"Some of your critics would say ... broadcasters shouldn't make shit up on air."

*controversy *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, September 10th, 2014 4:17pm PDT - promote requested by MrFisk.

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Except he didn't make anything up. Tyson is a convicted rapist.

Fuck that asshole.

Wonderfully cringe worthy. Perfectly ended. I really felt bad for the guy on the left. If I was that reporter I would get escorted out of the building quickly, right after putting on my earmuffs.

Had the broadcaster said, "You're a convicted rapist, and I think your association with the politician may possibly taint his bid to win this election," then you'd be correct. But he didn't. He brought allegations without citing sources, which is unethical. And I'm not arguing that Tyson was charged and convicted in a U.S. court of law for rape -- I'm arguing that the broadcaster probably never heard anybody say that it would look bad for a convicted rapist to endorse a politician, and if he had, then he has a responsibility to audience to say exactly who said it. For example, had he said, "ChaosEngine, from Videosift, said you're a convicted rapist who may sully the politicians chances to win an election. And he called you an asshole," then we'd know the source. But he didn't, and Tyson called him out for it.

That said, Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School's most high-profile professor <--[Cite your sources!], said the evidence against Tyson for the rape conviction is flimsy and incomplete.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/4/13/dershowitz-wages-media-war-for-tyson/

*related=http://videosift.com/video/What-They-Didnt-Tell-You-About-Mike-Tysons-Rape-Conviction

What They Didn't Tell You About Mike Tyson's Rape Conviction has been added as a related post - related requested by MrFisk.

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

I never said anything about what the public thought, because I never interviewed them and, quite frankly, I don't care.

My issue is the reporter predicted the future.

"Some people said ... ." (past tense, showing action happened)
"Some people are saying ... ." (present tense, but isn't all present tense past tense by default?)
"Some people would say ... ." (future tense)

And I don't think journalists should predict the future, even if they don't attribute their sources. Good journalists report the facts, which means they're limited to reporting on events that have already happened, not what would or could or will potentially happen.

And as for protecting sources (real, or even imaginary):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html

"Some people would say" -- does not necessarily indicate future tense.
I would say (see?) it is often used to more politely present a point.
Other people would say (again..) that he is referring to what people might say to tyson if they were present in the interview, and so he is saying what they would say if they were present.

For all any of us knows, two or three people asked him to ask the question and he's completely accurate and right. As i already stated, i'm interested in that question even if you aren't, so he's completely right in his statement, other people WOULD say that. Me - and probably others. Though you don't address any of that in your reply.

I don't understand what you mean in your first paragraph about the public - i never said that you had interviewed them nor that you should (??). What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement, and an endorsement is for the listeners, the public. So what i am referring to is the viewing public of a TV show on which mike tyson has appeared and offered his personal endorsement to.

In fact, you specifically said that he has a duty of care to his audience to explain his sources, so it seemed to me that your primary concern was the public's full understanding of the interview... is that not the case? I think you may have contradicted yourself here - i asked you what that duty of care was, and that's a hard question to answer without referring to the "public thought". Perhaps that's why you didn't bother addressing it in your reply. I'm doing my best to keep the discussion going, but i don't understand what this paragraph refers to or what it means.

Finally the legal battle that you linked to me. As i already reminded you, we are not his judges and it is not a courtroom, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, the world is bigger than one country and this is an international website with a plethora of opinions. In exchange i'd like you to read the introductory paragraph about protection of sources which finishes with several particular comments about the united states, and one addressed directly about the US - the land of the free and home of the exiled whistle-blowers. Please remember as you read that this refers to a legal setting, and really has nothing to do with the example in this video about which you incorrectly assert that he has a duty to expose his sources. Which you still have not made clear. However i wanted to make clear that i think protection of sources is imperative to combating corruption which is absolutely rife in this day and age of illegal wars, illegal detention, worldwide spying and tracking of individuals by the NSA and Great Britain's intelligence agencies, expenses scandals, etc.

You haven't answered even half of the questions i posed to you in my first comment, i'm all ears. Or eyes. Whatever.

"You're a talker. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty. And hungry." -- Sandor Clegane

First of all, don't tell me what we're discussing: "What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement ... ," especially if we're not discussing the same thing.

I criticized the broadcaster -- others criticized Mike Tyson.

In fact, my primary argument was against the broadcaster, and my secondary argument is on the validity of Tyson's rape conviction (I used a different thread and video for that one). Notice the difference?

I criticized the broadcaster's sloppy attempt to predict the future (which is unethical because it's impossible, to say the least) and his lack of sources thereof. What was ridiculous on my part, was my original assumption that future sources could possibly exist!

And I didn't respond to all of your quips because they're not all worthy of response. In your introduction you stated, "I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. <--[I'm criticizing the broadcaster, you're criticizing your assumption of what I think of Tyson.] Why do you think that? <--[Begs the question.] Because you did? <--[False accusation.] As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."
How am I supposed to respond to this? I was originally offended by the broadcaster's lack of professionalism regarding his sources, but this thread forced me acknowledge his lack of logic and ability to predict the future. How cool is that?

"Think I'll take two chickens."

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Actually you seemed to be discussing your likely mistaken assumption that the reporter was 'reporting future comments' rather than using proper English to state what a normal detractor might/would say if present. "some of your critics would say". In this context, those words are interchangeable. It's another definition of 'would' not meaning 'will say in the future' but instead meaning 'would be saying right now if they were here and had balls of steel'.
There's little question that his detractors have, do, and will say a well known convicted rapist's endorsement might hurt a candidate's chances, so even if you insist he's reporting on the future, it's not a leap to say 'detractors' will bring up his violent and felonious past as one that makes his endorsement a negative.
Reporters often don't give sources, especially for obvious statements like 'people who don't like you will say bad things about you' (which is also not a prediction of the future, but a statement about the present), you really don't need sources to confirm that kind of statement.