HOF-Robbins-- Part Deux

[Spiker]

We had a little set-to here a while back over the HOF disinviting Tim Robbins to a ceremony honoring "Dull Durham." Wouldn't want to venture a guess as to why, but the instigator of the controversy has apologized, using the term liberally .



Letter from Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey
Regarding Bull Durham Cancellation
April 18, 2003


Dear Friend:

We have received thousands of letters, e-mails, and phone calls about the cancellation of the Bull Durham events scheduled for April 26-27. Thank you for sharing your feelings with us.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a very special place - a national treasure - and my responsibility is to protect it. Politics has no place in The Hall of Fame. There was a chance of politics being injected into The Hall during these sensitive times, and I made a decision to not take that chance. But I inadvertently did exactly what I was trying to avoid. With the advantage of hindsight, it is clear I should have handled the matter differently.

I am sorry I didn't pick up the phone to have a discussion with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon rather than sending them a letter.

We are so lucky to have Baseball - a game that unites us as Americans. The events of the past week show us all that The Game burns brighter than ever and continues to stir passions in many people.

Our wish is that every American will visit Cooperstown and join us in celebrating Baseball, our national pastime and the greatest game of all.

My Best Wishes,

Dale Petroskey

President

for further details, including the totally nonpartisan HOF's invitation to Bush's press secretary and Robbins' response to the apology:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m_cancellation

[Saxmania]

It is more than a little hypocritical for him to say that he invited Ari Fleischer in order for him to talk about, among other things,

"his perspective on life in the White House and the current political scene which, of course, includes the war on terrorism"

and then claims that Robbins and Sarandon were turned away because politics does not belong in the Hall of Fame. But Robbins isn't being particularly gracious or high-minded about it.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Spiker]

I have exactly the same take on it you do, Saxmania.

[YankeePride1967]

This boils down to what each individual feels they should do. The HOF is a private organization. By inviting or uninviting people, they do not abridge their freedom of speech. In this case, Robbins and Sarandan were not denied their freedom of speech, they spoke out against the war before the invite, and did so after the un-invite. They just weren't invited to a celebration of a movie which has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Would I have done things differently if I was in charge of the Hall of Fame? Yes, I would have called and asked them to not politicize the event and would have taken them at their word. If people are outraged that the Hall did this, then it is well within your right to stay away from there, as Roger Kahn did in cancelling his August appearance.

[Saxmania]

Speaking for myself, I'm not outraged, and I still plan to visit the Hall when I'm in the area this August. It'll be my first time, and (for the record) I accept that Petroskey has shown a little in the way of guts by semi-apologising for his stance.

But it is hypocritical for Petroskey to invite Fleischer to talk about politics, and then NOT invite Robbins and Sarandon to talk about baseball BECAUSE of their politics. I see no conflict between pointing that out, and going to the Hall of Fame. I can reasonably object to Petroskey's decision as dumb, two-faced, and ill-considered, without claiming that Robbins and Sarandon's rights to free speech were violated.

And, in fact, neither myself nor Spiker claimed that.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[YankeePride1967]

Saxmania,

I wasn't responding to you or Spiker, which is why I didn't quote either of you. I was just giving my two cents on the issue. I do think it was wrong of him to do what he did. I was just disagreeing with this notion that Robbins and Sarandan's freedom of speech was abridged somehow.

[Saxmania]

Fair enough. The freedom of speech thing, unless it relates to governmental activities, is almost always a strawman anyway. And if Robbins or Sarandon are trying to claim that freedom of speech is the principle at stake, then I think they're misleading people.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[YankeePride1967]

Originally posted by Saxmania
Fair enough. The freedom of speech thing, unless it relates to governmental activities, is almost always a strawman anyway. And if Robbins or Sarandon are trying to claim that freedom of speech is the principle at stake, then I think they're misleading people.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

I agree, I think the Hall made a mistake not only by cancelling, but as the President of the Hall himself admitted doing it by letter and not by phone.

[backstop20]

cnn.com 5/03/03

Robbins: Cooperstown 'a great place'

NEW YORK (AP) -- Tim Robbins will visit the Baseball Hall of Fame, even without an invitation from the Hall's president.

Robbins and Susan Sarandon, two stars of the popular film "Bull Durham," discussed their snub by the Hall of Fame on HBO's "On the Record With Bob Costas," which made its season premiere Friday night.

Robbins and Sarandon were scheduled to appear in Cooperstown, New York, to commemorate the anniversary of the film's release. But hall President Dale Petroskey canceled the event because of the couple's statements and activities in protest of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Petroskey later said he erred by bringing politics into the Hall of Fame, and for telling Robbins and Sarandon of the cancellation in a letter instead of calling them.

Robbins and Sarandon said they never planned to discuss politics during their visit. "We were looking forward to a weekend away from all the pressures," Robbins said.

Sarandon said, "I don't think it would have been a problem. If somebody would have asked us a question, of course we would have answered."

Robbins said he'd accept an invitation to go to Cooperstown, but that wasn't necessary.

"Absolutely. But I'd go before that just to go with my kids," he said. "I love Cooperstown and I encourage people to go there. It's a great place."

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Jersey Yankee]

Sarandon said, "I don't think it would have been a problem. If somebody would have asked us a question, of course we would have answered."

Why couldn't they just say that they wouldn't answer any political questions there? I mean, if you're at a book signing, you don't sign unrelated books, and I think that therefore, if you're there to discuss Bull Durham, you should only answer questions about this.

Who's to know that some celebrity reporter wouldn't ask them questions about their political views, and they'd be highly obliging to this? From Sarandon's response, it seems that they'd both welcome that kind of question.

I'd give kudos to the HOF president, since it appears he was correct the whole time about their willingness to force their politics down others' throats!!!

[Saxmania]

Don't really understand this one. Wouldn't the reporter be the one at fault for raising the issue? Not to mention the fact that they're not forcing you to read or listen to whatever comments they make. Was it wrong for Fleischer to "force politics down people's throats" when he went to the Hall? And if so, shouldn't there at least be balance?

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Spiker]

Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
Why couldn't they just say that they wouldn't answer any political questions there? I mean, if you're at a book signing, you don't sign unrelated books, and I think that therefore, if you're there to discuss Bull Durham, you should only answer questions about this.

I'd give kudos to the HOF president, since it appears he was correct the whole time about their willingness to force their politics down others' throats!!!

Yeah, but author is expected to answer questions and invariably authors are asked about other people's books.
I give kudos to the HOF president too, for essentially apologizing for politicizing the HOF and for the poor way he handled the whole situation. He was wrong and was man enough to admit it. That deserves some respect, especially in this day and age when it's seen as a sign of weakness to admit error. Some people, most people, just seem to have trouble admitting they were wrong.

[Jersey Yankee]

Originally posted by Saxmania
Don't really understand this one. Wouldn't the reporter be the one at fault for raising the issue? Not to mention the fact that they're not forcing you to read or listen to whatever comments they make. Was it wrong for Fleischer to "force politics down people's throats" when he went to the Hall? And if so, shouldn't there at least be balance?

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

If, in my theoretical situation above, a reporter asked them about their anti-war views while at the HOF ceremony commemorating Bull Durham, I would fault that reporter. However, by Sarandon's quote, which I showed, I think that she'd encourage this by insisting upon answering this.

I think it would have been correct f/her and her hubby to agree not to answer such questions, if asked by the HOF president.

I don't have any opinion on Ari Fleischer, other than electoral politics by itself shouldn't discussed at the HOF, and someone's views while at the White House (which I understand are what Fleischer's discussion was about), wouldn't be relevant. If I'm wrong in what Fleischer discussed, please correct me.

I don't see that as highly related to Sarandon/Robbins, since if either wish to discuss their anti-war views, why don't they do so on Politically Incorrect, Entertainment Tonight, Nightline, etc? I have no idea why they'd be so accomodating to questions pertaining to their anti-war views, other than their encouraging those questions.

Originally posted by Spiker
Yeah, but author is expected to answer questions and invariably authors are asked about other people's books.
I give kudos to the HOF president too, for essentially apologizing for politicizing the HOF and for the poor way he handled the whole situation. He was wrong and was man enough to admit it. That deserves some respect, especially in this day and age when it's seen as a sign of weakness to admit error. Some people, most people, just seem to have trouble admitting they were wrong.

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood my giving kudos to the HOF president. I'm actually glad he _DIDN'T_ invite Robbins and Sarandon to the HOF, as based upon the quoted I listed above, they were very likely to have discussed their anti-war views. I think that had they been asked (and I wish the HOF president would've asked, so that we wouldn't be playing this "what if" game), that they would've agreed not to offer any anti-war views, be they unprompted when at the mike, nor even when asked about these. Had anyone wanted to know about these, then something could be arranged off-site later on, which I'd have no problem with.

I'd agree that the president should've apologized, which he did, and that he should've done so by telephone, rather than by letter, but I'm 100% in support of his having uninviting them, even if this disagrees w/your own views.

I'm off to the game, so hasta!!!

[Saxmania]

Originally posted by Jersey Yankee
If, in my theoretical situation above, a reporter asked them about their anti-war views while at the HOF ceremony commemorating Bull Durham, I would fault that reporter. However, by Sarandon's quote, which I showed, I think that she'd encourage this by insisting upon answering this.

I think it would have been correct f/her and her hubby to agree not to answer such questions, if asked by the HOF president.

I don't have any opinion on Ari Fleischer, other than electoral politics by itself shouldn't discussed at the HOF, and someone's views while at the White House (which I understand are what Fleischer's discussion was about), wouldn't be relevant. If I'm wrong in what Fleischer discussed, please correct me.

My problem with it was that Fleischer was invited specifically to talk about the war on terrorism as well as baseball, which naturally invites him to discuss his (presumably pro-war) political views. If the Hall of Fame is not to be a political forum, then that booking should never have been made. Since it had been made, it seems more than a little uneven to bar Robbins and Sarandon exactly because of the risk of politics in the HoF - that's what Petroskey invited Fleischer for!

Really, Fleischer shouldn't have been invited (or should have been limited to talking about baseball), and Petroskey should have offered Robbins and Sarandon the opportunity to come to talk ONLY about baseball. If they said that they would feel compelled to talk politics if asked, then they could be uninvited. However, having invited Fleischer, it is (almost by definition) hypocritical to uninvite Robbins and Sarandon on the same grounds. It smacks of saying, "Politics in the HoF is okay, but only if it's politics I agree with".

However, it's all over now, and Petroskey apologised, so I'm not that bothered. I just hate to think what might have happened had a Republican been turned down for being pro-war. You must admit, the anti-Petroskey outrage might have been just a little bit louder . . .

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[YankeePride1967]

Do I think the Hall was wrong? Yes, but it is a private organization. If they wanted to invite Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hannity, Limbaugh and Gingrich to have a forum about the idiocy of liberals and have no democrats to defend themselves, that is is their right, just as it is out right not to go. Freedom of speech is not about a right or wrong opinion, it is about having the right to express an opinion. If the Hall were a public organization, then they would have been wrong as their would have been taxpayer dollars involved.

That being said, I would not have cancelled the event.

[Saxmania]

Originally posted by GoRocket
Do I think the Hall was wrong? Yes, but it is a private organization . . . If the Hall were a public organization, then they would have been wrong as their would have been taxpayer dollars involved.

That being said, I would not have cancelled the event.

I agree. But then, the Yankees are a private organisation and have every right to bat Todd Zeile cleanup every day if they wish - I'm just going to come on the forum and point out how stupid they are when they do. Same deal here. The Hall were perfectly within their rights to be hypocritical - I'm just trying to point out that they were hypocritical. Hopefully, they'll try to be more even-handed in future.

Be seeing you,

Saxmanai

[YankeePride1967]

Originally posted by Saxmania


I agree. But then, the Yankees are a private organisation and have every right to bat Todd Zeile cleanup every day if they wish - I'm just going to come on the forum and point out how stupid they are when they do. Same deal here. The Hall were perfectly within their rights to be hypocritical - I'm just trying to point out that they were hypocritical. Hopefully, they'll try to be more even-handed in future.

Be seeing you,

Saxmanai

Exactly my point. Everyone is getting on the Hall as if they had no right to do what they did. They had a right to do that. Just as we have a right to disagree. Like I said above, freedom of speech has nothing to do with right or wrong, there is no wrong opinions, just disagreeable ones.

[Jersey Yankee]

Originally posted by Saxmania
My problem with it was that Fleischer was invited specifically to talk about the war on terrorism as well as baseball, which naturally invites him to discuss his (presumably pro-war) political views. If the Hall of Fame is not to be a political forum, then that booking should never have been made. Since it had been made, it seems more than a little uneven to bar Robbins and Sarandon exactly because of the risk of politics in the HoF - that's what Petroskey invited Fleischer for!

Really, Fleischer shouldn't have been invited (or should have been limited to talking about baseball), and Petroskey should have offered Robbins and Sarandon the opportunity to come to talk ONLY about baseball. If they said that they would feel compelled to talk politics if asked, then they could be uninvited. However, having invited Fleischer, it is (almost by definition) hypocritical to uninvite Robbins and Sarandon on the same grounds. It smacks of saying, "Politics in the HoF is okay, but only if it's politics I agree with".

However, it's all over now, and Petroskey apologised, so I'm not that bothered. I just hate to think what might have happened had a Republican been turned down for being pro-war. You must admit, the anti-Petroskey outrage might have been just a little bit louder . . .

I don't really know much about the Fleischer, since I hadn't heard about him before these various threads here. With the simple understanding that he was invited to the HOF in Cooperstown to discuss, among others, his views on the Reagan Administration, I would say that this would be hypocritical, as it appears on the surface that HOF president Petroskey was selective, based upon political leanings, about who would, and who wouldn't discuss politics, the war, etc. Please note, I've never seen Fleischer's speech, nor am I aware of what exactly he's discussed, other than about the war on terrorism, including presumably his pro-war views, as you've mentioned.

As mentioned, I'm also happy that Petroskey apologized. Hopefully, celebs of any poliical leaning also will be careful about where they choose to discuss political things which have nothing whatsoever to do w/the ceremonies to which they've been invited to speak, and this won't be a major issue in the future.

[Saxmania]

There's a couple of earlier threads on the subject on this forum, so that's probably the best place to look for more details. But I agree with the entirety of your post.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Jersey Yankee]

Thx, Sax!!!

Brad