February 9, 2019

No Image

Sports February 9, 2019

Saturday Sports: NBA Trades, Baseball's Free Agents

NPR’s Scott Simon talks to Howard Bryant of ESPN about the stark differences between Major League Baseball and the NBA when it comes to free agents.



SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

And now it’s time for sports.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: Spring training – pitchers and catchers open next week in Florida and Arizona. But how many of the players are going to follow them? So many big names unsigned while, in the NBA, some star players are trying to rearrange the rosters. Howard Bryant of ESPN and ESPN The Magazine joins us. Howard, thanks so much for being with us.

HOWARD BRYANT, BYLINE: Good morning, Scott. How are you doing?

SIMON: I’m fine, thanks. The NBA trade deadline passed this week. And there were several blockbuster trades and several busted blockbuster trades. What do you see as being the most important?

BRYANT: Well, I think what I see as the most important isn’t any one individual deal but the way that the landscape of the NBA is shaping up. The players have displayed so much power during this period. We always know that the NBA is a best-player-wins league because there are only 10 guys on the court at once. And so when you have a Michael Jordan or a LeBron James, you can completely change the landscape.

But for so many years, the players didn’t have the same power that they have now and that now the players have opt-out clauses, they can become free agents. This year you’ve got – Kevin Durant can be a free agent. Kawhi Leonard can be a free agent. Anthony Davis, as you can see, he’s not even a free agent until after next season yet tried to force a trade out of New Orleans.

And then on top of that, Kyrie Irving with Boston, he can become a free agent. But supposedly, if the rumors are true, Scott, he’s trying to tie where he goes to wherever Anthony Davis gets traded so they can move together – almost like the way LeBron James and Dwayne Wade engineered their Miami trio several years ago.

So what you see in basketball right now is that the players really are controlling – they’re controlling the teams whereas, for years, the teams had the power to move players around. Now the players are taking a lot of that power back. And the teams are scrambling to find out where these great players want to go. They’re creating their own landscape. They’re deciding what this is going to look like.

SIMON: And by contrast – or is it a contrast? – why so many unsigned players, including big stars, Bryce Harper, Manny Machado and others in Major League Baseball?

BRYANT: Well, baseball has got big problems. And when you look at what’s happening with that sport, it’s been going this way for years. You know, baseball over the last 25 years – they’ve had relative labor peace. They haven’t had a strike since the 1994 walkout that went into the 1995 season when Justice Sotomayor ended up saving baseball in 1995.

So they’ve had no real labor strife on the surface – under the surface, all kinds of problems. Baseball analytics have changed the way front offices deal with player evaluation. So now you’re starting to see teams not wanting to sign guys to these massive 10-year, $300 million contracts after they’re 30 years old.

The players believe that the owners want it both ways – that the way the system is set up, the players get to be controlled for six years before they can become free agents. So if you’re 23, 24 years old, you become a free agent when you’re 30. But now the teams don’t want to pay you when you hit 30.

So the battle is really going to be a pretty significant one. The labor – the deal is up in 2021. People are talking about heading toward a strike or some sort of work stoppage at some point coming up before that. And this is difficult for baseball. You’ve got two of the best players in the game, neither one is 30 years old – Manny Machado and Bryce Harper – neither one of them have a job. And the season starts tomorrow.

SIMON: I think they’ll find one.

BRYANT: I think they will, too.

SIMON: They’re always welcome here.

BRYANT: Well, Bryce Harper decided not to stay in Washington.

SIMON: No, no. I meant here.

BRYANT: (Laughter).

SIMON: I meant here.

BRYANT: They can come here, yes.

SIMON: Let me ask Stu Rushfield, our technical director, would you do the show with Bryce Harper?

BRYANT: Could you take Bryce Harper?

SIMON: Yeah.

BRYANT: He’s pretty good.

SIMON: Two thumbs up. OK. Howard Bryant of ESPN, thanks so much for being with us.

BRYANT: Thanks, Scott.

(SOUNDBITE OF L’INDECIS’ “PLAYTIME”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Business February 9, 2019

Former 'Enquirer' Spokesman On Bezos Allegations

NPR’s Scott Simon talks to Stu Zakim, former spokesman for the National Enquirer, about allegations that American Media Inc. tried to blackmail Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.



SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, who owns The Washington Post, is accusing the National Enquirer of blackmail and extortion. He says the Enquirer, which is already involved in legal matters entangling President Trump, claimed to have embarrassing photos of him, demanded that Mr. Bezos stop looking into how the Enquirer was getting information on him and that he should say the Enquirer’s coverage of him was not politically motivated.

Stu Zakim was a senior vice president at Enquirer’s parent, American Media, and its spokesperson. He now owns Bridge Strategic Communications. That’s a PR firm. Thanks so much for being with us, Mr. Zakim.

STU ZAKIM: Thanks, Scott, for having me.

SIMON: From what you’ve learned, is this just another day at the office for a publication like the Enquirer? Is it extortion?

ZAKIM: Yes, it is. It’s another day at the office. It’s not extortion, per se. It’s the threat of extortion that you need to look at because, really, most people fold when they get that letter from the lawyers. They don’t question it.

SIMON: You mean fold in the sense Mr. Bezos would go, OK, I’ll do any – or anyone other than Mr. Bezos would go – would say, well, OK, that’s it. I’m not going to do this.

ZAKIM: Pretty much. And that’s how they’ve gotten a lot of their stories in – the way they want them published.

SIMON: Now, you know, we should say, by the way, American Media says that it acted lawfully and was in good-faith negotiations to resolve all matters with Mr. Bezos. Do you know the Enquirer got hold of those personal text messages or photos? Did they – would they break the law to do that?

ZAKIM: I don’t know. I haven’t really worked at the company in 12 years, so I’m not familiar with all the things that have been happening recently. But what we do see is a pattern of behavior that existed when I was there as well.

To the other point, I don’t think they – I have no idea how they got those photos or the texts. Certainly, it’s a mystery that now the government is involved in trying to find out. One can only imagine that people like to leak stories. You know, the Enquirer…

SIMON: Yeah.

ZAKIM: …Is based on the fact that they pay for tips. Not a lot of other media do that. So people come to them with salacious stories. Obviously, knowing who Bezos is, this – whoever was going to leak this to them felt that it was an amazing opportunity, and the Enquirer responded in kind.

SIMON: Based on your experience – now, people have remarked it seems ironic a man who made so much money harvesting the personal information of millions should be threatened with having his personal information revealed. But let me turn that question around. How smart is it for the National Enquirer to pick a quarrel with the richest man in the world, who can afford to fight them?

ZAKIM: I don’t think they anticipated he would respond the way he did because, once again, throughout their history of – since Pecker has owned the Enquirer, no one has really caved. I mean, most people have caved, rather. Bezos is the first person to say, I’m not going to do it. Come on and get me, guys.

The embarrassment already happened. Had they approached him before publication of the story, maybe they would’ve had that leverage. But now the story’s out. And how more harmful could it be than it was for their first issue? So if they have additional pictures, you know, for someone whose reputation is pretty good, his dent – the damage was done. So Bezos really had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to win by challenging the way he has.

SIMON: Mr. Zakim, I have to ask you – and I will note that the Enquirer has been absolutely right on a number of stories. I’m thinking, for example, of the reporting on John Edwards. Do they get good people working for them?

ZAKIM: I think there are good people working for that company, for sure. However, the nature of tabloid journalism is it bridges the gap between normal journalism. So you have to be more aggressive in your style. The readers are not expecting to see love – fluff stories. They want to see dirt. That’s why they’re paying for it. And you adapt to the place you’re working at if you want to stay working there. And that – so they do get good journalists.

As you’ve indicated, they’ve broken certain – a lot of stories through the years that have set a trend for other media to follow. But the core of their existence is really about the kind of stories we’re talking about today.

SIMON: Stu Zakim – he’s former American Media vice president, now owns Bridge Strategic Communications. Thanks so much for being with us.

ZAKIM: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Health February 9, 2019

An Overview Of State Abortion Laws

Scott Simon talks to Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Health News, about new abortion laws in state legislatures across the country.



SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Louisiana from enforcing a restrictive abortion law. The court will likely hear a challenge to the merits of that law this fall. Many states are moving to pass a number of new abortion laws to prepare for the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade, that 1973 decision that legalized abortion in the United States. We’re going to turn now to Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Health News. Jules (ph), thanks so much for being with us.

JULIE ROVNER: Thanks for having me.

SIMON: Chief Justice Roberts, of course, joined four liberal justices on the Supreme Court to temporarily block that abortion law from going into effect in Louisiana. What impact does that have in the state and other states?

ROVNER: Well, for the moment, that law will not be enforced while the case proceeds its way through the Supreme Court, which is now what we’re expecting. It was similar to a law in Texas that was actually struck down by the court in 2016 that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. In 2016, the Supreme Court majority said that was not necessary. And then Louisiana passed this law anyway. It was sort of surprisingly upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. And now the Supreme Court will have it as a possibility to either reverse or seriously undermine Roe v. Wade.

SIMON: Anti-abortion activists, of course, hope that Roe v. Wade will be overturned now that the balance of the Supreme Court may have shifted. A number of Republican-controlled legislatures are passing laws that would go into effect if that happens. What are those laws like?

ROVNER: Well, there are a whole number of different laws. There are what are called trigger laws. Those are laws that say if Roe v. Wade is struck down, then abortion would become illegal. There are other laws that states are passing that they are using to try and get the Supreme Court to either overturn Roe v. Wade or to undermine it. Those include not just the laws like the one in Louisiana, but there are bans on specific types of abortion procedures, particularly what’s called the D&E, which is the most common second trimester form of abortion.

There is an Indiana law that bans abortion for sex selection or in the case of fetal deformity. That one is near to getting a decision by the Supreme Court whether they will hear it. So there are a number of different ways that states are looking at trying to sort of make abortion either much more difficult to get or completely illegal.

SIMON: There are Democratic lawmakers in Virginia and New York state that have gotten attention for bills that would loosen abortion restrictions, especially in the third trimester. What else are some Democrats doing at the state level?

ROVNER: Well, mirroring what anti-abortion lawmakers are trying to do in more red states to make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade was struck down, lawmakers in bluer states are trying to pass laws that would ensure that abortion remains legal. Remember; Roe v. Wade just said that states couldn’t ban abortion. So if it were struck down, it would be up to each individual state. So we’re seeing a number of states who are trying to either rewrite old laws or pass new laws that say if Roe v. Wade were to go away, abortion would remain legal in the state. There are other things that states are doing. In some of the blue states, they’re looking at ensuring that abortion is covered by insurance. That is not the case in some states; it is in others. They’re looking at making sure that women have easier access to other reproductive health services like birth control to make sure that abortions are not as necessary.

SIMON: The Trump administration is expected to soon announce its plan for funding family planning services. What do we expect from that?

ROVNER: We expect the administration to try and basically evict Planned Parenthood from the federal family planning program. This is a goal that goes back for anti-abortion activists to the 1980s. Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds for abortions. That is not allowed. But they do use their own private funds for abortions, and they also take federal money to provide family planning services. Basically, what these rules would do if they come out as we expect is they would say that if you are performing abortions, you must do it at a separate facility than one where you’re using federal funds to provide family planning services.

And also it would ban abortion referrals for women with unintended pregnancy. Currently, those are required if the woman seeks them, that counseling is also required, woman with an unintended pregnancy is to be given all of her options. And if she asks for an abortion referral, she is to be given one. That would basically be reversed under the new rules – at least as we expect them to come out.

SIMON: Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Health News. Thanks so much for being with us.

ROVNER: You’re so welcome.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)