NBA ref sues AP reporter for 'defamatory' tweet

This should be fun.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/law/2011/03/nba-ref-sues-twittering-timberwolves.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=6218678

 

Krawczynski said something like that? No. Way. Color me shocked. Shocked, I say.

 

Twitter didn't force the reporter to make that claim. The beauty of Twitter is that truly incompetent people in media are exposed that much quicker because Twitter doesn't have an editor as a filter.

People who blame blogs or Twitter for the actions of what people do on them are missing the plot.

 

Legitimate question, though: If that's how things work with the officiating at times -- and that's pretty much how we all assume it works anyway, make-up calls, etc. -- what's wrong with reporting an instance of it? You're right, it wouldn't make the game story. But Twitter's not a game story. It's a different kind of medium for disseminating information.

Assuming, it's the truth, the truth hurts sometimes. Does that mean it shouldn't be reported? Twitter can still be reporting without being a gamer.

I just feel like too many who hate Twitter act like it's some kind of gossip machine. This guy's a reporter, right? He saw/heard this, right? He told his readership, albeit the one online not in the paper, right? Where's the problem?

 

Moral of the story (again): Stay away from Twitter. Nothing good will come of it.

Beyond that, this illustrates why reporters should not be seated at courtsided. Too many things are said that are too easily overheard. Not for public consumption. The reporter should know better. I used to sit courtside at games and heard all kinds of stuff. So I suspect such a conversation between Rambis and the official may well be true. Stuff goes on all the time. Just putting it out there for the public only serves to inflame things.

 

'Assuming [no comma] it's the truth' is a pretty big assumption. Did the writer hear it? Did someone tell him? Was he reading lips? Did he assume it?

 

Couldn't disagree with this post more. 1.) I'm not the most Twitter-happy guy out there, but to say nothing good can come from it is such a backward point of view. 2.) Reporters being in a position where they can gather information is a bad thing? Yeah, if the ref said that he probably didn't mean it for public consumption, but that's not the reporter or the reader's problem.

 

If Twitter is bad, then I guess the entire Internet is bad, including this message board. It's a service for online communication, no more or less. I could type something career-ending on this board tonight and I'm pretty sure everyone here would blame me and not this board.

Regardless of whether this reporter's claim is true, the medium on which he communicated it is not the story here -- although it's inevitably the one that people scared and bitter about new media are going to focus on.

 

Yeah, the comma was a typo. Let's not be petty here. Because otherwise, you make a fine point. The "assuming it's true" was the caveat of my argument. If it's not, that's a whole other can of worms. My point is that if he heard and reported it accurately, where/how it was put out there is irrelevant. That's all.

 

a reporter finding out information is bad? Yeah, readers would never want to know what is said courtside. You sure have the pulse of the fan there mark.

 

oh, and to address your other point, 21 -- the first part that you bolded -- i meant "we" the reader/fan. i realize that might be confusing vs. the sportswriter "we." i had two internal narrators there. my point there was that if fans assume make-up calls and such go on, i don't see the big harm in reporting one. that kind of tied into my whole "truth" argument. assuming it's true and it's what most people think goes on anyway, where's the fire?