ESPN delays broadcast debut of Down in the Valley
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Watching this video, you can tell that the girl is twisted about saying all these things about KJ because of her relationship with him (whom she thought was a friend and good person at the time) and his family. She is very bothered by what he's done to her, but she is not fully ready to go all the way in saying he is all bad because she is 17 years old and unsure of how to handle something like this.
I understand these are allegations because KJ was never convicted, but anyone with some common sense and life experience can tell that the girl in the video was not lying or trying to extort a rich professional athlete. She is genuinely disturbed and disgusted by what has happen but doesn't want to make it a big deal.
This is not the only allegation that has been pointed KJ's way. He has been accused of sexual assault by multiple young women. He's also be charged with mishandling of public funds with his non-profit organization. If we are to believe he is innocent in all of this, the question we should at least ask is, why does it keep happening to him?
I hate to say it, but while his effort to help keep the Kings in Sacramento should be applauded, it all goes to boosting his political status, connections and control.
Regarding the ESPN 30 for 30 special, I think they have to re-edit it because KJ was billed as the hero and main man of the show. It makes sense as besides the team, KJ is the connection to the NBA. Disney wants to save itself from a public backlash in case this KJ sexual assault thing blows up. Like it or not, that's how the media is.
Not at all. It's just not related to what is going on in this film. Has no bearing on it whatsoever. So you do indeed think that if KJ pulled someone out from in front of a bus the story should be pulled and edited because of some unrelated allegations 20 years ago?
You want to talk about the allegations? Go ahead! I never said don't talk about them or review them or bring him to court if necessary. I just said it has no bearing in THIS story. And it doesn't.
You want to talk about the allegations? Go ahead! I never said don't talk about them or review them or bring him to court if necessary. I just said it has no bearing in THIS story. And it doesn't.
Let me put it this way, I feel the same way about this as I would if Johnson had actually died pushing someone out of the way of a bus: I don't think that you put it in the first paragraph of the obituary, but I don't think that you can tell his story without talking about it. And, contrary to the opinion of some people here, I don't think that you can tell the story of how Sacramento kept the Kings without telling the Kevin Johnson story.
It's a hard thing to discuss, because I can't think of any counterfactual: I am not aware of any person who did (or is otherwise accused of doing) some horrible thing to somebody, but then is also principally responsible for not only saving a sports franchise, but basically saving the economy of an entire community. I don't see how you can get away with not talking about it.
It's a hard thing to discuss, because I can't think of any counterfactual: I am not aware of any person who did (or is otherwise accused of doing) some horrible thing to somebody, but then is also principally responsible for not only saving a sports franchise, but basically saving the economy of an entire community. I don't see how you can get away with not talking about it.
I am not sure if you were referencing my posts, but I will address this to clarify my prior posts. The issue from my perspective is not that the allegations shouldn't be talked about. It's that the allegations have already been reviewed by the district attorney and have already been the subject of a civil lawsuit. I don't think that the district attorney's decision not to prosecute should be interpreted to reflect on the validity of the allegations one way or the other, but the issue has been talked about by the people who ultimately decide to prosecute or not. Unless the DA decided to take a second look at the allegations, I'm not seeing what more will happen on this case that should cause us to postpone the documentary.
I'm not of the understanding that Disney (as parent company of ESPN) made the call due to any particular content of the documentary. It appears that ESPN (Disney?) has caved to pressure that has been applied through web media - most specifically DeadSpin reports over the past week which appear to have been specifically timed to target this particular release. Interestingly at least one of these DeadSpin reports gets in an elbow dig at Michelle Rhee, who has jack-squat to do with the actual issue at hand but is a lightning rod for KJ political criticism due to her involvement in other unrelated aspects of his career. To me there is a stench of dirty politics here that I suspect is ultimately aimed at derailing a run at a third mayoral term; if this is true Down In The Valley would be somewhat of a collateral target because it paints one of his bigger successes in large and extremely visible positive light. Or maybe it's just coincidence that this nearly 20-year-old allegation seems to keep coming up when Johnson's election prospects are in play but then disappears once the election is decided. (OK, call me cynical. I'll wear that one.)
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article38974704.html
The dirty politics angle is becoming more clear. The Sacramento Democraric Party chair is calling for KJ's resignation.
Edit: article details KJ's clash with the part in the past.
The dirty politics angle is becoming more clear. The Sacramento Democraric Party chair is calling for KJ's resignation.
Edit: article details KJ's clash with the part in the past.
Nothing personal directed toward you, but this is just a silly point of view. Whatever your personal views of KJ are, they have nothing to do with the Sacramento story. KJ's personal history, if there even is a negative one, has nothing to do with what went on during Sacramento's battle to keep it's team. It's simply not relevant -- at all. The fact that you don't understand why is beyond perplexing.
There were A LOT of other people involved in the Kings saga too -- Vivek, the Maloofs, Stern, Silver, Hansen, Ballmer, Carmichael Dave, etc. Do any allegations or perceived negative events from their past need to be told too? It's much ado about nothing.
There were A LOT of other people involved in the Kings saga too -- Vivek, the Maloofs, Stern, Silver, Hansen, Ballmer, Carmichael Dave, etc. Do any allegations or perceived negative events from their past need to be told too? It's much ado about nothing.
My personal opinion is that KJ is not a great person. He most likely did what was alleged. He did that 20 years ago and it has not been a secret. With all of that being public knowledge he was voted as Mayor. As Mayor he played an integral part in saving the Kings. I don't see why the message needs to include things that he probably did 20 years ago. This is not the KJ saved the Kings story. This is the Kings were saved story and KJ is a part of that. There is a difference.
Had this story not be brought up again recently, do you think that ESPN should have done the same thing?
Had this story not be brought up again recently, do you think that ESPN should have done the same thing?
I haven't seen the story yet, so I can't speak with any certainty to the contents. But, neither have you. So your SUPPOSITION is that this is the "KJ saved the Kings" story AND that such story absolutely cannot be told without detailing completely unrelated issues that happened two decades ago.
I have no idea how you have that opinion. I know that Carmichael Dave is featured in the film, as is Grant Napear. Is it mandatory that the film cover CD's dismissal from KHTK (assuming it doesn't)? Is it mandatory that Grant's time on the lacrosse team in college at Bowling Green be addressed?
You have a strange way of connecting dots on what needs to be included in a story about Sacramento (with KJ being a major part) saving the Kings and getting an arena deal. I don't know how you think that these old accusations have any bearing on the story being told. Unless this film states things like "KJ is wonderful and has never committed a crime" that requires balancing with these accusations, what is the connection you draw???
I have no idea how you have that opinion. I know that Carmichael Dave is featured in the film, as is Grant Napear. Is it mandatory that the film cover CD's dismissal from KHTK (assuming it doesn't)? Is it mandatory that Grant's time on the lacrosse team in college at Bowling Green be addressed?
You have a strange way of connecting dots on what needs to be included in a story about Sacramento (with KJ being a major part) saving the Kings and getting an arena deal. I don't know how you think that these old accusations have any bearing on the story being told. Unless this film states things like "KJ is wonderful and has never committed a crime" that requires balancing with these accusations, what is the connection you draw???
Because parts of the press have been labeling this the Kevin Johnson documentary when it was never labeled that before. You may be right in that people outside of Sacramento see it differently, but the reasons for this seem to be rather obviously influenced by outside political maneuvers rather than the film itself.
I'll add this. The New Republic put up a response to the film rather quickly after the news broke that ESPN was delaying it. I don't know where the writer saw the film, but I imagine it was at its first premiere. He waits until now to post a review of it, even though it's been months since that showing. The writer makes the claim that the film is an advertisement for KJ. I ask local people if that was a fair judgement and they disagreed.
However, local press are staying away from the topic while the public is being informed by articles like The New Republic's, which use the sudden stigma to campaign against public funding.
Like I said, I believe you are right on the outside opinion, but that opinion is formed by a political move holding a film hostage when the film has nothing to do with the issues the political moves are about.
I'll add this. The New Republic put up a response to the film rather quickly after the news broke that ESPN was delaying it. I don't know where the writer saw the film, but I imagine it was at its first premiere. He waits until now to post a review of it, even though it's been months since that showing. The writer makes the claim that the film is an advertisement for KJ. I ask local people if that was a fair judgement and they disagreed.
However, local press are staying away from the topic while the public is being informed by articles like The New Republic's, which use the sudden stigma to campaign against public funding.
Like I said, I believe you are right on the outside opinion, but that opinion is formed by a political move holding a film hostage when the film has nothing to do with the issues the political moves are about.
Last edited:
Why I hate ESPN even more than ever. Tonight on its NBA recap of preseason games showed various highlights. Then it came to King-Lakers. Entire contest recap was 100% about Lakers and especially Kobe Bryant suffering knee contusion - "but he'll be ok, because they need him this season." Not one single mention of Kings except at very end, "oh, Kings won 107-100." But it was worse as ESPN hack announcer went on to dump on Sacramento even more implying Kobe tough guy who watches lots of "Kings hockey games." Stinking east coast bias, stinking LALA land bias - it reeks coast-to-coast forever against Sacramento.
From people who aren't Kings Fans. Specifically, people who aren't Kings Fans who live outside of Sacramento, people who follow the NBA, but don't follow the Kings, who aren't invested in the "politics" of what's been going on with this film.
The story got little coverage outside of Sacramento, when it was happening. And the coverage it did get outside of Sacramento, did not involve the likes of Carmichael Dave, or Grant Napear, or anyone else who was involved at the grassroots level.
The story got little coverage outside of Sacramento, when it was happening. And the coverage it did get outside of Sacramento, did not involve the likes of Carmichael Dave, or Grant Napear, or anyone else who was involved at the grassroots level.
A few snippets from Marcos Breton's lengthy article about this:
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/article38838423.html#storylink=cpy
So again, I ask, where is the relevance of this old information to the work done the last few years to get a new arena and keep the Kings?
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/article38838423.html#storylink=cpy
So again, I ask, where is the relevance of this old information to the work done the last few years to get a new arena and keep the Kings?
Eh, maybe it's true. And maybe it's that "agenda/vendetta" is the rallying cry of opposition forces. You can't tell the "Save the Kings" story without making Johnson look like a hero. And there are people who aren't going to stand for Johnson looking like a hero, without saying, "But, what about..."
I get what you are saying, but unfortunately his name will be linked to these allegations (yes, plural as there are numerous against him by both underage girls and adult women...some of which are very recent)...no matter what the documentary is about. The Cosby Show had nothing to do with recent allegations against him but that did not stop TV Land from yanking all reruns off the air. If anything I'm surprised ESPN is not just pointing the finger at this allegation, but all allegations in addition to Johnsons repeated misappropriation of public funds for personal use.
And that is such a miniscule sample size that it is irrelevant. I know lots of people outside of California and on the east coast. None of care about what Johnson was accused of over 20 years ago. None. Like the people you are "hearing" things from outside of the local area, that also represents a miniscule sample size. But I truly believe you'll find it to be the norm. A vast majority of those that are attempting to make a big deal about it have an anti-KJ or political agenda of some kind.
Totally different situations. Not comparable - at all.
Cosby actually had charges pressed against him in a court of law and apparently made some admissions years ago that were supposedly sealed.
KJ has never been charged with a crime and has consistently maintained his innocence. While he apparently did agree to a settlement for her silence years ago, that doesn't at all equate to an admission of guilt. Celebrities and politicians have historically made deals like that because the mere appearance of impropriety can hurt their careers. Now, I'm not saying that I know he didn't commit the crimes he has been accused of -- I'm just saying that the fact that he has been accused and that he agreed to a settlement doesn't at all mean that he is guilty.
Unlike a lot of others, I tend to simply go off the facts. He was accused, but never charged. That means the police/DA either didn't have any corroborating evidence and/or they didn't find the accuser's story credible. I've seen the video and I have my own opinion about it, but regardless what that is -- the only 2 people that know what really happened is the accused and the accuser. Unless one of them ever change their story, that will never change. So what we're ultimately left with is a "he said, she said" situation. And one of the supposed bedrocks of this country's legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I'm quite sensitive to that principle because someone very close to me was once accused of a crime they did not commit and while the truth eventually came to light and proved such -- that person had to endure a lot of BS for a long time.
An accusation does not equal guilt. Celebrities are often the target of multiple accusations for various reasons. The key here is that no charges were ever filed. While that doesn't prove what did or didn't happen, it does, in my mind, provide him with a little more benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, circling back to the relevant point, the situation has nothing to do with the story of Sacramento's fight to keep their team.
Cosby actually had charges pressed against him in a court of law and apparently made some admissions years ago that were supposedly sealed.
KJ has never been charged with a crime and has consistently maintained his innocence. While he apparently did agree to a settlement for her silence years ago, that doesn't at all equate to an admission of guilt. Celebrities and politicians have historically made deals like that because the mere appearance of impropriety can hurt their careers. Now, I'm not saying that I know he didn't commit the crimes he has been accused of -- I'm just saying that the fact that he has been accused and that he agreed to a settlement doesn't at all mean that he is guilty.
Unlike a lot of others, I tend to simply go off the facts. He was accused, but never charged. That means the police/DA either didn't have any corroborating evidence and/or they didn't find the accuser's story credible. I've seen the video and I have my own opinion about it, but regardless what that is -- the only 2 people that know what really happened is the accused and the accuser. Unless one of them ever change their story, that will never change. So what we're ultimately left with is a "he said, she said" situation. And one of the supposed bedrocks of this country's legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I'm quite sensitive to that principle because someone very close to me was once accused of a crime they did not commit and while the truth eventually came to light and proved such -- that person had to endure a lot of BS for a long time.
An accusation does not equal guilt. Celebrities are often the target of multiple accusations for various reasons. The key here is that no charges were ever filed. While that doesn't prove what did or didn't happen, it does, in my mind, provide him with a little more benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, circling back to the relevant point, the situation has nothing to do with the story of Sacramento's fight to keep their team.
