern the opportunity to give reasons/examples why the lottery cannot be fixed. By losing his cool and personally attacking Rome, Stern missed an opportunity to lay the issue to rest although I certainly can understand why he reacted the way he did. However the fact that Stern was so evasive and defensive will be enough to keep this (non)issue going.
I wouldn't call what he gave a "full answer", more like a sarcastic and belittling half answer (lol at your "FULLY" in all caps). As for why Rome kept pursuing the question, Stern came out and insulted him at a little over 1 minute into the interview (at least the clip on youtube) - "fans think it b/c people like you ask silly questions". Maybe Rome didn't feel like letting it slide at that point. Since when does a commish go on national talk shows and insult hosts who aren't even being combative? How is that appropriate for someone in that position? That's the point.
He explained as fully as anyone else here fas suggested he should have done...that's why I all-cap'd FULLY. Maybe you didn't hear it, because Rome was talking over him. The ball is in your court now to tell me what info about the behind the door actions of the lottery he failed to give. Leave delivery of the message aside for a second, because I agree with you on some of that...but tell me what he didn't say and tell me why Rome was talking over him, prior to Rome getting insulted...which is kinda funny in itself. btw: it wasn't 1 minute into the interview. They had already talked for about 8 minutes on other topics. imo, everything was fine, then they got into "It's a ridiculous question." "No, I don't think it ridiculous." Then they started talking over each other. They didn't argue that much. At some point after the question, Stern didn't want to play anymore and Rome could have recognized that as a professional, but instead Rome fueled it. You honestly think Rome was insulted and blameless?
hp, you obviously see nothing wrong with Stern's actions, so there's nothing more to discuss. Agree to disagree. fyi, I did hear the full interview after I posted that. You should check out the Barkley interview from the day before. 45 minutes of unfiltered stuff.
I never said that. I actually argued against him as much as anyone during the lockout. I admit to liking his interviews as entertainment but not liking him as commissioner. Will check out the Barkley interview.
LOL. Not being familiar with "on a mobile" segment, I thought this was REAL at first. Then, it progressed further. It IS fake, right?
Thanks for the link, seriously. I have a totally different interpretation. Stern got truly nasty and unprofessional because he sees the writing on the wall. There are a million better ways Stern could have answered that. He could talk about probability, why he understands that people wonder about it, how reputable the firm is that runs it. And Rome could have responded much better as well. Like: "If my wife regularly had a bruised face, yeah, I would pretty much expect hard questions." Because for better or worse, whether it deserves it or not: the NBA has one bruised-face wife. (My apologies for the analogy, which der kommisar started for us.)
