Page 1 of 1
Denver O-line forced to speak
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:35 pm
by Irn-Bru
After more than a decade of virtual silence, Tom Nalen has found himself in the NFL equivalent of a windowless, single-bulb room, sitting on a metal-back chair at an old, wooden table.
Cigarette?
Actually, the NFL has its own methods in getting Nalen and his Broncos blocking buddies to talk. These methods have even been put into writing, in the form of the league's revised media policy.
"No more offensive linemen saying, 'We're not talking,' or 'We're going to appoint a spokesman for the week,"' said Greg Aiello, the NFL's public relations boss. "That will not be tolerated."
Not tolerated. Does that mean a substantial fine to those who continue to boycott the media?
"Yes," Aiello said. "Now, if an individual doesn't want to comment about a particular matter then we won't force them. But if there's some suggestion they are working together at not talking as a group, then we'll have an issue."
For Nalen, a center who has adhered to the Denver O-line's self-imposed policy of not commenting for attribution since 1995, this is no minor revision. Upon reporting to his 14th Broncos training camp Saturday, Nalen was not yet ready to concede his vow of silence.
"I'm going to look into my Fifth Amendment rights," Nalen said
Rest of the story. . .What is that? You're going to fine an offensive line because they don't want to talk? Given how much abuse the media has laid upon players in the past, I for one can't blame
any player or group of players that simply says "enough."
Goodell is trying to earn a reputation as a commissioner who "does things," and this policy shows the stupidity of following that to its logical conclusion. I can't agree more with this quote from one of the players:
"I have a lot of beef with the direction the NFL is going now," Zimmerman said. "It's become too much of an entertainment product instead of just a sport. I mean, if someone doesn't want to talk, who cares?"
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:45 am
by JansenFan
This seems like a step over the line, although I suppose it doesn't stop you from talking to the media once a wekk and just saying no comment.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:26 am
by Chris Luva Luva
JansenFan wrote:This seems like a step over the line, although I suppose it doesn't stop you from talking to the media once a wekk and just saying no comment.
I'd just do something to piss them off.
Reporter: "How do you feel about todays loss?"
Me: "You know, the pancakes I had for breakfast were delicious. Thanks for asking."
waits for next question...
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:15 am
by Redskin in Canada
If anybody wishes to USE the media to his/her advantage (popularity, contract negotiation, self-promotion, business, etc), he/she should understand a reciprocal treatment from the media.
I do not wish to use the media to my personal advantage in -any- conceivable way, I expect the media to respect my privacy. I avoid the media in good and bad times. Fine me if you might. It would be a great opportunity for me to win a landmark case in the Supreme Court.
Freedom of expression includes the ability and potential choice to say ...
... NOTHING!
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:38 am
by Mursilis
Redskin in Canada wrote:If anybody wishes to USE the media to his/her advantage (popularity, contract negotiation, self-promotion, business, etc), he/she should understand a reciprocal treatment from the media.
I do not wish to use the media to my personal advantage in -any- conceivable way, I expect the media to respect my privacy. I avoid the media in good and bad times. Fine me if you might. It would be a great opportunity for me to win a landmark case in the Supreme Court.
Freedom of expression includes the ability and potential choice to say ...
... NOTHING!
This isn't a First Amendment issue. The NFL isn't the gov't, and as CLL already noted, they only have to meet with the media; they can still say "no comment", talk about the weather, breakfast, etc.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:18 pm
by Irn-Bru
Mursilis wrote:This isn't a First Amendment issue. The NFL isn't the gov't, and as CLL already noted, they only have to meet with the media; they can still say "no comment", talk about the weather, breakfast, etc.
But Goodell could still fine them for "talking" to the media without doing what the NFL wants them to do. I'm not sure if he would or not, but this news suggests that the NFL is going in a certain direction, and that's what I don't like.
I would be the last person to make this a 1st amendment issue, nevertheless I still feel free to criticize the decisions of the NFL, however much they may be within their rights to make such decisions.
