Tell Me :
Talk
See, Lance's biggest mistake was not hiring you as his publicist.
"Sure it was bad, but he didn't beat Rihanna senseless did he? DID HE?!"
Not relevant really. The US Postal team was paid more than 40 million US tax payer dollars based on a fraud. I assume that money could have been spent otherwise, but that is not up to me to decide.
A sex crime is bad in itself. But if the sex offender get the offended person into jail by denying, that is even worse. That is EXACTLY what Lance did. First he said he did NOTHING wrong. Then he sued anyone who told the truth. And won these cases in court. A tragedy really.
Lance just want a new life with Triatlon. And running Chicago Marathon. If I had been doing Triatlon I am not sure if I would participate in a competition where Lance Armstrong was on the list of the competitors. And as for Marathon, I am sure we will be told if he is running...
Bjornulf
This is exactly why he should run for office in the US.
Seems they shared more than cycling in common.
There is no way I could ever disagree with that sentiment.
Andre Agassi & Lance Armstrong have done good things in the world of charity, however they are DIRTY, LIARS & CHEATS.
Hey Slim, Armstrong would be average without juice.
Yes, but did they use dope ? That seems to be the worst thing in the world
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
L.A. heard about the penalty reduction from life time to 8 years, if you confess. That is: from 2005 to 2013, then he could begin his sports again in ???? guess when - exactly, 2013....
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
To be honest, I don't know much about her. I never really cared for her music, I always saw it as the most "middle of the road" and generic as music could get, but I never had a problem with her. But other than her music and the fact that she once dated Lance, that's all I know. But you must be right, she must not be all that bright. I think most people would have realized how hypocritical that sounded the moment they said it. And since it was an ET fluff piece/The Voice commercial, she could have done as many takes as she wanted. It wasn't like she just got cornered by Katie Couric, she was being interviewed by Nancy O'Dell, who like everybody on ET think these celebrities are their friends, and not just using them to promote their projects.
Is there some legal issue why she can't come out and say it? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that since Lance already admitted to doping, there shouldn't be any real reason she couldn't say so. Except to protect her completely un-offensive "down home girl" image. Hasn't it already been established that she was present at one of Lance's intimidation/bullying sessions?
I think this comes down to bad journalism. It's all about selling and viewer ratings. Many journalists are in fact salesmen. They sell news and gossip instead of cars or vacuum cleaners. I know, Sheryl isn't an offical figure but if she's allowed to advertise her own products on air she should at least try to answer some questions. Even the difficult ones.
I don't watch much ET, I normally only see it when I fail to change the channel after the local news, and that's sort of what happened here, I would have changed it but once I heard Sheryl was about to "open up", it spiked my curiosity and I stayed. I should have known better, they aren't exactly journalists over there. They're a bunch of blubbering fans who fall over themselves every time Jessica Alba leaves the house in a new scarf. But I was expecting a little more out of Sheryl, especially after all her truth/honesty babbling.
Here's the actual segment. The part of her refusing to answer isn't even on there. It's afterwards that Nancy says she refused to address it and is hoping this is the only time she has to talk about it. Until she has something else to promote I imagine. Then I'm sure she'll address it in another "exclusive interview".
Sheryl Crow Talks About Lance Armstrong's Admission
Most journalism is a joke these days, at least here in the U.S.. Journalists used to report news but nowadays they are all driven by ideology and are more like "players in the game" as opposed to objective bystanders. If they like the person they are interviewing the interview will be a "puff piece" with no hard questions. We see this most often in politics but I guess it can happen in the entertainment and sports world too.
I think they're also driven by the old saying "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". News is just entertainment now, and not very informative. Look at the whole Manti Te'o thing. These people knew something was up, knew they couldn't find a death certificate and everything, but they had a great human interest story to tug at people's heart strings, so they went with it. I think the Lance thing was similar. A guy overcoming cancer and winning the tour was a much better story than a guy cheating to win. I think most people had their suspicions, but just like many sports journalists later admitted with the Mark McGwire story, they didn't follow up on it because they didn't want it to be true, and they wanted the narrative that was being fed to them. Even though it probably wouldn't have taken much investigation to find the truth. The truth wasn't as good.
It's also gotten to the point where you can't trust the news as a story is breaking. Especially my local news. You need to give them a few hours to get all the fact straight, but that won't stop them from reporting what they think they know and filling in the blanks with sensationalism until the story does actually unfold. Here's an example from just yesterday. The local news broke into all the local stations to report on this horrific Sandy Hook-esque shooting that took place at a Houston college. They were speculating that dozens were dead, though never saying where they got that information. They were going nuts. Long story short it turned out to be two guys got in an argument that led to them pulling on each other, and they shot each other and an employee who was in the crossfire, and nobody was killed. A couple of years ago they broke some huge story about a mass grave being located here in Texas with the bodies of some 150 children inside, it turned out there was not a grave with even 1 body, much less 150. I think the competitiveness in journalism (both between networks and reporters wanting their big break) and wanting to have the pointless bragging right of being the "first to break the story" leads to them just spouting out whatever bullcrap they can think of, with no facts, and hoping something sticks once the truth comes out.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Slimharpo
()
Date: January 22, 2013 15:05
But how bad is he really? Worse than a sex offender? Worse than a murderer? People just go on about this as if! He's basically like a CEO or a politician or a school superintendent, but better than a mob boss. So I imagine in time all will be forgiven. Look at all the woman beaters who now have their careers on tracks. How about the neglectful parents like keith richards? Trust me, lance is not that bad. He has a bright future.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
mr edward
()
Date: January 22, 2013 15:28
A Dutch reporter called him 'Darth Vader on a bike'.
The only thing LA regrets is nog being being caught. The man bullied, threatened and humiliated so many people during his 'reign', he truly deserves the lifelong ban. The nerve to call it 'the death penalty' shows the man still doensn't get it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-22 15:35 by mr edward.
The only thing LA regrets is nog being being caught. The man bullied, threatened and humiliated so many people during his 'reign', he truly deserves the lifelong ban. The nerve to call it 'the death penalty' shows the man still doensn't get it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-22 15:35 by mr edward.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Slimharpo
()
Date: January 22, 2013 15:38
well yea, you're probably right, he regrets that he was caught. He still feels that under the circumstances, doping was justifitied. So is he worse than woman beater and neglectful parent John Lennon? What about Chris Brown who seriously beat the shit out of Rihiana? I say it's a bright future for Lance!
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 22, 2013 16:12
Quote
Slimharpo
well yea, you're probably right, he regrets that he was caught. He still feels that under the circumstances, doping was justifitied. So is he worse than woman beater and neglectful parent John Lennon? What about Chris Brown who seriously beat the shit out of Rihiana? I say it's a bright future for Lance!
See, Lance's biggest mistake was not hiring you as his publicist.
"Sure it was bad, but he didn't beat Rihanna senseless did he? DID HE?!"
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: January 22, 2013 16:15
Some part of the interview that didn't make it to the broadcast:
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: January 22, 2013 17:06
Okay, I have a question I know cycling is big in Europe just how big is it? I am sick of hearing about Lance yes he is a cheat and a lie but man do people go overboard.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
bv
()
Date: January 22, 2013 17:38
Quote
Slimharpo
But how bad is he really? Worse than a sex offender? Worse than a murderer? People just go on about this as if! He's basically like a CEO or a politician or a school superintendent, but better than a mob boss. So I imagine in time all will be forgiven. Look at all the woman beaters who now have their careers on tracks. How about the neglectful parents like keith richards? Trust me, lance is not that bad. He has a bright future.
Not relevant really. The US Postal team was paid more than 40 million US tax payer dollars based on a fraud. I assume that money could have been spent otherwise, but that is not up to me to decide.
A sex crime is bad in itself. But if the sex offender get the offended person into jail by denying, that is even worse. That is EXACTLY what Lance did. First he said he did NOTHING wrong. Then he sued anyone who told the truth. And won these cases in court. A tragedy really.
Lance just want a new life with Triatlon. And running Chicago Marathon. If I had been doing Triatlon I am not sure if I would participate in a competition where Lance Armstrong was on the list of the competitors. And as for Marathon, I am sure we will be told if he is running...
Bjornulf
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
gimmelittledrink
()
Date: January 22, 2013 18:00
How can any organization ever trust Lance? His entire career, including every penny he ever earned (or received as a result of suing people) was based on outright cheating, covering it up, and then lying about it. All the good deeds in the world will not change that.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: January 22, 2013 22:40
Quote
gimmelittledrink
How can any organization ever trust Lance? His entire career, including every penny he ever earned (or received as a result of suing people) was based on outright cheating, covering it up, and then lying about it. All the good deeds in the world will not change that.
This is exactly why he should run for office in the US.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: January 23, 2013 00:31
Quote
MKjanQuote
gimmelittledrink
How can any organization ever trust Lance? His entire career, including every penny he ever earned (or received as a result of suing people) was based on outright cheating, covering it up, and then lying about it. All the good deeds in the world will not change that.
This is exactly why he should run for office in the US.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 23, 2013 01:01
Quote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
MKjanQuote
gimmelittledrink
How can any organization ever trust Lance? His entire career, including every penny he ever earned (or received as a result of suing people) was based on outright cheating, covering it up, and then lying about it. All the good deeds in the world will not change that.
This is exactly why he should run for office in the US.
Seems they shared more than cycling in common.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 23, 2013 01:12
I always got the impression that the former US President was a very likeable figure privately. I think his wife, the former First Lady, made a very good impression. The fault is that he should never have got into politics. He was simply the wrong man for the job. He should have stayed in Texas managing his ranch and baseball team.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: January 23, 2013 01:50
Quote
Stoneage
I always got the impression that the former US President was a very likeable figure privately. I think his wife, the former First Lady, made a very good impression. The fault is that he should never have got into politics. He was simply the wrong man for the job. He should have stayed in Texas managing his ranch and baseball team.
There is no way I could ever disagree with that sentiment.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Slimharpo
()
Date: January 23, 2013 06:41
No one is too worried about $40 million US dollars. Anyone remember the banks pleading for bailout money from the government? Next the banks are handing out million dollar bonuses. No one cares. How about the Big Dig in Massachusetts? The bullshit war in Iraq? It's a gritty world, at least in the united States. Maybe you folks live some where over the rainbow, I don't know. Anyone with a big reputation and big money will pretty much all but kill to maintain that. It's understood. Maybe if they kill or commit a sex offense on a child that might not be forgiven. My guess is time will blur this Lance Armstrong issue and he will have his big money days on shows like Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars. There will be a show also about how he turned his life around and devoted himself to helping underpriveledges kids.
What is not being pointed out much is he did try to do a lot of philanthropy work. He was a major inspiration to many people for many years. There is good and bad in Lance like others so have some sympathy and some taste.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-23 06:41 by Slimharpo.
What is not being pointed out much is he did try to do a lot of philanthropy work. He was a major inspiration to many people for many years. There is good and bad in Lance like others so have some sympathy and some taste.
Quote
bvQuote
Slimharpo
But how bad is he really? Worse than a sex offender? Worse than a murderer? People just go on about this as if! He's basically like a CEO or a politician or a school superintendent, but better than a mob boss. So I imagine in time all will be forgiven. Look at all the woman beaters who now have their careers on tracks. How about the neglectful parents like keith richards? Trust me, lance is not that bad. He has a bright future.
Not relevant really. The US Postal team was paid more than 40 million US tax payer dollars based on a fraud. I assume that money could have been spent otherwise, but that is not up to me to decide.
A sex crime is bad in itself. But if the sex offender get the offended person into jail by denying, that is even worse. That is EXACTLY what Lance did. First he said he did NOTHING wrong. Then he sued anyone who told the truth. And won these cases in court. A tragedy really.
Lance just want a new life with Triatlon. And running Chicago Marathon. If I had been doing Triatlon I am not sure if I would participate in a competition where Lance Armstrong was on the list of the competitors. And as for Marathon, I am sure we will be told if he is running...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-23 06:41 by Slimharpo.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: January 23, 2013 07:06
Quote
Slimharpo
No one is too worried about $40 million US dollars. Anyone remember the banks pleading for bailout money from the government? Next the banks are handing out million dollar bonuses. No one cares. How about the Big Dig in Massachusetts? The bullshit war in Iraq? It's a gritty world, at least in the united States. Maybe you folks live some where over the rainbow, I don't know. Anyone with a big reputation and big money will pretty much all but kill to maintain that. It's understood. Maybe if they kill or commit a sex offense on a child that might not be forgiven. My guess is time will blur this Lance Armstrong issue and he will have his big money days on shows like Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars. There will be a show also about how he turned his life around and devoted himself to helping underpriveledges kids.
What is not being pointed out much is he did try to do a lot of philanthropy work. He was a major inspiration to many people for many years. There is good and bad in Lance like others so have some sympathy and some taste.Quote
bvQuote
Slimharpo
But how bad is he really? Worse than a sex offender? Worse than a murderer? People just go on about this as if! He's basically like a CEO or a politician or a school superintendent, but better than a mob boss. So I imagine in time all will be forgiven. Look at all the woman beaters who now have their careers on tracks. How about the neglectful parents like keith richards? Trust me, lance is not that bad. He has a bright future.
Not relevant really. The US Postal team was paid more than 40 million US tax payer dollars based on a fraud. I assume that money could have been spent otherwise, but that is not up to me to decide.
A sex crime is bad in itself. But if the sex offender get the offended person into jail by denying, that is even worse. That is EXACTLY what Lance did. First he said he did NOTHING wrong. Then he sued anyone who told the truth. And won these cases in court. A tragedy really.
Lance just want a new life with Triatlon. And running Chicago Marathon. If I had been doing Triatlon I am not sure if I would participate in a competition where Lance Armstrong was on the list of the competitors. And as for Marathon, I am sure we will be told if he is running...
Andre Agassi & Lance Armstrong have done good things in the world of charity, however they are DIRTY, LIARS & CHEATS.
Hey Slim, Armstrong would be average without juice.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: January 23, 2013 13:25
Quote
Slimharpo
Anyone remember the banks pleading for bailout money from the government? Next the banks are handing out million dollar bonuses. No one cares. How about the Big Dig in Massachusetts? The bullshit war in Iraq?
Yes, but did they use dope ? That seems to be the worst thing in the world
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Slimharpo
()
Date: January 23, 2013 14:34
No he wouldn't have ben average because the other cyclists were doping also, even the squeeky clean mennonite cyclist Landis!
Quote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
Slimharpo
No one is too worried about $40 million US dollars. Anyone remember the banks pleading for bailout money from the government? Next the banks are handing out million dollar bonuses. No one cares. How about the Big Dig in Massachusetts? The bullshit war in Iraq? It's a gritty world, at least in the united States. Maybe you folks live some where over the rainbow, I don't know. Anyone with a big reputation and big money will pretty much all but kill to maintain that. It's understood. Maybe if they kill or commit a sex offense on a child that might not be forgiven. My guess is time will blur this Lance Armstrong issue and he will have his big money days on shows like Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars. There will be a show also about how he turned his life around and devoted himself to helping underpriveledges kids.
What is not being pointed out much is he did try to do a lot of philanthropy work. He was a major inspiration to many people for many years. There is good and bad in Lance like others so have some sympathy and some taste.Quote
bvQuote
Slimharpo
But how bad is he really? Worse than a sex offender? Worse than a murderer? People just go on about this as if! He's basically like a CEO or a politician or a school superintendent, but better than a mob boss. So I imagine in time all will be forgiven. Look at all the woman beaters who now have their careers on tracks. How about the neglectful parents like keith richards? Trust me, lance is not that bad. He has a bright future.
Not relevant really. The US Postal team was paid more than 40 million US tax payer dollars based on a fraud. I assume that money could have been spent otherwise, but that is not up to me to decide.
A sex crime is bad in itself. But if the sex offender get the offended person into jail by denying, that is even worse. That is EXACTLY what Lance did. First he said he did NOTHING wrong. Then he sued anyone who told the truth. And won these cases in court. A tragedy really.
Lance just want a new life with Triatlon. And running Chicago Marathon. If I had been doing Triatlon I am not sure if I would participate in a competition where Lance Armstrong was on the list of the competitors. And as for Marathon, I am sure we will be told if he is running...
Andre Agassi & Lance Armstrong have done good things in the world of charity, however they are DIRTY, LIARS & CHEATS.
Hey Slim, Armstrong would be average without juice.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: January 23, 2013 14:50
"Andre Agassi & Lance Armstrong have done good things in the world of charity, however they are DIRTY, LIARS & CHEATS"
Yeah but Agassi loathed himself so much he wanted to commit suicide.
I don't see L.A. dealign with moral dilemmas. He had a thug mentality; Like "will I get caught? No? That's alright then!!"
Yeah but Agassi loathed himself so much he wanted to commit suicide.
I don't see L.A. dealign with moral dilemmas. He had a thug mentality; Like "will I get caught? No? That's alright then!!"
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: January 23, 2013 19:37
Quote
dcba
"Andre Agassi & Lance Armstrong have done good things in the world of charity, however they are DIRTY, LIARS & CHEATS"
Yeah but Agassi loathed himself so much he wanted to commit suicide.
I don't see L.A. dealign with moral dilemmas. He had a thug mentality; Like "will I get caught? No? That's alright then!!"
L.A. heard about the penalty reduction from life time to 8 years, if you confess. That is: from 2005 to 2013, then he could begin his sports again in ???? guess when - exactly, 2013....
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: January 23, 2013 19:56
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:11
Quote
NoCode0680
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:34
Quote
FrankMQuote
NoCode0680
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
To be honest, I don't know much about her. I never really cared for her music, I always saw it as the most "middle of the road" and generic as music could get, but I never had a problem with her. But other than her music and the fact that she once dated Lance, that's all I know. But you must be right, she must not be all that bright. I think most people would have realized how hypocritical that sounded the moment they said it. And since it was an ET fluff piece/The Voice commercial, she could have done as many takes as she wanted. It wasn't like she just got cornered by Katie Couric, she was being interviewed by Nancy O'Dell, who like everybody on ET think these celebrities are their friends, and not just using them to promote their projects.
Is there some legal issue why she can't come out and say it? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that since Lance already admitted to doping, there shouldn't be any real reason she couldn't say so. Except to protect her completely un-offensive "down home girl" image. Hasn't it already been established that she was present at one of Lance's intimidation/bullying sessions?
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:36
Quote
FrankMQuote
NoCode0680
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
I think this comes down to bad journalism. It's all about selling and viewer ratings. Many journalists are in fact salesmen. They sell news and gossip instead of cars or vacuum cleaners. I know, Sheryl isn't an offical figure but if she's allowed to advertise her own products on air she should at least try to answer some questions. Even the difficult ones.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Erik_Snow
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:37
So the a****** finally admitted it. Wonder how many millions he got from Oprah to do that. What a lousy cheater. Not that any admitions were really needed, the evidences were oh so clear allready.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Midnight Toker
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:43
This guy cheated the system with the help of others to make it to the top and become a millionaire. He came off as a egocentric jackass and deserves all of the shame coming his way. A big black eye to the sports profession.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:48
Quote
StoneageQuote
FrankMQuote
NoCode0680
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
I think this comes down to bad journalism. It's all about selling and viewer ratings. Many journalists are in fact salesmen. They sell news and gossip instead of cars or vacuum cleaners. I know, Sheryl isn't an offical figure but if she's allowed to advertise her own products on air she should at least try to answer some questions. Even the difficult ones.
I don't watch much ET, I normally only see it when I fail to change the channel after the local news, and that's sort of what happened here, I would have changed it but once I heard Sheryl was about to "open up", it spiked my curiosity and I stayed. I should have known better, they aren't exactly journalists over there. They're a bunch of blubbering fans who fall over themselves every time Jessica Alba leaves the house in a new scarf. But I was expecting a little more out of Sheryl, especially after all her truth/honesty babbling.
Here's the actual segment. The part of her refusing to answer isn't even on there. It's afterwards that Nancy says she refused to address it and is hoping this is the only time she has to talk about it. Until she has something else to promote I imagine. Then I'm sure she'll address it in another "exclusive interview".
Sheryl Crow Talks About Lance Armstrong's Admission
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: January 23, 2013 20:54
Quote
StoneageQuote
FrankMQuote
NoCode0680
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
I think this comes down to bad journalism. It's all about selling and viewer ratings. Many journalists are in fact salesmen. They sell news and gossip instead of cars or vacuum cleaners. I know, Sheryl isn't an offical figure but if she's allowed to advertise her own products on air she should at least try to answer some questions. Even the difficult ones.
Most journalism is a joke these days, at least here in the U.S.. Journalists used to report news but nowadays they are all driven by ideology and are more like "players in the game" as opposed to objective bystanders. If they like the person they are interviewing the interview will be a "puff piece" with no hard questions. We see this most often in politics but I guess it can happen in the entertainment and sports world too.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: January 23, 2013 21:15
Sorry, I didn't notice the channel's name: Entertainment Tonight. Then, of course, we are not talking about journalism at all. It's a gossip channel as I understand. They sell gossip.
Re: OT : Lance Armstrong
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: January 23, 2013 21:27
Quote
FrankMQuote
StoneageQuote
FrankMQuote
NoCode0680
It looks like Sheryl Crow is kind of full of shit too, though not as much as Lance obviously. She did a supposedly "must see" "tell all" interview with Entertainment Tonight, which ended up just being a commercial for her appearances on the TV show The Voice. She rambled a bunch of crap about how "the truth will set you free", "honesty is the best policy", etc. Then when asked if she knew Lance doped, refused to answer.
Nice looking girl but not exactly the brightest bulb in the box.
I think this comes down to bad journalism. It's all about selling and viewer ratings. Many journalists are in fact salesmen. They sell news and gossip instead of cars or vacuum cleaners. I know, Sheryl isn't an offical figure but if she's allowed to advertise her own products on air she should at least try to answer some questions. Even the difficult ones.
Most journalism is a joke these days, at least here in the U.S.. Journalists used to report news but nowadays they are all driven by ideology and are more like "players in the game" as opposed to objective bystanders. If they like the person they are interviewing the interview will be a "puff piece" with no hard questions. We see this most often in politics but I guess it can happen in the entertainment and sports world too.
I think they're also driven by the old saying "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". News is just entertainment now, and not very informative. Look at the whole Manti Te'o thing. These people knew something was up, knew they couldn't find a death certificate and everything, but they had a great human interest story to tug at people's heart strings, so they went with it. I think the Lance thing was similar. A guy overcoming cancer and winning the tour was a much better story than a guy cheating to win. I think most people had their suspicions, but just like many sports journalists later admitted with the Mark McGwire story, they didn't follow up on it because they didn't want it to be true, and they wanted the narrative that was being fed to them. Even though it probably wouldn't have taken much investigation to find the truth. The truth wasn't as good.
It's also gotten to the point where you can't trust the news as a story is breaking. Especially my local news. You need to give them a few hours to get all the fact straight, but that won't stop them from reporting what they think they know and filling in the blanks with sensationalism until the story does actually unfold. Here's an example from just yesterday. The local news broke into all the local stations to report on this horrific Sandy Hook-esque shooting that took place at a Houston college. They were speculating that dozens were dead, though never saying where they got that information. They were going nuts. Long story short it turned out to be two guys got in an argument that led to them pulling on each other, and they shot each other and an employee who was in the crossfire, and nobody was killed. A couple of years ago they broke some huge story about a mass grave being located here in Texas with the bodies of some 150 children inside, it turned out there was not a grave with even 1 body, much less 150. I think the competitiveness in journalism (both between networks and reporters wanting their big break) and wanting to have the pointless bragging right of being the "first to break the story" leads to them just spouting out whatever bullcrap they can think of, with no facts, and hoping something sticks once the truth comes out.
This Thread has been closed