| 0 |
Subject: Limbaugh's remarks
Posted by: Revvingparson
- Sustainer [59856912] Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 16:30
Not sure if this belongs here or in the political section. Rush's remarks |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 85 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 09:47
|
TB Raiders, well that certainly meets the criteria for my challenge, and I'm questioning the wisdom behind issuing it in the first place, as I'm not sure what this proves. I still do not believe that there is currently a media agenda of propping up black QBs to make them out to be better than they are. I agree that this was certainly the case as recently as 15 years ago, but players like Warren Moon and Randall Cunninghame dispelled the majority of those sentiments way back when. The 1999 draft should really have put it to rest all together, and I simply don't believe that you will see much evidence of it being prominant today - certainly not on the level that Rush's statements would suggest.
|
| 86 | Micheal
ID: 216502320
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 10:06
|
PD
I agree with you. Tell that to Isiaah Thomas and Dennis Rodman. They're the idiots who made the comment about Bird. I don't recall them taking as much heat for their comments as much as Fuzzy Zoeller did for his. I could be wrong though.
|
| 87 | TDM
ID: 5378137
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 10:21
|
Isiah Thomas did take quite a bit of heat for his comments, but there is definitely a double standard.
I'm wondering how many people on this board actually thought about McNabb being black? I never watched an Eagles game and thought "McNabb is a good black quarterback". I never watch any sport and think about things like that. The fact that Rush Limbaugh is thinking these things in his head is disgusting to me. Maybe it is not full blown racism, and maybe it's ok for him to say these things on his radio program, but he must have some racist ideas running through his head if he is thinking of someone's performance or lack of performance in relation to the color of their skin. I just don't get it...
|
| 88 | Micheal
ID: 216502320
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 10:26
|
He never tied his performance to his skin color. Where did you get that from?
|
| 89 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 10:28
|
It's the drugs.
|
| 90 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 10:30
|
Michael, I think people knew both Thomas and Rodman were idiots!
I think the Zoeller thing got completely blown out of proportion--it was a stupid offhand joke aimed at a fellow golfer who probably would have laughed if he'd been right there.
pd
|
| 91 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 12:02
|
My take on this: Limbaugh was doing his usual schtick - and throwing a slap at the MEDIA. His whole world revolves around him expressing media bias that he alone has been smart enough to uncover. As if (even if/when he might be true) that somehow makes him special for noting such bias. ~rolling my eyes~
It wasnt a RACIST shot, but rather a shot at the media. But he is so full of himself, he should have known there would be a firestorm. And this nonsense (him taking shots at the media, to feed his personal agenda) is sooooooo out of place on a Football Show. So the fact he was forced to fall on his sword is (even though the whole thing was PREDICTABLY overblown) very appropriate, in my view. I dont wanna have to wade through that political-media-conspiracy crap while enjoying football, so in my view injecting THAT was the fireable offense.
|
| 92 | TDM
ID: 5378137
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 12:17
|
He never said that his performance was due to his skin color, that's not what I meant to say... sorry.
I was trying to say that when Rush is watching a football game and he thinks to himself "Geesh McNabb stinks today, why does he get so much credit?", the thing that occurs to him is that McNabb is black and that's why he gets credit. I would bet that no one posting on this board has ever thought that McNabb is overrated by the media because he is black. In my opinion, only someone who judges people by the color of their skin could think this way.
I'm trying to understand how someone's thoughts can go from a player being overrated (performance) to skin color?
I think there are a few "Overrated players" threads on the forums. I'm going to go read a few to see if anyone else has ever made this correlation. I mean, think about it! Why would he think this if he isn't racist?
Not the mention the fact that I don't even think McNabb is overrated.
|
| 93 | Sore Thumb
ID: 571049813
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 13:15
|
Rush is an idiot for singling out someone based on race. How come he never mentioned that Donovan's white coach is really overrated and even admits that his offensive play calling has been horrible this year. Or that he has some really marginal white receivers that arent playmakers.
The Eagles as a whole have been disappointing this season.
|
| 94 | Texas Flood
Donor
ID: 326462912
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 14:03
|
They got Rush, Hannity and O'Riely are next!
|
| 95 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 14:26
|
I forget--which one is Fair and which one is Balanced?
;)
|
| 96 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 3065149
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 14:58
|
They're supposed to be either?
|
| 97 | Great One
Donor
ID: 298341017
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 16:44
|
I don't know if anyone linked this, but I read it on CBS - Pete Prisco.
Rush Limbaugh is wrong in what he said about Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. He isn't overrated because of the color of his skin and the media's desire to prop up African-American quarterbacks. He's overrated because he's just not as good as most think. He's a good quarterback, not a great one. He can't tie Steve McNair's shoes, yet it's McNabb who gets all the attention. Incidentally, if ESPN is going to come down on Limbaugh for his comments -- you know his resignation was forced with a foot out the door -- they should watch closely what Bryan Cox says, too. Cox has said several times that Falcons linebacker Keith Brooking isn't nearly as good as people think and that the only reason he gets the props he does is because he's white. Isn't that the same thing Limbaugh said, yet nobody said a word? Both were wrong.
|
| 98 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 20:27
|
Here is an article by Pete Frisco back on Sep 18, [nothing about 'black QB'] and Allen Barra today. He writes "he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself."
?? Will he be looking for a job? I doubt it. Maybe he's a liberal and that makes it OK. Or maybe he can say it just because he's not Rush Limbaugh.
Overrated list: McNabb led way even before Pats flop Overrated list: McNabb led way even before Pats flop, 18 SEP, Pete Prisco, CBS Sportsline.com
McNabb is still a good player, despite his pedestrian numbers from the first two games. He's just not a great one.
And that's why he earns the Most Overrated Player Award.
On most player ranking lists heading into the season, McNabb was ranked in the top 15-20 players. One had him as the third-best overall, and he is often considered one of the top three or four quarterbacks.
That's wrong and wrong. ……………….. To some scouts, McNabb has always been overrated. One recalled giving him a third-round grade coming out of Syracuse. When McNabb was getting all the plaudits, that scout was the one his peers were laughing at.
Now who's doing the laughing?
Donovan McNabb: Good quarterback, but don't even think about using the word great.
And that's why he's the most-overrated player, something he was getting even if he hadn't smelled up the place Sunday.
Rush was right, Allen Barra, Slate.msn.com [Allen Barra is a sports columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a regular contributor to the New York Times, Playboy and American Heritage. He is the author of “Clearing the Bases: The Greatest Baseball Debates of the Last Century” with foreword by Bob Costas]
In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback."
If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons.
Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well."
"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback.
.............. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.
The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?
.................. Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.
And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson.
In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is.
Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.)
So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black. (Please, I don't need to be reminded that McNabb's situation is not so difficult or important as Robinson's—I'm talking about a principle.)
Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.
Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what they did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?
|
| 99 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 20:38
|
Ugh. Frisco is exactly right, and doesn't resort to playing the black hype card. A distinct point from Rush.
Barra had me until he went into paranoia mode. Winkwink. We're all rooting for the black guys, 16 seasons after Doug Williams. Note to Barra: The fans are way past you, as are many of your fellow sportwriters/social engineers.
This issue makes me realize, once again, why they put the worst journalists into the Sports departments.
pd
|
| 100 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 21:19
|
I agree PD - Barra [and Rush] are wrong because you are not allowed to even think it, let alone say it or write it whether you are right or wrong or can make a case supporting your position. And if you think, say or write anything non PC, I guess that also makes you a bad journalist. I'll try and remember that if I ever see his book on sale. :):)
|
| 102 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 09:14
|
94 Texas Flood
Oh so what Rush does...is now going to be what Hannity and O'Riely would say as well.
Bottom line i have heard most of the people in the media world (And not this post) claim that what Rush said was DUMB! Not Racist! And that he shoudl not have been fired, but heavily debated by the rest of the ESPN Show.
83 Micheal
Aaahh that woudl be Isiaah Thomas ! The guy that just recently got fired by Larry Bird!
|
| 103 | Stuck in the Sixties
Dude
ID: 274132811
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 11:00
|
This is part of a column I wrote the day after this happened. I believed it then and I believe it now.
Don
Rush Limbaugh proved with his resignation this week that race is and
remains the third rail of American sports. Touch it and you die. And so,
because he said that the media has a vested interest in the success of
black quarterbacks in the NFL, Limbaugh was castigated by Democratic
presidential candidate Wesley Clark and lambasted as racially insensitive
by anyone else who would comment. Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie
accused Limbaugh's employers at ESPN of "institutional racism" ---
whatever that means.
The network hired Limbaugh to do exactly what he was doing at the time of
"the remark" --- giving his opinion on whatever topic he chose. The
offending statement went as follows: "I think what we've had here is a
little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a
black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and
he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't
deserve. The defense carried this team."
Sports gurus seem to agree that Limbaugh had his facts wrong. The media
(sports or otherwise) thrives on controversy, not the success or failure
of black quarterbacks. But it is no crime to be wrong or, for that matter,
insensitive. The problem seems to arise when the word "black" is used in
any but a reverential context. When that reverence is broached, the forces
of political correctness rear their ugly heads and go for the throat of
the offending party. On Wednesday, ESPN became complicit in that endeavor
by accepting Limbaugh's resignation. George Bodenheimer, president of ESPN
and ABC Sports, said: "We regret the circumstances surrounding this. We
believe that he (Limbaugh) took the appropriate action to resolve this
matter expeditiously." As Sherman Potter on M*A*S*H would have said,
"Horse Puckey." To the extent that Limbaugh was forced from his position
because of his remarks, his first amendment rights were violated.
|
| 104 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 12:00
|
He resigned. Whether or not he was forced from the postion is speculation, since none of us were privy to the the discussions.
I'm wondering if you were compelled to write a column defending the Dixie Chicks 1st amendment rights after their controversial comments a few months ago. Clear Channel, the largest radio station ownership company in the world, boycotted their records on their country music stations(not their pop stations, though, hypocritically enough). Conservative talking heads, including Limbaugh, lambasted and derided them to the extent that some went so far as to use the word,"traitor."
From your column:
"When that reverance is broached, the forces of political correctness rear their ugly heads and go for the throat of the offending party."
Substitute patriotic jingoism for political correctness, and that sentence could very well describe the reaction to the Dixie Chicks.
Double standards exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
|
| 105 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 12:25
|
Stuck in the Sixties
The network hired Limbaugh to do exactly what he was doing at the time of
"the remark" --- giving his opinion on whatever topic he chose.
How do you know that? Did you see some statement issued by an ESPN exec that says as much? I sincerely doubt that a network that specializes in a particular genre of news and live event broadcast would actively take a measure that they know would serve to divide their demographic - which is already limited in this case to people who are NFL fans - on any issue that isn't completely related to sports. C'mon, Sixties.
Rush's comments were polarizing on more than one level and he's been in broadcasting long enough and seen enough firestorms just like this one that he should have known exactly what would happen.
ESPN accepted and likely encouraged his resignation because they are not willing to lose ratings and ad sales revenue for what turned out to be a failed experiment. I firmly believe they knew they had a potential boom in ratings with Rush and decided it was worth a try to see if he could just keep it about football and leave his personal political opinions out of it. But old Rush just couldn't help himself and ESPN has no interest in standing by some guy who doesn't measure up to what they hoped he could be as an announcer for them in the first place. Think whatever you want of ESPN for pushing the envelope in the name of ratings by hiring Rush, but ultimately, only Rush is to blame for his resigning. He knows what you can and can't get away with, and there was no reason to think that ESPN had any interest in breaking any new, taboo ground with that show. They'd try it on a safer format, first - one they aren't dependant on for ad sales.
|
| 106 | TBRaiders
Leader
ID: 31811922
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 15:07
|
MITH, I like a lot of your posts, but sometimes you come across like people who state a general opinion must be supported by fact, but you are a mind reader.
From your last post, How do you know that? Did you see some statement issued by an ESPN exec that says as much? I sincerely doubt that a network that specializes in a particular genre of news and live event broadcast would actively take a measure that they know would serve to divide their demographic...
How about this link: ESPN Link when they hired Limbaugh ESPN knew what they were getting. I think Limbaugh is getting waaaay too much credit for a ratings boost, but they were not looking for a football expert. They were looking for someone to spark debate on the show. Just like Sixties said.
Rush's comments were polarizing on more than one level and he's been in broadcasting long enough and seen enough firestorms just like this one that he should have known exactly what would happen. Okay, if you can read minds, I will try to do so as well. I am sure that Rush knew that it would spark debate, but not the outcry of racism. I still stand by my post #6 that it was a stupid comment, but not racist. I only wish that it had sparked the debate that would have perhaps clarified his comment. I believe ESPN got exactly what they wanted and Limbaugh served his role. I also believe that with his limited air time on the show, he was more than happy to walk away from it.
|
| 107 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 15:19
|
I agree, TB. ESPN hired an opinionated guy, and that's what they got. I also agree that Limbaugh was surprised at the backlash on his remarks, stemming (IMO) from the fact that people are not at all doing what he states the media are doing. 16 years ago the fact that Doug Williams was "the first black QB to win the Super Bowl" (whatever the hell that means in a team sport) was a non-story to most people I knew--it seemed more like a media-generated moment than anything else.
A decade and a half later people are even more past it, which is why Rush's statement (made as though it were a fact that people gave McNabb more than his due because of his race) struck people the way it did: An accusation of racism when none exists is, in fact, a racist statement, whether made by Rush Limbaugh or Al Sharpton.
pd
pd
|
| 108 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 17:14
|
I'm not a mind reader. I work in TV. In fact, I also work for a cable network that, just like ESPN, specializes in a particular genre of news and live event broadcasts. Live talent has a strict set of rules regarding what producers do and don't want them to say. They absolutely don't want certain sensitive topics discussed unless the format is geared toward a demographic that won't be turned off by them. Didn't you think it was odd that Rush's co-hosts didn't respond at all to the media racial bias that Rush attributed to McNabb being overrated? I mean, if his job is to spark interesting discussion and debate, shouldn't that be an opportunity to get some of that chemestry going?
When you guys say that ESPN knew exactly what they were getting when they hired Rush, I agree. I'm quite sure that ESPN execs did plenty of scouting and research and made themselves familiar with what Rush says on the air, especially his tendencies for making statements that they wouldn't find acceptable for their show.
Understand that each of the talking heads and reporters has a 'producers line' running into their ear, through which they are being told what to say. I'd bet anything in the world that as soon as Rush touched on racial bias, Irvin and Jackson were told to ignore the media/race stuff and just respond to the rest of what Rush said regarding Philly's defense carrying the team and whatnot. If media reporting favoring of black QBs was the kind of topic that ESPN execs had in mind when they hired Rush, Irvin and Jackson would have been told give their thoughts on Rush's perceived media bias, and a discussion on the topic would have ensued. But they didn't, and the topic didn't come up again, as if they were trying to downplay it. I didn't ever watch the show and I'm not sure how relevant it is anyhow, but of curiosity, how often does Rush float an idea - especially one so contraversial and insensitive as this one - that doesn't get any response at all? I mean, I'm told that they will often laugh at him when he says something that seems unlikely, right? He is there to spark conversation and if he it's on one of those debatable 'Rush Limbaugh' topics that he was brought in to bring up, well they have the PL lines in the guys' ears to make sure they explore the topic in case the guys accidentially miss it, right? But the next time anyone mentions how the media is desirous of seeing a black QB succeed, it's in the Wednesday morning papers.
Producers have regular meetings with their talent to go over exactly what kinds of things should be said on the air. They consider what topics are getting attention on the web and in magazines and in the papers. They go over demographics and try to cater to their viewers as specifically as they can without alienating any significant numbers of them in the process. Does anyone think for a second that if Rush Limbaugh was encouraged by ESPN execs and/or producers to bring up that or similar topics - and then fired for doing so - that he wouldn't go public about how he was shafted asap?
|
| 109 | Rabid Chickens @home
ID: 3393920
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 20:05
|
I found these following two articles this one, especially question #6 and this one pretty interesting. It seems that ESPN is OK talking about race, even proposing the question regarding Shockey - "Has Shockey gained icon status because he is white."
The second article, published in ESPN the magazine this year, goes into other factors which can lead to a guy being overhyped, such as the market they play in (compares Shockey in NY and Sharpe in Denver) and the player's "floursecent style" (Harrison compared to Owens). But the article even admits that race can play into this. Citing Urlacher's and Brady's jersey sales as being so high even though they aren't the best player's in the league or even at their positions. And also noting the amount of attention given to Dontrelle Willis and Brandon Webb.
While this author doesn't specifically say Shockey is overrated, he does say that he isn't the best TE in the league, just the most famous, which is pretty much the same thing. It just seems hypocritical for these discussion to take place without any outrage, given what has happened this week.
|
| 110 | TBRaiders
Leader
ID: 31811922
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 21:02
|
Good find.
6) Has Jeremy Shockey gained icon status because he is white?
76.9% No, race has nothing to do with it.
23.1% Yes, absolutely.
23.1% of the people who have taken that poll are racists as defined by those who believe Limbaugh's remarks were racist.
What a friggin double standard. My boss is black and I tell him him he is a racist all the time. Everything, and I mean everything, is black and white. We go to lunch together and if the waitress talks to me first, it is because I am white. How many white guys do you think voted in that 23% above??? Too bad that we can't lose the media bullsh*t, the angry white man, and the angry black man all at the same time.
|
| 111 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 21:38
|
#109
Rabid Chickens,
Without having any kind of history reading your posts, I will dispense with pointing out the level of naivete you show in #109.
1. No one disputes that there is a double standard when it comes to racial issues, at least when it comes to the posters on this message board.
2. The authors of the articles you linked did not become famous as the national voice of the "angry, white man" Beyond that, he has insulted, denigrated, questioned the intelligence and moral fiber of some of the most influential people in this country, the junior senator from New York being an obvious example. Taking on powerful people sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.
3. Curious how the Rush drug thing coincides with the Rush racial thing. Are people out to get him? Yes. Has he done anything but sidestep the allegations? No. Has he come forward and denied it? No. Does a Disney owned entity want a controversial drug addict that millions hate but millions adore as a part of their ESPN Gameday lineup? Yes, but at least Michael Irvin played the game.
Rush has made very powerful enemies over the years, and I'm not talking whackos like Al Sharpton. What comes around, goes around and Rush supporters better buckle their seatbelts, because payback can be a dog in heat.
|
| 112 | TBRaiders
Leader
ID: 31811922
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 21:53
|
Does a Disney owned entity want a controversial drug addict that millions hate but millions adore as a part of their ESPN Gameday lineup? Yes, but at least Michael Irvin played the game.
Very funny. Big time LOL!!
|
| 113 | Rabid Chickens @home
ID: 3393920
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 22:43
|
Pancho - after reading your posts it seems pretty clear that you think Rush is a racist and these remarks just add to your belief. You dismiss the articles I brought up in my post based on the fact that it is OK for a double standard to exist, and the fact that those articles were written by nobody's as compared to Rush. So if Rush or Louis Farrakhan (post 25) makes these statements then based on their history and your judgement of them they are racist, but if John Doe makes them they are fine? It just seems humorous that you can defend the outlash against Rush because of your personal opinion of him and the fact that he has offended others, such as Mrs. Clinton.
|
| 114 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 23:44
|
TB Raiders
Regarding your accusation in another thread that I have been "tossing around links showing Limbaugh was the Leader of the KKK", I did not challenge Madman in that thread that many of those quotes could have been taken out of context to sound much more disturbing than they were intended. I didn't mean to imply anything more than what I wrote. Every or almost every one of those quotes were really insensitive, things that you know many people will find highly insulting no matter what the context was. And that was the only point I was trying to make. Really I don't ever listen to Rush and was very surprised to find out that his stuff is really much lower-brow than I could have expected.
When I presented them, I only did so to show why "I was very disappointed to see that he apparently has a history of making racially insensitive statements."
Look, Rush can make all the insensitive statements he wants. Much more than I realized, he makes a living from saying and doing outrageous things in the name of "telling it like it is", and that is just fine by me. You'll never hear me say that his show should be censored in any way. My issue with him is that he failed his new employer by hitting on sensitive topics in front of an audiance that he should have known would not accept them. I just think he's a big idiot. I don't know if it was audacity or a lapse in judgement or an oxycontin haze, but he screwed up. You don't go there on that ind of show.
While I'm collecting my thoughts on the issue in one place, I'll also note that what (imo) further compounds how asinine this is, is that I believe he is dead wrong about any media race-bias regarding black QBs. Affirmative action opponents everywhere are demanding that racism is dead and it's time to take our hand off the scale so that it can even out on its own. But in the area of promoting black QBs - a case that in real life is a model for overcoming unfair biases and shaking long held misconceptions - we are somehow trapped in time? Please. I read plenty of sports news and the topic comes up barely enough to be an afterthought. By comparison, stories about the lack black head coaches are common every year - as they should be. The fact is that blacks have had a strong to dominant presence in the upper half of NFL starting QBs for several years now. Any article with a premise that contradicts that so-easily-researched fact is not going to be taken seriously and not going to earn it's author any credibility.
|
| 115 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Sat, Oct 04, 2003, 23:48
|
TB: There is a difference between someone making a racist statement and people being racist. I've made racists statements in my life (haven't we all?) but that doesn't make us racists, even when we make them.
pd
|
| 116 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:06
|
112 TBRaiders
LOL Even funnier when Disney host Gay week at their theme parks each year! What a joke! Like I want to take my kids to a park that has shows with men rubbing and grinding on men!
Bottom line is it was not racist comments and he should not have quit!
|
| 117 | TB
ID: 31811922
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:12
|
I don't think I was confused about that, PD, and am not really sure where that comment came from. I admit to being a little sarcastic with my post in the politics forum, but that was about partisanship.
MITH, do a google search and put in "NFL Racism Black QB"- Read through the first dozen or so blogs. None of us are going to make any new points that haven't written there or that have been expressed on here.
Just my opinion, but there are not two sides to this debate, just like there is no issue that is either black or white, except for those whose chose to make it so.
|
| 118 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:19
|
Once again..........When a QB in the NFL has a few string of great games and he is black. Then you will see the word Black Quarterback attached to it. What Rush said I feel has some truth to it, but I felt DM was not the one getting the treatment. Uh oh I think I am now a racist?
Oh and about the Shockey articles...LOL...anyone ever heard of a guy named MOSS?
|
| 119 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:34
|
Can I express a question about the first ammendment?
Do we truly have free speech in this country if a fat, deaf, drug using guy states his opinion and the political fallout costs him a job? It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong about the facts or if he is a racist; isn't his speech protected? Of course he won't be prosecuted (in that sense he is protected), but is it really FREE if he has to resign?
We don't have free speech. I don't agree with Rush's comments, but I also don't agree with the public outcry. I know this is a cliche, but men have fought and died for the rights we espose to live by They seem to apply when convenient if you ask me. We have free speech ONLY as long as it is politically correct.
Let me expound further. If I was on my own time and ran into a co-worked of equal level at the mall and used th "N", I bet I'd face consequences at work. maybe not outright firing, but when word got out that I expressed my "freedom" of speech, I'll venture guess that certain employees would be less than coopertaive with me, that I might be viewed in a different light by my boss. That would be the COST for my FREE speech. Of course thos epoepl have a right to their opinion of me, but it still exacts a toll from me.
Boils down to this: Isn't the solution to racism to develop a tolerance or understanding for those that are different than s? If so, why we fight racism by persecuting those with different viewpoints than us?
**********
Perm #115: There is a difference between someone making a racist statement and people being racist. I've made racists statements in my life (haven't we all?) but that doesn't make us racists, even when we make them.
However, if yo make that comment ("that we all have") on TV instead of in private. You will be branded a racist. Ask Jimmy the Greek.
For the record, again, I'll re-iterate I disagree w/ Rush's viewpoint, but he sure as heck should be able to express it.
|
| 120 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:36
|
I agree that the media bias issue is a more debatable one.
|
| 121 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:49
|
119 rockafellerskank
Well Said!
|
| 122 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 01:34
|
RFS
That outcry that you call "persecution" is just another form of free speech. Just like Rush has the right to say whatever he wants, the public has the right to react however they want. Personally, I don't agree with any of what Rush said, and I think that he was an idiot for thinking he could say that and keep his job. I also don't agree with any of the people who called him and his statements 'racist'. But the response and ensuing dilemma was predictable (even if most of the public didn't find out about it until days later) for a vereran broadcaster to have found himself caught in. The public does command a scary amount of power for a body that can be so wrong, but the exact same thing is true about Rush. He has the power to build and sway a good deal of public opinion, and I don't know that he is right any more often than the public consensus. Free speech is what it is.
On a seperate note, the funniest thing about this whole episode is that Rush's gaffe was actually a double-error. He picked the wrong bias to demand us to respect. He was banking some of his credibility on his perceived issue that he should really know has been in sharp decline (if not completely regulated to extremist opinions) for years now. And in doing so, he defiantly stumbled all over another bias that has always been much stronger and much more important - that white broadcasters must tiptoe around any issues that may be construed as hateful or too insensitive toward minorities - that Rush was foolish not to respect.
I'm not saying he could have kept his job, but at least being forced out would have proved that he was right.
|
| 123 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 02:05
|
MITH:
That outcry that you call "persecution" is just another form of free speech.
I agree and undertsand your point -- and perhaps I used the wrong word in "persecution". And of course, Rush should have known better than to venture into politically incorrect waters.
However, I don't think it a good (productive) use of free speech (opinion). The more we challenge speech we don't like with speech we know the other side doesn't like, the more we exacerbate (sp?) the problem. I am using the collective "we" meaning the public.
The Rush/public thing is just a grander scale of me calling someone a name because they insulted me first. Of course, I have the right to excercise free speech in the form of name calling, but is it productive (rehtorical question)?
The best way to deal with a statement such as the one that Rush made and that others make everyday is to discount them, stop acknowledging them. A public escalation in the form of debate only serves to keep the problem on the forefront. I know its easier said than done, but if all stupid statements were ignored, many stupid statements would cease to exist -- eventaully.
Let me propse a fantasy world to you. If GOD changed man's eyesite so that the only color we saw was a vague gray over the next 100 years, I'll bet our great grand chldren wouldn't ever realize the term "black QB" was ever used in the same sentance! We would be no more prejudice against those of different skin color than we are against left/right handers today [trying tomthik of a trait that isn't immediately percepatable as an example]. Of course, common man doesn't have the willpower to see in gray; only black and white. So, as long as we see in black and white, we postpone that 100 year clock day by day....
|
| 124 | Micheal
ID: 50748152
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 05:26
|
I think that McNabb gets alot of attention because of the way he plays the QB position, not because he's black. Think of all the current black QB's who get a lot of press - McNabb, McNair, Culpepper and the most exciting in my opinion, Vick. They bring something else to the position that traditionally white QB's don't - athleticism. I would rather see Vick scramble around , shake 5 guys and run a 80 yard touchdown than watch Jay Fiedler sit in the pocket and throw a 40 yard TD which is traditionaly how the position was played.
There were/are athletic white QB's, (Jake Plummer, who gets his share of press) but none on the level of Vick and McNabb. Excitement sells and these guys are definately exciting to watch and deserve the attention they get not because they're black but because of the way they play the position and the talent they have. Quincy Carter is black. Where is the hype around him? It doesn't exist because he sucks. These guys are a new breed of QB and are redefining the position. When the first white QB comes along that plays like Vick, he will get more pub than McNabb and Vick combined.
I'm still waiting for a dominant, white heavyweight champion.
|
| 125 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 09:09
|
rfs: Regarding your last point to me--this is exactly what Rush is saying now, that this is a First Amendment issue.
I've been beating the drums about First Amendment issues for some time in the Politics Forum, and I certainly believe that the man should be able to say, as a private citizen, such a statement. But as an employee of ESPN? No way. Just as you would not be free to say political (or racial) points in the course of your job.
Indeed, it's ironic that Rush is crying First Amendment now: Apparently the freedom to criticize doesn't apply to people who are criticizing him for saying what he did as an announcer. "First Amendment" to Rush means "I should be free to say what I want, when I want" which just ain't true.
pd
|
| 126 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 09:17
|
PD
But they hired him for this very point!
But as an employee of ESPN? No way. Just as you would not be free to say political (or racial) points in the course of your job.
It sure will be interesting what is said on Gameday today? I wonder is they even address it?
|
| 127 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 09:22
|
Smack, I don't know what ESPN was thinking. They wanted an opnionated guy, but surely they didn't want a guy trying to make political or social points on the show, which is Rush's schtick. Like him or not, he seemed unsuited for the job since his strong points (opinionated political commentary) didn't at all match the job.
Same as Dennis Miller, I suppose. Smart guy, quick tongue, and unqualified.
pd
|
| 128 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 14:29
|
And from the sounds of T Jackson from the show today.... he was not at all too happy that Rush was ever even on the show?
|
| 129 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 14:33
|
Didn't catch it. What'd he say?
|
| 130 | KrazyKoalaBears
Sustainer
ID: 517553018
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 14:44
|
He basically said that Rush talks rhetoric and that it was the decision of ESPN, not the hosts of the show, to put him on GameDay. All of them (Berman, Young, Irvin, and Jackson) sounded very upset about the remarks. They also said that the reason none of them responded to the comments on the show last week was because they just didn't catch them at the time. They were focused on the argument of whether or not McNabb was a good QB and basically missed how Rush was tying in the race factor. If you ask me, based on today's comments from each of the cast I think the cast of the show had a lot to do with a forced resignation. And based on their comments, I think it was best for Rush to resign because there's no way it would have been a harmonious show if he stayed.
|
| 131 | Sludge
Sustainer
ID: 24914721
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 20:45
|
Chris Collinsworth is an idiot. At the end of the Philly game, he basically stated that McNabb invalidated Rush's opinion because Philly won the game. One game doesn't prove anything regardless of which side of this issue you're on, but did Chris even bother looking at McNabb's line today before he made that statement? If anything, by gushing like that over a mediocre performance, he's inadvertantly helping Rush out.
|
| 132 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 21:02
|
Collinsworth is an idiot anyway. His comments on the Clarett situation just shows that he should stick with offensive football play analysis (he's bad on defensive analysis).
pd
|
| 133 | KrazyKoalaBears
Sustainer
ID: 517553018
Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 21:10
|
A much better recap of what the Countdown crew said.
|
| 134 | J
Leader
ID: 49346417
Mon, Oct 06, 2003, 09:33
|
http://www.kimmershow.com/SupportFiles/Scripts/FileTamer.asp?FileID=671
This is some audio from an Atlanta sports talk station about the whole incident...warning...some parts are funny :)
|
| 135 | J
Leader
ID: 49346417
Mon, Oct 06, 2003, 09:36
|
the good stuff starts about 6 minutes into it...
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|