More Fenway Park Renovations

A bigger concern to any Fenway resident should be the serving policies of area bars during games (and the conduct of their patrons), not what's happening inside the ballyard.
 
As I said it's tangibility-related (both involve alcohol/Red Sox) but Lurker was talking about getting the facts wrong. All the facts are correct, just irrelevant to the main thrust of the article. Lazy writing, not some grand conspiracy to indoctrinate readers.
 
statler said:
As I said it's tangibility-related (both involve alcohol/Red Sox) but Lurker was talking about getting the facts wrong. All the facts are correct, just irrelevant to the main thrust of the article. Lazy writing, not some grand conspiracy to indoctrinate readers.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't chalk it up solely to lazy writing, nor would I accuse them of some sort of grand conspiracy(everyone knows they're a liberal paper) but they have an agenda and the Snelgrove incident inclusion plays directly to that agenda - justifying further government bureaucracy and exhibiting an all but absolute distrust of individuals within society to make decisions for themselves.
 
I didn't accuse anyone of a conspiracy. I stated that the media likes narratives and will include or omit facts as they see fit to their narrative. Technically it isn't lying, by the dictionary definition, to make a statement only partially supported by facts, which is in fact false when one looks at all the facts combined. But for all intents and purposes being deliberately dishonest through omission is lying.

What is going in this particular article is a tactic of placing two unrelated factual events together to deliberately imply to reader that they are connected, when in fact they are not. Again this technically isn't lying, but for all intents and purposes, deliberately misleading people by carefully framing a narrative, is lying. Author's use such things as red herrings all the time fiction. Lawyers use them in court to put one over on juries. Politicians and editorial commentators use such tactics to smear opponents while hiding behind the technicality to prevent libel suits.

As KMP said above:
When such a device is used in the press during what should be plain factual reporting, then the public is really being done a disservice.
 
Now that that's been settled, what do people think of the actual proposal: hard liquor sales in Fenway?
 
Lurker said:
...Technically it isn't lying, by the dictionary definition, to make a statement only partially supported by facts, which is in fact false when one looks at all the facts combined. But for all intents and purposes being deliberately dishonest through omission is lying.... Again this technically isn't lying, but for all intents and purposes, deliberately misleading people by carefully framing a narrative, is lying.
Click to expand...

Sorry--I know folks want to move on, but I have to note that 1) EVERYTHING (even this posting) is part of a narrative and 2) ALL narratives are about calculated framing and omissions. We add and detract information based on what we think is important and those decisions are guided by bias. No way around it; even digging up counterarguments to our arguments to show how "fairminded" we are is calculated and partial.
 
Tombstoner said:
Sorry--I know folks want to move on, but I have to note that 1) EVERYTHING (even this posting) is part of a narrative and 2) ALL narratives are about calculated framing and omissions. We add and detract information based on what we think is important and those decisions are guided by bias. No way around it; even digging up counterarguments to our arguments to show how "fairminded" we are is calculated and partial.
Click to expand...

I'd say morality and objectivity have weight in determining this. But since both of those concepts also lead to fungible philosophical argument infinitum, that's best left to theologists and philosophers to have a fistfight in the middle of a mine field.

On the subject of Fenway liquor, I'm actually in favor. If people actually drink within the park the damage can be contained, and likely those drinks will be so watered down, the level intoxication could potentially decrease.
 
As long as the same limitations apply to mixed drinks as apply to beer, I see no problem with the idea. And what about wine?
 
I favor it because it's a non-ticket price increase in revenue. I can't fathom wanting a mixed drink at a ball game, but that's just me.

@ Ron: they already serve wine at Fenway, and as with mixed drinks, I can't figure the appeal. Baseball is meant to be accompanied by beer.
 
HenryAlan said:
@ Ron: they already serve wine at Fenway, and as with mixed drinks, I can't figure the appeal. Baseball is meant to be accompanied by beer.
Click to expand...

The 'Pink Hat' crowd and all the faux-fans that go to games to talk on their cell phones and take pictures to show off to their friends, the entire freaking game, will love the cocktails.
 
Lurker said:
The 'Pink Hat' crowd and all the faux-fans that go to games to talk on their cell phones and take pictures to show off to their friends, the entire freaking game, will love the cocktails.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the annoying pink hatters wearing their Ellsbury shirts will now get to have Long Island Iced Teas while they sing Sweet Caroline.
 
I don't mind the pink hatters, so long as they pay attention to the game. Fenway is a better experience now with every seat filled for every game than it was when I first started going to Redsox games, with half the seats empty, and the other half filled with fat guys in Celtics jackets itching to start a fight and be ejected.
 
I don't mind the pink hatters, so long as they pay attention to the game.
Click to expand...
Most of them dont. In fact, most of them dont even know the rules of baseball - to them, going to a game is a social outing, nothing more.
 
Look, the pink hatters annoy me just as much as everyone else, but who says that a ballgame can't just be a social outing either with friends or family? They paid for a ticket and they consume beverages and buy souvenirs. They're just a dollar sign in a seat. That's all that matters.

After all, it is freaking FENWAY PARK. You could go there just to soak in the history of your grandfather sitting in that seat when he was 12.
 
Unless someone's behavior is actively interfering with your enjoyment of the game, why should it bother you?

Every devoted fan starts out as a beginner who doesn't know much. I'd be as ignorant at a Bruins game as the 'pink hatters' that you decry at Fenway. (wtf is 'icing' anyway?)
 
Ron Newman said:
Unless someone's behavior is actively interfering with your enjoyment of the game, why should it bother you?

Every devoted fan starts out as a beginner who doesn't know much. I'd be as ignorant at a Bruins game as the 'pink hatters' that you decry at Fenway. (wtf is 'icing' anyway?)
Click to expand...
This.


We have this attitude that if you're not a hardcore fan, you're not a fan at all. Don't get me wrong, there are some women who have worn pink hats that have been disrupted my 'fenway experience.' Are they dumb? Maybe. But they also help bring revenue into the stadium. But, if you're devotion to the game is based on a "Toucher & Rich" bit, then you need to re-examine your priorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top