Will the Gruden "resignation" begin a mass exodus ?

[ChazStandard]

1 hour ago, Deadpulse said:

Cancel Culture isn't real. As you say, actions over words. People who just say stupid ish online make comebacks. People who are actually awful and racist people dont. James Gunn and Hulk Hogan are examples of the former. Although Hulk should still be "cancelled" IMO. Societal consequences have ALWAYS existed. The internet just shines way more lights on it, which is a good thing. Yes, there are overreactions because mob mentality exists, like it ALWAYS has. However, the more we hold people accountable as a society the more society improves. There SHOULD be consequences for these things.

 

Bottom line, it is harder to be a horrible human and still be successful. That's a good thing. 

That’s quite a naive position to take up. You’re supposing that all “cancel culture” outings are equal and conducted in good faith, which is clearly and obviously not the case.

From this very example you have Gruden getting fired for dumb decade-old emails, and (so far)no repercussions at all for the actual subject of the investigation. The NFL is riddled with these double standards, as is Hollywood and politics.

“Cancel culture” does exist, but it’s neither a totally organic nor entirely egalitarian social phenomenon. What the weaponisation of outrage has actually done is provide covert means to whip up public opinion for or against disposable people as a distraction, while others remain immune to it.

You admit some people make comebacks, and others don’t, but assume this has some relation to decency or repentance, but there’s no reason to think that. The weight of evidence suggests it’s about back room deals, profits and political messaging instead.

Would Grudens emails have been released if they hadn’t criticised the commissioner? And is it a coincidence they happened to save Demaurice Smiths job?

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

Im with you here. Its part of maintaining sources to give them right of refusal on stories they are the source of. 

Then Schefter should come out and explain himself. His silence is deafening here.

My bet is because he knows he's a mouthpiece and he doesn't want to overzealously defend himself when there are a bunch more stories the NFL ghost-wrote for him just like this.

[ramssuperbowl99]

And Brett Favre picked about the best time ever to defraud the state of Mississippi by the way. HoF gunslinger mentality.

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[Shady Slim]

6 hours ago, ReggieCamp said:

I guess I don't see the big problem with the Schefter thing.

It's pretty common practice for journalists to allow the subjects to review a story before it's published. It's a little cringy that he called him "Mr. Editor" but it's certainly not illegal or even immoral.

 

6 hours ago, Tk3 said:

agreed - I don't understand where people are coming from with this

If he's burying truly damning stories about abuse or any of the "isms" involved - that's a serious, serious issue, but if it's just generally dropping a story and asking if there are things he didn't want to become public, that surely is normal practice. A major part of Schefter's job is helping get the information out that the teams want to get out, and protecting their privacy in internal matters.

I don't think there's anything to be in arms about with Schefter based specifically on that tweet

idk what it's like over in the states, but i do know here that a big thing in defamation law is if you're going to publish a story with potentially defamatory imputations about a person, and do so without giving them a right of reply or asking them to comment on said imputations in your article, if you are at a later point found liable for defamation the court is likely to jack the damages award up for your wantonly publishing of the imputations without giving the subject a chance to speak as to them.

it's a bit different with, say, political leaks, because if you out yourself to the subject of a political leak they might sic the feds on you lol. but when it comes to private citizens, if you are writing a story about them that's potentially defamatory, at least here it's best to have their input else you risk a greater liability. as others have said, schefter trades the favours for info all the time so it wouldn't surprise me if what Tk has bolded there was what's going on, but as is also pointed out by Tk in the bit immediately after, doing this is quite common journalistic practice especially for a guy who does what schefter does

[mission27]

12 hours ago, Shady Slim said:

mina kimes (who i would say is the best analyst going around right now) noted that it's really disheartening to know this is how the powerful talk amongst themselves with (what they had thought would be) the veil of privacy and i think that she's definitely right on that one, and grudes isn't the only one who thinks that way or says those disgusting things.

 

To be fair to Gruden et. al. if folks had the behind the scenes tapes of the Shady Slim show featuring the MoL some of our lighthearted banter would be a bit damaging as well 

@TLO can back me up here

[mission27]

Just now, mission27 said:

To be fair to Gruden et. al. if folks had the behind the scenes tapes of the Shady Slim show featuring the MoL some of our lighthearted banter would be a bit damaging as well 

@TLO can back me up here

Thankfully its impossible to get recordings out of the country without literally flying them on a flash drive so we are safe

[Kirill]

3 hours ago, Apparition said:

Who signs the checks and who cashes them?

Exactly. It’s like the corporate “we’re all in this together” COVID commercials.. it’s all BS

[DreamKid]

 

[y*so*blu]

Hard to say, but it could happen. Regardless of how we feel about the things Jon Gruden said, this whole situation sets a strange precedent. If you're the NFL or any high-profile enterprise, how far do you go with this? Do you insist that everyone who holds a position of power in your organization be innocent of having said anything offensive online in the last five years? The last ten years? How about the last 25?

Prior to the Internet age, time healed virtually all. In most cases people were able to grow and develop without the threat of every ignorant or misguided belief they once expressed coming back to haunt them. The last 25 years have changed that in ways that are unsettling not just for football but for society in general.

Even in the best-case scenario--i.e. if every investigation like the one that trounced Gruden is conducted in good faith, by people who have nothing to gain or lose from the outcome--is this really a healthy environment in which to manage a team or run a business? I'm glad I'm not an NFL owner or coach these days. Even if I was qualified I'd be too busy looking over my shoulder to do the job right.

Edited October 14, 2021 by y*so*blu

[Awsi Dooger]

5 hours ago, pwny said:

This article that got posted by Schefter was an article that quite clearly Allen was a key source on, about a deal coming together amid the 2011 CBA fight. Does anyone really think that any journalist was going to just post details without the sources of info on either side being able to clarify things and instead just have a story ran that would kill leverage?

 

No kidding. It's like situational influence doesn't exist. We're in an anti-media age so all the dullards who think that way just pounce without any clue what they are looking at. I couldn't believe it this afternoon when the story was gaining even slightest traction. Adam Schefter is an NFL insider. He is not a probing investigative reporter. To receive early meaningful tips from around the league there has to be give and take. I hope Schefter aggressively responds to this and puts the simpletons in their place. Just because he asked for review of the article doesn't mean he changed anything in that direction. That topic involved every team and player in the league, and for years to follow. Obviously it needed to be carefully sourced including clarifications if needed. Schefter may have gone to both sides multiple times before publishing. 

Joel Buchsbaum of Pro Football Weekly was an ultimate insider. That's how he managed so many contacts throughout the league who tipped him on various prospects and how they were viewed. Buchsbaum didn't have television persona like Kiper. But he was on radio frequently. I distinctly remember Buchsbaum mentioning that he would send his scouting reports to various trusted sources around the league, so they could be reviewed before publishing in the annual Pro Football Weekly Draft Guide. Buchsbaum said there wouldn't be too many late changes but the changes that were made improved the caliber of his summaries and the guide in general.

The term cancel culture is one segment of society whining about the fact that they are no longer allowed to openly hate and lie as much as previously, without repercussions. Gruden indeed sent those emails because he knew darn well the recipients shared the same view. It was no different when I lived in Las Vegas. It was remarkable how many white males in the sports betting community matter of factly assumed I would share their bigotry and misogyny and racism, simply because I was a fellow white male. The NFL is not going to be severely impacted because the vast majority of jobs are immune. A player would not have been released due to emails like that. It would have been a minor story, then blend and washed away by reaction to the following week's games. Obviously an owner would be able to deflect. Really the only vulnerable jobs are the ones seen as faces of the franchise, the upper level decision makers. Head coaches and general managers cannot afford stories like this. Assistant coaches are in greatest jeopardy of all since they are viewed as easily replaceable. But that type of story attache to an assistant coach would not make much news unless it's a high profile assistant. 

The best summary is that cancel culture is largely thwarted by the fact that white males hire and promote other white males. That is not going to change and it is the bottom line reality in almost every realm, not merely football.

[Mr Bad Example]

On 10/12/2021 at 6:31 AM, NYRaider said:

Unlikely the league just hates the Raiders. 

They did the Raiders a favour by getting them out from under that sunburned mediocrity

[jrry32]

Doubt it.

[Dr LBC]

On 10/11/2021 at 7:20 PM, RaidersAreOne said:

What are your thoughts? I truly think more and more emails, texts, former player statements, etc will come out from every NFL circle, and lots of dinosaurs execs/coaches will get in the crosshairs. 

I think the position taken in the tweets is a bit oversimplified - and that's not meant to in any way defend the subject matter of the tweets, but rather to note the context that while yes, people speak that way among peers when they believe that said peers think the same way as they do.  But, also, and the corporate/political world is absolutely littered with this (hell, I've run into it in the public education sector), people in positions of authority who feel secure in said position, freely speak in whatever manner they want in an audience of subordinates if they have a high enough opinion of themselves - or are just plain that egotistical and lacking in self-awareness.  I wouldn't rush to slap labels on non-peer or superior audiences to Gruden's (or any other coach's or GM's or owner's, for that matter) emails.  Could be, could not be.  But let's not pretend like Gruden wasn't perceived as someone with stroke (even when he didn't have an active coaching gig, his word carried influence), it's not a glowing endorsement of the individuals, but it's very plausible that subordinates didn't speak out because they didn't want to make waves for their own careers, so they kind of just turned a blind ear to it like you do your drunk uncle at the holidays.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Dr LBC

[Dr LBC]

39 minutes ago, Awsi Dooger said:

No kidding. It's like situational influence doesn't exist. We're in an anti-media age so all the dullards who think that way just pounce without any clue what they are looking at. I couldn't believe it this afternoon when the story was gaining even slightest traction. Adam Schefter is an NFL insider. He is not a probing investigative reporter. To receive early meaningful tips from around the league there has to be give and take. I hope Schefter aggressively responds to this and puts the simpletons in their place. Just because he asked for review of the article doesn't mean he changed anything in that direction. That topic involved every team and player in the league, and for years to follow. Obviously it needed to be carefully sourced including clarifications if needed. Schefter may have gone to both sides multiple times before publishing. 

Joel Buchsbaum of Pro Football Weekly was an ultimate insider. That's how he managed so many contacts throughout the league who tipped him on various prospects and how they were viewed. Buchsbaum didn't have television persona like Kiper. But he was on radio frequently. I distinctly remember Buchsbaum mentioning that he would send his scouting reports to various trusted sources around the league, so they could be reviewed before publishing in the annual Pro Football Weekly Draft Guide. Buchsbaum said there wouldn't be too many late changes but the changes that were made improved the caliber of his summaries and the guide in general.

The term cancel culture is one segment of society whining about the fact that they are no longer allowed to openly hate and lie as much as previously, without repercussions. Gruden indeed sent those emails because he knew darn well the recipients shared the same view. It was no different when I lived in Las Vegas. It was remarkable how many white males in the sports betting community matter of factly assumed I would share their bigotry and misogyny and racism, simply because I was a fellow white male. The NFL is not going to be severely impacted because the vast majority of jobs are immune. A player would not have been released due to emails like that. It would have been a minor story, then blend and washed away by reaction to the following week's games. Obviously an owner would be able to deflect. Really the only vulnerable jobs are the ones seen as faces of the franchise, the upper level decision makers. Head coaches and general managers cannot afford stories like this. Assistant coaches are in greatest jeopardy of all since they are viewed as easily replaceable. But that type of story attache to an assistant coach would not make much news unless it's a high profile assistant. 

The best summary is that cancel culture is largely thwarted by the fact that white males hire and promote other white males. That is not going to change and it is the bottom line reality in almost every realm, not merely football.

You... I like you.