Re: [外電] The Detroit News Needs to Explain Iv …

看板IVERSON作者momofishj (摸摸魚)時間15年前 (2009/04/22 05:12)推噓17(17推 0噓 8→)

留言25則, 16人參與討論串3/3 (看更多)

The Detroit News Needs to explain Iverson Allegations http://tinyurl.com/ceuade Last Monday, Pistons beat reporter Chris McCosky of the Detroit News wrote on his newspaper blog that Allen Iverson had been banned from two Detroit casinos for "boorish behavior," which included throwing his chips at dealers when losing. Two days later, on April 15, the Detroit Free Press refuted McCosky's story, citing casino spokesmen who denied that Iverson had ever created a disturbance, let alone been banned. 上禮拜一，Detroit News 的 Pistons 專欄作家 Chris McCosky 在他的部落格中爆料指出，戰神因為一些 "粗魯的舉動"(輸錢時將賭場的代幣丟向莊家)，而被底特律兩間賭場踢出去。兩天後，比較有良心的 Detroit Free Press 引用賭場發言人的話，駁斥了 McCosky 的無稽之談。戰神從來都沒有在賭場裡面搗亂，更不用說被我們踢出去了!! As I mentioned last week, barring some sort of organized cover-up by both casinos, it seems clear McCosky fell for a bad tip. Except, here's the odd part: instead of posting a retraction, McCosky actually went on the offensive with another post on April 15, glossing over the fact that the thrust of his original report (that Iverson was banned) was wrong while adding that Iverson was seen "spitting at a dealer" and "even accused of cheating more than once." Under Michigan gaming laws, cheating at a casino is a felony offense. 就像我上周提到的，除非兩間賭場都有計畫性地幫AI擦屁股，不然 McCosky 就是被假內幕給騙了。補上個八卦，4/15，也就是Detroit Free Press反駁McCosky的那天，McCosky 不但沒有po文更正之前的說法，反而更為曲解事實的補上兩槍，說噢sorry阿，AI的確沒有被踢出賭場，但卻有目擊者說看到AI 對莊家吐口水、被抓到詐賭不只一次揪瞇^.< 然而根據密西根博奕法，在賭場詐賭可是一項非常重的罪阿。這邊開始是一段來自McCosky的文章片段 (略) These aren't light accusations -- spitting on someone is a disgusting act, and accusing a professional athlete of cheating in a casino could have serious repercussions with his livelihood. Clearly McCosky must feel extremely confident in his sources, no? Given the other details he gets wrong in his post, perhaps he shouldn't. McCosky的控訴文裡並沒有任何bright side，對某個人吐口水可是件非常噁爛的動作，指控一個比專業還專業的運動員詐賭更是會對他的生活產生非常嚴重的影響。McCosky 很顯然地對自己的來源非常有自信，可不是嗎？po文不附圖此風不可長，給你另一個過去他也在文章亂豪洨的例子，或許他不該這麼自信的。 For instance, there was in fact a recent incident involving one of his bodyguards, but not at Greektown Casino. Instead, it occurred at a nearby nightclub, and the man pressing charges (who required nine stitches after being hit in the face) admitted he didn't know if Iverson saw the incident or was even aware that it happened. All in all, Iverson was never accused of doing anything wrong, except, I suppose, keeping poor company. 舉例來說，最近AI的保鑣的確有捲入某個事件，但是地點並不是在Greektown Casino。事發地點其實是附近的夜店，而那個被打之後縫九針的男人承認他並不知道 AI 本人是否有察覺到或者甚至看見整起事件。總而言之，AI根本未曾被指控做出任何不對的事，如果真的有，應該只是請錯保鑣而以吧我想。 A few days later, a different reporter for the Detroit News eventually "corrected" that piece of info, tacking onto the bottom of an article about the incident this "clarification": Reports this week said the incident occurred at Greektown Casino-Hotel and that Iverson had been banned there, as well as the MGM Grand Detroit. "(Iverson) is not nor was he banned from our property at any time, and the incident that was reported did not happen at Greektown Casino-Hotel," said Amanda M. Totaro, vice president of marketing for Greektown Casino-Hotel. 終於，幾天後另一位Detroit News的記者 "矯正" 了前面報導AI被控訴詐賭然後被踢出賭場的消息，而這段所謂澄清的文字是放在哪裡呢？他是放在另一則新聞，嗯，你沒猜錯就是放在AI的保鑣打人的報導下面。 (http://tinyurl.com/cs4zhk) (下面是遲來且被置底於另一篇關於AI負面報導的澄清) 關於這星期AI被兩間賭場被掃地出門的報導 AI並沒有也從未在我們的賭場內被趕出門，而那則報導所陳述的事件，也並沒有發生過。其中一間賭場的副總裁說。 Anyone who's been paying attention should be offended by the spin job. Dismissing vague "reports this week" is hardly a retraction, let alone an admission that the Detroit News was directly responsible for a gossipy story that had already gained traction among both independent bloggers and mainstream media outlets, not to mention the national talk radio circuit. 任何有在關注這則新聞的人應該會對他們的搖搖擺擺不爽。用"這禮拜的報導"，如此模糊且不明確的東西做開頭是很難被當作是一種澄清的，不用說也知道Detorit News得直接扛下他亂八卦的責任，雖然這則報導早已引起了網路作家以及主流媒體的注意，更甭提全國性的廣播節目了。 What's even more curious is the fact that the Detroit News has since removed both of McCosky's original blog posts describing Iverson's behavior, as if removing all stories referencing the allegations were enough to wash its hands of the matter. (Note: the first post can be viewed in its entirety here, and the Google cache for the second here.) Despite this story already being plastered everywhere, the News is essentially pretending it had nothing to do with it -- it's like screaming "fire" in a crowded movie theater before telling everybody the next day that you never left your house. 令人好奇的是，Detroit News因此移除了McCosky原本有關於AI行為上的報導，好像以為把所有有關此事件的報導都移除，就可以把沾滿鮮血的雙手洗乾淨似的。 (註：第一po可從這理找到完整的文章，利用google的庫存頁面則可以找到第二po) 盡管這則故事早以在各地發布，Detroit News還是在一副事不關己的樣子，這就像是在人滿滿的電影院裡大叫失火了，但在隔天才告訴大家你根本沒離開家門一步。 If McCosky no longer stands by the "countless stories" from "eyewitness accounts" (and the removal of his blog posts implicitly suggests he doesn't) the Detroit News needs to print a prominent retraction. To be honest, even that isn't justice -- the original reports spawned hundreds of additional stories, and a retraction would get a small fraction of the publicity -- but at least it would be a start. 假使McCosky不再站在他的 "眾多目擊者" 所看到的 "屬不清的故事"那邊 (但那些把他部落格中的報導移除的舉動，很難讓人相信他有所悔悟了) Detroit News應該要印出一份真正夠顯眼的道歉(更正)啟示。老實說，雖然這未必公允，原po的報導早已像異形產卵一樣衍生出數百則故事，一則道歉(更正)啟事或許只能吸引到一小部分的社會大眾注意而以，但至少這是個開始。 There is no word on whether the paper plans on publishing a retraction, however, or even why they pulled their original blog posts; e-mails sent Friday to McCosky and two Detroit News editors seeking comment and explanation have gone unanswered. 報方對於是否會po出另一份澄清說明，或甚至為什麼把原報導全部移除都隻字未提；而週五寄出給McCosky以及另外二位Detroit News的編輯的email，也如石沉大海一樣，音訊全無。 Iverson may not have the most sterling reputation, but accusing a man of spitting on another person as well as reporting he's been accused of breaking the law is a serious allegation, especially for a soon-to-be free agent who needs to convince his next team that he's not a distraction and truly is just misunderstood. AI或許不是一個擁有最好的名聲的人，但是指控一個人對別人吐口水，甚至報導說他違法，都是一件非常嚴重的指控，特別是針對一個即將成為自由球員，必須使他明年所待的球隊相信他不會是一個不安要素，而是真真正正地被誤會而已。 --- Orz... 第一次去翻外電，花了我整整一個午夜-.- 明天的生化都不用考不用考不用考 ^.< -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.136.149.93 ※ 編輯: momofishj 來自: 140.136.149.93 (04/22 05:24)

推

gaiaesque

04/22 06:34, , 1^F

04/22 06:34, 1^F

推

qoo5hundred

04/22 07:33, , 2^F

04/22 07:33, 2^F

推

rongun

04/22 08:22, , 3^F

04/22 08:22, 3^F