Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls

An academic study of the National Basketball Association, whose playoffs continue tonight, suggests that a racial bias found in other parts of American society has existed on the basketball court as well. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: World, Sports
Topics: Basketball
Member Tags: NBA
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - May 2, 2007 - 9:46 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Jimmie Bise Jr
3.9
by Jimmie Bise Jr - Oct. 1, 2008

I was impressed by how carefully and precisely the paper presented the story. It would have been very easy for the story to slant one way or the other and it really didn't. It's an interesting story if you're a basketball fan (and I am!). It might also gain some traction in other circles of life as well. This story provides a very good starting point for those who might want to learn more.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Sadie Ridge
3.7
by Sadie Ridge - Oct. 1, 2008

This is an interesting article and represents good journalism. Maybe the league needs a player population that better represents the country as a whole. I'm sure we would see far more Mexican, Spanish, and Asian players. For years I loved the NBA. I especially loved the Boston Celtics and was a huge fan. But fouls (fair or unfair), or more accurately, the constant calling of fouls finally turned me off, I don't watch it anymore. Not even the playoffs. I just don't care. Maybe if the game wasn't plagued with fouls it would have a better flow and faster pace. Women's college basketball is more of a cleaner, fundamental, and faster game...I like it.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
4.0
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Jami Dwyer
4.8
by Jami Dwyer - Oct. 1, 2008

Interesting study, presented carefully by the Times.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

Good
from 5 reviews (43% confidence)
Quality
4.3
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.2
Insight
4.0
Sourcing
4.8
Style
3.5
Accuracy
3.5
Balance
4.0
Context
4.5
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
5.0
Originality
2.0
Relevance
3.0
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.6
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
3.2
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!