If not for TMZ and other "celebrity gossip" websites, the whole Donald Sterling story would not have come out. Regardless of how you feel of the outcome, or the implications thereof, it's a fact that these essentially "trash magazine" websites have taken a moral, a social, stance on an issue and broadcast it. CNN is not getting the late breaking stories on it, those places are. To me, that has MASSIVE ramifications, if this becomes a trend. Are those publications deciding to take the high road and push content which they deem morally unacceptable ahead of content that will undoubtedly get more page views? Have we, as a society, lost our sense of right and wrong (or lost our desire to determine the line) and are now getting it from the same place we visit to see celebrity nip slips? Focus: Are there larger implications to the Sterling story or is it just some racist old jerk? Alt. Focus: What are other topics where people miss "the big picture"?
We., as a society, aren't getting their news from TMZ. Stupid people are. You HAVE to be stupid to think that "TMZ" and "news" are synonymous in any way. The big picture withSterling isn't racism. Anyone not afflicted the same way as Helen Keller already knew both he and his wife are racist, cheapskate shit-sack cackling criminals. The big picture is the everyone is saying you have no right to say what you want IN YOUR OWN HOME. He was bugged by a worthless, opportunistic whore looking for a shortcut to Easy Street. And the general response is "Hey, if you you don't want to get in trouble don't say things like that!" In your own home? Wrong. Nineteen Eighty-Four took place 30 years ago. And it was a fiction. I don't defend what Sterling said, but I'll fight to the death for his right to his own opinions in his privacy...on HIS PROPERTY.
Isn't this just the proliferation of the thought process when we are currently paying the government to spy on us? I don't know if I'm joking or not, but what a weird place we've crafted.
I think there are several issues here. One a matter of privacy. I realize that he's not going to court over what he said but for the NBA (they had to do something but what they did was severe) to react to evidence obtained illegally has to scare everyone. I know i've said things in private that would at least generate scorn if not cause other issues. Should my private comments be used against me publically, as I'm sure many others would as well, I would be in bad shape. Two, mob rule. This is why the NBA had to bring the hammer of thor down on Sterling. He's a bag of shit, well documented too, but the players don't have to sign with the Clippers and by not signing they would effectively run Sterling out of the league. No, this is the massive reaction of an outraged public calling for Sterling's head on a platter. The worst part? They got it served to them. Mob rule should scare everyone because that rule shifts quickly, unpredictably, and once established becomes the squeaky wheel that must be greased. Who's to say what will be deemed offensive or who will decide that? I realize this is worst case and I may be overly concerned about something that won't happen. It could be that this mob effect was caused by race more than just blind offense and IF that's the case I would say it's right and just that people come out against those comments and the things Sterling has done in the past. The reason I feel its more the mob gaining control is that Sterling has done worse things in the past without this much attention. That I find to be very worrisome.
I dont have a huge problem with TMZ for the most part. Paparazzi culture is terrible, but for the most part, TMZ seems to have a better relationship than most with the celebrity scene. An old coworker of mine started his career as a PR rep for a couple pretty big name celebrities and he said that tossing out the isolated incidents like Kanye freakouts, their camera crews are respectful enough and it is what it is. Granted their "news" is pandering to the lowest common denominator, but there is a demand for it. And unlike alot of bullshit gossip rags, they usually have their ducks in a row. Harvey Levin is a smart dude and a well-educated lawyer, so they don't mess around when it comes to CYA. As far as the Sterling case, none of his comments would ever stand up in court given the questionable nature of the recordings. I think the NBA's situation was a bit unique as plenty of Sterling's racist bullshit was public record in the past. None of it had been under Adam Silver's watch though, which is the difference. I viewed it no differently than an employee being reprimanded severely for getting drunk and acting completely inappropriately at a holiday party. Its a private organization that can discipline how they see fit. They can't forcibly divest his property from him, nor should they, but they can remove the privileges being part of the owner's club entails. Its like acting like an asshole at a country club. They can't strip your membership, but they can tell you not to come to anymore BBQs.
They are taking his property though. That's where I think rational people can disagree. Obviously ban the guy from all the privleges and perks, but to take his personal property is an interesting step. Mark Cuban's ideas.
Focus: I think whether or not you view Sterling as a racist or his presence as a public figure for so long as a systemic failure depends on your personal worldview and where you draw a personal line in the sand morally. Do his comments upset you or does his history of discrimination lawsuits upset you? Before you get all riled up about laws, amendments, et al just remember that he is part of a private organization and must follow their by-laws. While his recording wouldn't hold up in court, he is not being punished for breaking local, state, or federal law; he is being punished for tarnishing the NBA brand. When stories about such sensitive issues reach national level, the details get glossed over and narrative gets interjected, but I look at this story happily because it shows that the NBA isn't tone deaf and will respond to such stories...because their bottom line and PR is effected. 'Merica
Exactly this. Everyone in the privacy of their own home has said some fucked up shit, be it racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever a group of people may find offensive and today there is a lot of shit people can find offensive. Now, whether or not you are saying this out of genuine belief or because you are angry at someone and going for the most hurtful thing you can say it is still in private and you may regret it later and may not even mean it. But, now its just thrown out in public, out of context and can very well ruin someone. Now, if he's on the soap box on the corner that's a different story.
Unfortunately I think privacy is dying quickly. The idea of an a personal life that is cloistered from public view is almost at an end. Dumb people post details of their personal lives up on Facebook, some celebrities and athletes use twitter like a diary. Back in the early 2000's my sister use to blog, remember when that was a thing? She'd post everything up on there and now she's a professional in her mid 30's, but guess what, those blog posts are still on internet and pop up when you search my name. The NSA, Google, Apple, are tracking you everywhere. Hell, your phone knows where your home is because its always tracking you. The NSA can turn on your phone and listen to your conversation if they so please. People want technological advances, but really, the best thing for spying has been cell phones. Look at those apps everyone has, look at what you have to give them permission to have access to in order to play a game, its absurd. Privacy is dying. In 1984 there was a TV screen that use to track your every move, now in 2014, the government has something better, your cell phone. Back to Sterling. Its hard to feel bad for the guy. Was his privacy violated? Yes. Will he lose the team, will his family lose control? Its unlikely, they're going to tie it up in the courts. I think what people are missing is that vindictive people have been using private information against people since the dawn of time. The use of private information against someone isn't some new phenomenon, its just now there are different mediums for it.
It's possible that this was just the straw that broke the camel's back. If he'd never had bad behavior before and generally kept his racism to himself, they might have given him a slap on the wrist and was done with it. The severity of this incident doesn't come close to what he did to his tenants, the difference was that this made national news because of TMZ. The prior stuff - I don't know, was it ever covered in sports news? I'm not a sports fan so I had never even heard of the guy before now.
They are not taking his personal property, as team ownership in almost any league doesn't qualify as such. Owning a team isn't the same as owning real estate, or a new car. Team ownership is by mutal agreement among a partnership of like minded others. They have to agree to let you into the league, and they can force you out if you don't adhere to certain standards. You are in effect granted a membership that allows you to share in mutual profits (e.g., television contracts), benefit from league advertising, field a team that will be allowed to compete in the league, etc. Therefore, they can vote to remove all of those priviledges by revoking membership in the league, making your team worthless, and thereby forcing you to sell.
Ultimately, for me, this is a very twisted case of the 'customer is always right.' There were apparently indications in the public record that Mr. Sterling was a racist, such as a settlement with the Justice Department over non-rental to minorities. I was completely unaware of this, because I couldn't give a shit about pro-sports' team owners. Most of them appear to be vainglorious dickwads to me, but that's probably just my bias. Anyway, because enough people complained - due to a tape of a private conversation being made in violation of the law - the NBA has to 'look tough' and 'do something.' The correct thing to do here would have been for the NBA to say 'hey, we're not a thought police agency. While we find the comments reprehensible, these comments were made in the privacy of his home under unknown circumstances by a person with potentially malicious motives. As such, we are not at liberty to do anything.' You know why that's the right thing to do? Because the opposite, i.e. what the NBA is actually now doing, is saying 'well, we'll tolerate sketchy behavior on the public record, so long as a lot of people don't know or complain about it.' For these owners to come along now and complain about 'abhorrent racist comments' - years removed from actual racist activities to which none of them blinked an eye, doesn't make me go 'yeah NBA owners' - it makes me go 'you fucking money hungry fucksticks masquerading as enlightened owners.' Privacy has to matter, and it really has to matter in a situation like this. A responsible news agency would have reported that comments were recorded illegally and not aired them pending confirmation that they were indeed lawfully obtained. Yes, I know, that's not the story, but it should be. Frankly, when you sacrifice the privacy of one because you like the end result and dislike the private non criminal behavior, better stock up on some Windex, because your glass house will be next. Good luck.
I can't verify the veracity of this but: http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-audio-v-stiviano-recorded-clippers/ This makes the recording very much not illegal, if true. That seems like a reasonably big if to me, and I am sure that Sterling will argue that he didn't realize he was being recorded. The NBA allowed Sterling to be a giant ass because it didn't have a major negative affect on the league. The moment this was released, that changed, and so they had to react for financial reasons if nothing else.
This isn't new info. About a week after the first recording got posted, it came out that Sterling had Stiviano be essentially his archivist. He wanted to record all his thoughts about life and business and yada yada yada crap before he got too old to remember it so he had her doing all this while he talked to her. There's apparently several hundred hours of recordings of him. She just released (at least one of) the fun parts. I imagine the lawsuit between her and his wife had something to do with it. Just a tiny bit. Maybe. It's astounding to me there hasn't been as much research and press about her background as there has been about him. Sure, he's the asshole, but she was the one who pulled down his pants on national tv.
I don't think Donald Sterling, as an individual, is useful as anything other than a flash of light from a half-buried artifact. You see the flash of light and go, "Hmm. Looks like there's something under there." And then you don't waste any more time thinking about the flash. What you do is start digging.