|
| 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 |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 16:34
|
Not surprising that the rotund one has let his views get in the way of announcing. And not surprising that he's dead wrong. Sports (particularly at the top level) is about ability, not sociology. I know Philly fans, and they would have McNabb out on a rail, white or black, if he wasn't good.
A bit surprising that it's taken this long for a controversial comment on-air to come out of him.
pd
|
|
| | | 2 | walk
Leader
ID: 314441211
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 16:35
|
And disappointing that ESPN's initial public comment about rush's big, fat idiotic comment was that "we do not see anything racist about the big, fat, fickin' bigoted idiot's comment" (paraphrased).
Okay, so ESPN has race issues, too, then, given their response. Unreal.
- walk
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 16:41
|
I don't think you can make a comment that someone is being given extra opportunities because of race and not have it be racial in nature. Get real.
pd
|
|
| | | 4 | Motley Crue
Donor
ID: 15743917
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 17:12
|
Non-story.
|
|
| | | 5 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 17:33
|
Why doesn't someone post the transcript of the show so we know exactly what was said in that segment of the show?
PD and walk - did you watch the show? I didn't [did hear excerpts]. Do you know what RL said and in want context? Was the portion of the show about the Philadelphia Eagles and how poorly they looked in game one and two [with a depleted defense that had carried the team in the past]? I think so.
Did Rush ever say McNabb should not be the QB of the Eagles or should not be a starting QB in the NFL? I don't think so.
Sounded like Rush said the strength of the Eagles has been their defense and McNabb has been given much more of the credit for their success than he deserves. Why? Probably because he is the QB. Because he is a black QB? IMHO, no. Today Philly fans love and hate all sports players equally [at least since Richie Allen].
Bad analysis by Rush IMHO, so what. Non story if anyone else had said it. I have heard much worse 'analysis' during pregame shows on Saturday [college] and Sunday [NFL].
|
|
| | | 6 | TBRaiders
Leader
ID: 31811922
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 17:43
|
What an ignorant statement by Limbaugh. He has a big mouth and doesn't know what he is talking about. McNabb's stats speak for themself. He has almost been a one-man show in Philly carrying that team. Blows me away that he would bring race into it. Blows me away even more that neither Irvin or Jackson called him out on his comment during the show.
Here are two qoutes from that article:
"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."
Limbaugh has helped increase the ratings for "Sunday NFL Countdown." Nagle said ratings are up 10 percent overall. Sunday's show drew its biggest audience in the regular season since 1996.
Here is my press release:
There is a little hope invested in Limbaugh, and he is getting a lot of credit for the increased ratings that he doesn't deserve. Fox and CBS pre-game shows suck so bad folks had to turn somewhere. Jackson, Young and Berman have had to carry this team.
I usually only watch the ESPN pre-game these days. Limbaugh brings nothing to the table. I liked it better with Sharpe or Scott.
|
|
| | | 7 | TBRaiders
Leader
ID: 31811922
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 17:51
|
You can check out the story on ESPN and it reads about the same.
"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," Limbaugh said. "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."
Since when has the media been desirous for a black QB to succeed just because he is black? I am a Raider Fanatic. Regardless of the skin color or ethnic background of my QB, I am desirous of him doing well every game. Dumb statement by Limbaugh. Period.
|
|
| | | 8 | Texas Flood
Donor
ID: 326462912
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 17:53
|
It would be interesting to see if Rush would repeat those remarks to McNabb's face. What a "gutless" blow-hard.
|
|
| | | 9 | Vee
ID: 267331616
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 18:23
|
You guys have it all wrong. Rush has built his career
making controversial comments. I truly believe he made
the statement knowing he would get a lot of run in the
paper, by the watercooler, on discussion boards... and it
worked.
|
|
| | | 10 | j o s h
ID: 9937115
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 18:23
|
#5- hope this helps:
fatso
Challenge (Donovan McNabb): I like High
|
|
| | | 11 | nate686
Donor
ID: 45855190
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 18:40
|
Limbaugh is doing this simply for the fact that he wants this stuff in this forum to exist, with which he has done a great job. It is unfortunate that I think in the back of his mind that he said this to create the one thing that all stations want: RATINGS.
|
|
| | | 12 | root88
ID: 77171111
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 18:52
|
Limbaugh isn't being blamed for being a racist because he didn't make a racist remark. He remarked that he thought that the rest of the media was biased. That being said, he's still a tool that knows nothing about football.
|
|
| | | 13 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 18:57
|
I watched the show that this was a part of and in no way did I believe Rush was taking a crack at McNabb due to his race. I believe it was a crack at the media.
I don't think he had ratings in mind either. I believe that he thinks that the media is making McNabb to be this awsome QB who can carry a team on his own, when in reality McNabb is at best is a good QB who needs a supporting cast to succeed.
Once again when I was watching the show I didn't feel or believe Rush was taking a cheapshot at McNabb because of his race. I truely believed he was taking a crack at the MEDIA for hyping McNabb because of his skin color.
|
|
| | | 14 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:06
|
I also like to state I find Rush being on NFL countdown refreshing. It is nice to have a football FAN, with the word FAN being emphisised.
Rush may not know much about football but like every fan he has his team (PATRIOTS), just like Berman (BILLS), and has his beliefs on what the NFL is doing. They may be a bit stronger then the average fan but then again they may not be. To understand what I am saying you got to meet the fans I know. They believe they know everything and that the coaches, GM's, and owners know little.
All fans say or do stupid things at times. I just believe this whole thing is being blown way out of context. Rush in no way seems to be a racist in my honest opinion. I also believe one can't get his statement just by reading it, you really had to see how he presented it or heard it.
Nuff said.
Gary
|
|
| | | 15 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:11
|
Regardless of his intent, the statement is untrue. McNabb has gotten praise from the media because he's a great QB. Does the media praise Kordell, Jeff Blake or Aaron Brooks when they suck? Of course not. How can someone who claims to offer excellence in broadcasting introduce race as a factor when it's obviously not a part of the discussion. Answer: Limbaugh is so used to determining how he covers issues in his twisted, skewed way, that taking a swipe at affirmitive action, even in this most remote fashion, is totally natural for him.
The good news: He has been outed as the ignorant bigot he is in front of an audience that could care less how many radio stations he's on. See ya, Rush.
|
|
| | | 16 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:24
|
STEVE 5
Sounded like Rush said the strength of the Eagles has been their defense and McNabb has been given much more of the credit for their success than he deserves. Why? Probably because he is the QB.
Then you ask;
Because he is a black QB? IMHO, no.
Huh?
Limbaugh's statements:
"I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "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."
Should we call for Limbaugh's head? No (though I saw earlier that Wesley Clark is... sheesh). He's of course entitled to whatever opinion he wants, and I would hope that any flack over this would teach him that he's there to talk about football and to leave his personal opinions about media bias and other dichotomizing, non-football issues to the apropriate venues.
But is it a non-issue? No, not in a sports forum where members are commonly critical of commentators. It was an incredibly stupid thing to say. Aside from the fact that what he said was simply wrong on a number of different football levels, it's incredible that a man with his experience in broadcasting would spit that out during a game. Pro sports broadcasting is not a place for brazen, racially insensitive statements. What a stupid thing to say. What an idiot.
|
|
| | | 17 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:36
|
You can not place Blake, Kordell, or Brooks in the same light as McNabb.
McNabb was the next coming of christ(sorry everyone) in Philly and that was mostly by the MEDIA and the fans in Philly. I do think they were hoping for him to be a star considering he was at the time one of only two Black QB's if I remember correctly and maybe only the 3rd or 4th black starting QB.
Now don't get me wrong I like to watch McNabb and I think the things he can do is great but considering all the work he has supposedly put in to improve, HE HASN'T improved. I truley believe he is a average QB with above average talent and needs a supporting cast to succeed. He just don't have the cast around him to be successful.
I also believe he did get more credit then he deserved when they were doing well. If you look back to those times his performace hasn't really declined he still is comparable stat wise but the loses stack up when a DEFENSE isn't present to hold the oppositon to fewer points.
|
|
| | | 18 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:41
|
ESPN, QB disappointed others didn't respond during show.
I guess Chris Berman heard it the same as Gary.
Chris Berman, who anchors the ESPN show, described himself as "a New England Democrat" but added, "I don't think Rush was malicious in intent or in tone.'' - "As cut and dry as it seems in print, I didn't think so when it went by my ears," he said. "I probably should have looked to soften it. - "We're sorry we upset a guy who got off to a rough start. We don't need to be in the middle of his travails. - "As the quarterback of the show, I feel bad about it. I don't think it was meant the way it came out. I don't think that defines the way Rush feels about people."
============
Side note: Independent turned Democratic President wannabe Clark asks ESPN to fire Limbaugh.
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark urged ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Clark, a retired Army general who entered the race Sept. 17, called the remarks "hateful and ignorant speech."
In a letter to ESPN, Clark said, "There can be no excuse for such statements. Mr. Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants, but ABC and ESPN have no obligation to sponsor such hateful and ignorant speech. Mr. Limbaugh should be fired immediately." A party that has Al Franken as the keynote speaker at DNC dinner has no room to talk about "hateful and ignorant speech." :):)
Rush knows and loves it that dems despise him. And they probably hate it that ratings for "Sunday NFL Countdown" are up 10 percent overall, and 26 percent among the 18-to-34 male demographic. Sunday's show drew its biggest audience in the regular season since November 1996. Heck, I might even have to watch at least once. I stopped watching most pregame shows years ago. Usually could get more insightful info here.
==========
Finally. ?? This happened on a Sunday morning show. I heard nothing from anyone anywhere until Tuesday night. Now it's 'national news'. No one cared the rest of Sunday, Monday or Tuesday??? Did it take until Tuesday night to get 'outrage' organized??
The outcry in Philadelphia might grow when the timing of Limbaugh's remarks is considered: He is scheduled to be in the city Thursday to give a keynote address at the three-day National Association of Broadcasters radio convention.
|
|
| | | 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:44
|
McNabb was the next coming of christ(sorry everyone) in Philly and that was mostly by the MEDIA and the fans in Philly.
When he was drafted in '99, the Philly fans booed him mercilessly. I think it's safe to say that he had to earn it.
|
|
| | | 20 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 19:48
|
MITH - "IMHO, no" comes out wrong when you reread it. Very poorly worded post. I was saying I think Rush's analysis was wrong. Why I followed with "Bad analysis by Rush IMHO".
Those were my thoughts.
[question] Sounded like Rush said the strength of the Eagles has been their defense and McNabb has been given much more of the credit for their success than he deserves.
Why? [my answer] Probably because he is the QB. [my question to me] Because he is a black QB? [my answer to me] IMHO, no. .... "Bad analysis by Rush IMHO".
Have to be carefull how you post things when you are posting on PC subjects.
|
|
| | | 21 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 20:07
|
Question?? Didn't you used to hear sports journalists ask "Can another black QB win a Super Bowl?" after Doug Williams was the first [and only] one to do it.
I think that is an insensitive question. Of course one can [and will]. But the 'question' about black QB's leading a team still lingers for some reason.
It's news at BlackVoices.com: [Tony] Banks Joins Williams, McNair in History Books
In all, Banks presided over the offense for two minutes and 15 seconds -- long enough for the record books. The former St. Louis Ram began the 2000 season as Baltimore's starter, but he was benched in Week 8 after the offense, under his leadership, failed to produce a touchdown in four consecutive weeks.
Grambling's Doug Williams became the first black quarterback to start -- and win -- the Super Bowl when he led the Washington Redskins to a 42-10 victory over the Denver Broncos Jan. 31, 1988. The Titans' McNair lost in last season's Super Bowl to the St. Louis Rams.
Now that's a stupid question ... [maybe it's a myth]
The dumbest question in Media Day history came prior to Super Bowl XXII. You've probably heard the story. A mediot actually asked Redskins quarterback Doug Williams the following: "How long have you been a black quarterback?"
Can it get any worse than that? Probably not. Here's the thing, though -- the question was never asked. After Williams suffered through countless queries about being the first black QB to start a Super Bowl, Butch John, a reporter for the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, seemed to have had enough. So he said, "Doug, it's obvious you've always been a black quarterback all your life. When did it start to matter?"
John's statement and question were jokes. Most reporters there got it, and they laughed. And then it was printed. But it has been twisted around and repeated, in the form it takes in this story's first paragraph, ever since.
|
|
| | | 22 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 20:31
|
Understand your point, Steve, but obviously,
"How long have you been a black quarterback?"...
is not the same as...
"Doug, it's obvious you've always been a black quarterback all your life. When did it start to matter?"
You are not claiming that Rush's words were so distorted.
Sure, the context may show that his greater point was about how the Philly defense has helped to bolster McNabb's image. But the fact is that at the very least, within the expression of his greater overall point, he made statements about a racial media bias that was uncalled for in that particular format.
Don't make excuses for him about context. He breached a barrier that he should know better than to play with. Hopefully he'll learn from whatever backlash results from it that he should just keep it about football. I trust he is enough of a professional to not look at it as suggested in posts 9 and 11.
|
|
| | | 23 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 20:54
|
MITH - not claiming at all his words were distorted. You can read them. He made a point I don't agree with. I think all QB's may get boosted up more than they deserve when team does well and drawn down more than they deserve when team does bad.
I'm not making excuses but I don't think he breached a barrier that he shouldn't. Something to think about, but I think he's wrong. I don't know why you can't talk about certain things without getting labeled. But it makes you wonder where the NFL is coming from with the interview policy they have for coaches. It's like it is more concerned about image and that may be the NFL subconsciously would like to have more 'black' QB's winning for the NFL's image. Maybe the press too. But I don't think anyone 'boosted' McNabb for any other reason than he is an exciting QB and his teams went to NFC championship games. So, I think Rush is wrong. [I'm an Eagles fan from afar - they've let me down the last two years in the playoffs, but it's a team game].
And I just added there seems to be the lingering 'question' about when will a black QB 'win' another Super Bowl. Why??
|
|
| | | 24 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 20:58
|
MITH-he made statements about a racial media bias that was uncalled for in that particular format.
How can it be uncalled for if their is a bias in the media? Also how can we harp on a guy about being a racist when it was clear he was saying someone/something else was being racially motivated?
Don't say the media isn't racially bias, because they have been harping for years about not enough black QB's and head coaches in the NFL. So when McNabb came into the league he did have a lot of unearned hype because he was Black considering at the time he hadn't even played a down.
Don't take the above as racist because I think McNabb has tons of talent just unused talent. I really believe a QB type head coach like Mooch or Walsh would do wonders for him. I also believe if he had a QB coach who worked with him individually and honed his skills he would be a top 3 QB instead of a top 15 QB.
|
|
| | | 25 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 21:20
|
If Louis Farrakhan said,
"The media is bias in over-hyping Greg Ostertag, because they want to see a white center succeed in the NBA,"
it would be dismissed as the rantings of an avowed racist. A non-story. At least now there's one thing that Limbaugh and Farrakhan supporters have in common.
|
|
| | | 26 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 21:27
|
Gary
How can it be uncalled for if their is a bias in the media?
It was a show about football, not a political format. I personally don't believe that the particular bias he cites exists and I have no interest in tuning in to a show about football to hear a blowhard's opinion about racial media biases. You want Hillary Clinton broadcasting baseball games and spouting off about how teams would save money on treating player injuries if we had national healthcare? Keep it about football. No different from Dusty Baker's comments earlier in the year. He can have whatever opinion he wants, but he was an idiot for saying what he did when he did because he should have known to just keep it about baseball.
Also how can we harp on a guy about being a racist when it was clear he was saying someone/something else was being racially motivated?
Who's "we"?
Don't say the media isn't racially bias, because they have been harping for years about not enough black QB's and head coaches in the NFL.
Show me two articles. Surely, if there have been years of harping, you should be able to produce half a dozen or more in no time. Lets see two.
|
|
| | | 27 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 21:43
|
TV media counts and it has been a political issue for years. Just look at Mr. Jesse Jackson. Yes he is black but he made the NFL black situation political.
Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark and Howard Dean said Limbaugh should be fired. How can you say that he should keep it about football when it is obvious that football is now america's favorite pasttime.
So Rush was well in his right to make such a comment for it had to do with football and how the media precieves it. I stand behind Rush and support him on this issue even if I think he is a blowhard. His comments were taken out of context and misconstrued and we(this board as well as the media, fans, and McNabb) have blown this way out of order. I think McNabb, the media, the politicians, and the fans need to step back and look at the show as it was and then make a informed decision or opinion based on it. Instead we are all harping on this based on what we have read, so does that make us raciast.
RUSH for President;)LOL
|
|
| | | 28 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 21:50
|
I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither do you.
|
|
| | | 29 | Khahan
ID: 10701318
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 22:02
|
I don't see what is so inflamatory about Limbaugh's comments (other than putting down McNabb's ability).
He may be off about media bias and he may be off about McNabb's ability. But what did he say that is so disparaging towards any race?
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Oct 01, 2003, 22:11
|
I don't think he put down his ability. He said McNabb's ability was overhyped because of his race. In other words, he put down the ability of Philly fans and the unspecified media to make a judgement about McNabb's ability without race playing a part.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 33 | Tim G
Donor
ID: 478131323
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 00:38
|
Excellent, I wish him as much luck in his career as "Jimmy the Greek."
|
|
| | | 34 | KrazyKoalaBears
Sustainer
ID: 517553018
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 00:59
|
MITH, a Google search for "lack of black quarterbacks nfl" turned up 2,960 results. A Google search for "lack of black coaches nfl" turned up 8,810 results. Surely there are at least half a dozen recent articles amongst those 11,000+ results. I found a couple 2003 articles just on the first pages of results. The topic comes up every off-season in football. We all know this. And yes, this "we" includes you. If you don't know this, then you just don't follow football. At all. Now whether or not you find the yearly barrage of articles justified or not is your own opinion, but the media does harp on the topic every off-season, particularly when there is a speedy hiring of a non-minority coach. I can think of Mariucci in DET as a prime example from this past off-season, despite the fact that he was a winning coach coming from another NFL team. Personally, I think there are instances where minorities are wrongly passed over for consideration for NFL coaching jobs, but I also think there are just as many instances, if not more, where the claim is baseless. As for QB's, I think the far majority of the league has done well to base their player decisions on talent. Leftwich getting the nod over Mark Brunell is a prime example, but I'm sure you won't see any articles about this proclaiming that NFL teams are doing a good job at giving minority QB's a chance at starting jobs. It's just not quite as newsworthy as the opposite version.
|
|
| | | 35 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 01:14
|
Thanks KKB.
As for Rush resigning I am planning on trying to get a petition to get him back. I believe this is wrong and an injustic.
So anyone interested in helping state support for Rush and a wish to see him back just voice your thoughts here and we will figure some way to get it in the hands of the right people.
Gary
|
|
| | | 36 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 01:15
|
Thanks KKB.
As for Rush resigning I am planning on trying to get a petition to get him back. I believe this is wrong and an injustice.
So anyone interested in helping state support for Rush and a wish to see him back just voice your thoughts here and we will figure some way to get it in the hands of the right people.
Gary
|
|
| | | 37 | Micheal
ID: 216502320
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 05:19
|
McNabb told the Philadelphia Daily News: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal."
What planet does he live on? I want to live there too.
|
|
| | | 38 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 07:45
|
KKb and Gary
Show me two articles that say that there are not enough black QBs in the NFL. Neither of you has done that. I'm not interested in sifting through your results. I issued the challenge, you can choose to try to meet it or choose not to try. Understand that that Gary did not say that there are articles about the number of black QBs. He said they [the media] have been harping for years about not enough black QB's and black coaches in the NFL. You probably think I'm mincing words and playing semantics. I'm certainly not. Two very different and distinct things. It's one thing to address the topic from an anthropological point of view. It's a whole other thing for an article to cry racial bias.
Btw, no argument from me about the media harping on the lack of black coaches, I should have made that more clear. That issue is a different story because there is a real beef there. For some reason, teams do shy away from hiring qualified black men as head coaches, so that second set of results is irrelevant to my challenge.
Lets take your first return from your first search: The NFL and Racial Bean Counters
It contains the following:For years there was an outcry about the lack of black quarterbacks in the NFL. For years football people use bigoted notions to justify the lack of black players at that position.
Blacks weren’t leaders, they said.
Blacks weren’t mentally quick enough, others whispered. But those excerpts are in the past tense. The next paragraph goes on about how James Harris and Warren Moon came in and things began to change. It notes that the percentage of black starting QBs is actually higher than the percentage of black people in America today. So no, that is not an artcle about there not being anough black Qbs. My challenge still stands. Find me two.
KKB
And yes, this "we" includes you. If you don't know this, then you just don't follow football. At all.
What? Did you read what it was that Gary asked that elicited my response of "who's we"? Here's what he wrote:
Also how can we harp on a guy about being a racist when it was clear he was saying someone/something else was being racially motivated?
When did I call anyone a racist? Seriously, KKB, is your allegiance to Rush that strong that you guiys have to stoop to that? I don't really ever deal with Gary so I have no opinion of him but I know you're smarter than that.
|
|
| | | 39 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 07:54
|
WOW this thread has taken off.....
Here is my thoughts not that many of you even care..........
Bottom Line the NFL has made it a practice to promote Blacks not only as QB's but as coaches as well. Remember Millen got fined by the NFL for not interviewing a Black candidate? Remember when ever a QB is black and then does good we refer to him as a Black QB and not just a QB.
Just my quick observations folks! The NFL brings this all upon themselves time and time again. Rush is not saying anything that isn't already what the league has been trying to promote!
|
|
| | | 40 | Motley Crue
Donor
ID: 21553314
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 08:02
|
Gary 35 & 36:
Man, the guy resigned. He doesn't want to do the show anymore. You and the other three people who want him back on the show should just let it alone. Those red flags flying in every 15 minutes were annoying as hell anyway. Maybe they can replace him with Dennis Miller so we can all brush off our Encyclopedias again. Now that would be fun.
|
|
| | | 41 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 08:07
|
we refer to him as a Black QB and not just a QB.
That's on you, Smackdown. I don't ever make that distinction when talking about QBs. But just to test your theory I ran two filter searches in the football forum. One for "black quarterback" and one for "black qb". Neither yielded any results aside from this thread. I don't think we refer to him or any other QBs as 'black qb' any more than we refer to Chad Pennington as a white QB.
|
|
| | | 42 | CanEHdian Pride
Sustainer
ID: 33812516
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 09:23
|
I think that it is too bad that Rush was forced out. I generally agree with his comments. The media has taken a stance that black football players are "athletic, tough and fast" and white players are "intelligent, soft and leaders", this is the reason why we hear so much about John Lynch, Adam Archuleta and the ex-football player tunred Marine, Pat Tillman is because they have qualities which go against these standard ways of thinking. They are tough, hard hitting players. No one brings up the fact that they get beat like rented mules in coverage whenever they have to line up against someone or that half of the other black safeties who hit just as hard can torch them in a foot race. They are given Pro Bowl nods and a whack of face time during broadcasts because they are "tough" white players. Same goes for a guy like Tim Dwight, this guy is not that good but he defies the preset mold of a white player that has been defined by the fans and the media. If Deion Sanders ever made a comment about Dwight being overhyped because he is just a "fast white guy", nothing would be said.
The fact is, everyone wants to see a black quarterback succeed. Why wouldn't they? For ever Gannon, Garcia and Farve there is a black QB that hasn't totally proven himself and I would love to see a McNair, McNabb or Culpepper join the elite ranks of quarterbacks in the NFL. It hasn't happened yet and, consciously or subconsciously, people are pulling for black QBs to succeed.
Case in point, I don't think anyone would care if Carson Palmer sat on the bench the entire year. No one is really getting pumped up to see him play. However, I think we are all chomping at the bit to see what Byron Leftwich can do.
I don't think that it is racist at all to want to see a Black QB succeed at a position that is heavily dominated by whites as much as it is racist that everyone wants Brian Urlacher to be considered in the same breath with Ray Lewis. Lewis is flat out better but because Urlacher plays a style of football that is different then most white players at his position he is slightly overhyped.
That's my take on it.
|
|
| | | 43 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 09:55
|
To some degree you might be right, EH, but it is not the media which starts those kinds of racial (not racist) stereotypes. They are repeating socially-developed ideas of black vs white athletes.
I once knew a blind man in college, who went to every basketball game and listened to the game at the same time on the radio. He told me he would know, almost instantly, the race of the players based upon ow they are described on the radio. And, to some degree, that is the case still.
That said, I believe we have nearly gotten away from that in the pros. Announcers are much more sensitive to it (except for Rush, of course) and fans have as well.
I think your style point is a good (and interesting) one: Many black quarterbacks are recruited to run a certain type of offense, in which there are many more running options for QBs. You don't see many QBs that are black and are straight dropback passers. So to some degree the McNabb controversy is even more moot: People want to see him succeed because an exciting style of offense is fun to watch.
Gary: I don't think Rush is coming back. While I, too, think it's cool that an average "fan" can share the booth, the truth is that Rush was as unsuited for that job as Al Sharpton. Surely there has to be a group of guys out there who are not controversial social critics that can take the job?
pd
|
|
| | | 44 | KrazyKoalaBears
Sustainer
ID: 2752157
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 10:20
|
MITH, I have absolutely no allegiance to Rush. I don't listen to the guy. Never have and likely never will. I was simply responding to your allusion that the media does not harp on the "not enough black QB's" and "not enough black coaches" stories. You'll note that I never made any comment regarding Rush himself. I don't care enough about the guy to make a comment on him. As for 2 articles, I linked you to 11,000+ articles. Like you, I don't care enough to sift through the results, however I will meet you halfway and give you this article. Yes, you will certainly find many articles in the positive because my search was broad enough to include such points of view. That one result was positive does not mean that the results are irrelevant. As for the "we" part, I was simply referring to your reply, not responding to it. You'll note that I said, "And yes, this 'we' includes you." "This," as in the "we" I was referring to, not the one you and Gary were talking about.
|
|
| | | 45 | C.C. SOLDIERS
ID: 29846270
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 10:21
|
He was probably given the option of resigning or being fired. There is no going back.
|
|
| | | 46 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 10:41
|
KKB, either you didn't read my post or you didn't read the article you linked in 44. That is not an article that says that there are not enough black QBs in the NFL. That is an article that is bashing Johnny Cochran for using faulty statistics and threatening lawsuits to get more black head coached hired in the NFL.
Read the second paragraph of my post 58. The issue of the media addressing the lack black coaches is not in dispute.
I challenged you to find me two articles that say that there are not enough black QBs in the NFL. You have not done that. All you did was find 3000 items that contain somewhere within them, in some order, the words; 'lack', 'black', 'quarterbacks' and 'nfl'.
So you have not met my challenge.
|
|
| | | 47 | Rabid Chickens
ID: 3281648
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 11:06
|
I usually just lurk on these boards, but wanted to point out something. MITH - your original challenge (in 27) was to produce two articles that support Gary's position in post 24. This was to produce articles that had shown that the media had been "harping for years about not enough black QB's and head coaches in the NFL." The article you quoted in 38 does exactly that, it showed what Gary was trying to argue - that the media has been harping on that for years.
Then in 38 and again in 46 you basically change what you want - now you want articles that show there are not enough black QB's in the NFL now. I have no idea if these articles exist, I haven't looked for them. I was just reading the thread and this stood out. Not really a fair argument to change what you are looking for and to want articles that are not really related to what Gary was looking for. A difference in Gary saying that the media has been harping on this issue for years (in the past) and trying to find articles that say there aren't enough black Qb's in the league now.
As to this whole debate, I tend to agree with a lot of what EH said. Not sure if the media has any real goal in mind when talking about Mcnabb or Lynch, I think they are just looking for a story and unfortunately they deem their particular race as a beginning of a story. I think this is similar to the publicity Jason Sehorn used to get for being one of the only white corner's in the league.
|
|
| | | 48 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 11:25
|
Rabid Chickens, you misunderstand post 38. I did change my challenge, but only because I wasn't careful in the way I worded it originally. The fact is, I agree with the fact that the media harps on the lack of black coaches. In fact, I think they are right in doing so. So, to issue a challenge to show news items that demonstrate this is pretty pointless.
But I hae no idea how you can say that my challenge is not really related to what Gary was looking for. Here's what Gary wrote:
...because they have been harping for years about not enough black QB's and head coaches in the NFL
He was supporting Rush's statements and Rush was talking specifically about black QBs and the media. The phrase "have been for years" does not mean in the past.
So the challenge remains. Personally, I think you'll have to go back at least 10 years to find a single article that expresses this notion.
|
|
| | | 49 | cEHp @ school
ID: 3791329
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 11:25
|
"I think your style point is a good (and interesting) one: Many black quarterbacks are recruited to run a certain type of offense, in which there are many more running options for QBs. You don't see many QBs that are black and are straight dropback passers. So to some degree the McNabb controversy is even more moot: People want to see him succeed because an exciting style of offense is fun to watch.
"
I think that the media IS contributing in a big way and are trying to change the stereotypes of black QBs being athletic/scramblers. Check out the way media types are talking about Leftwich and McNabb. Almost every time I've heard an interview/piece on one of these players its been followed by:
"what an articulate young man"
Do you ever hear broadcasters say this after an interview with Jake Plummer or Brett Favre? And I couldn't even count the number of times the announcer made reference to "how quickly Leftwich is picking up the offense" and even calling his own plays.
Don't get me wrong, Leftwich, from what I've heard is an extremely intelligent player but it now seems it is the leading factor which is hyping him.
As you said, the media ALWAYS looks for an angle, a story and a great deal of the time it is about a player defying a racial preconception. Jason Sehorn being the poster boy for this type of journalism.
|
|
| | | 50 | 7
ID: 593929
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 11:47
|
I agree that there is a serious double standard. If someone said that Urlacher is overhyped because he is white, it wouldn't be an issue.
There was nothing racist about the comment, it was just stupid and untrue.
|
|
| | | 51 | Rabid Chickens
ID: 3281648
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 11:59
|
MITH - you are wanting articles that say there are not enough black QB's in the league now, correct? Clearly you know it is unlikely to pull up such an article, that is evidenced by the article you cited in 38, that stated black QB's accounted for 24% of all starting QB's.
All you are really trying to do is argue semantics here. Gary said that "have been harping . . ." and you are arguing that this hasn't been argued in sometime. Gary could have phrased his argument better, but I think what he was trying to argue was that the media "has harped about the lack of black QB's in the league." But you tried to turn his original statement around by arguing that since he is saying they "have been harping" that the inability to find a current article supporting this defeats his whole premise.
This article discusses some background and was actually pretty good. "Prior to 1999, only three black quarterbacks had been drafted in the first round of the NFL draft, none among the top few picks. Before 1999, only 3 black QB's had been drafted in the 1st round - and none of them high picks." It turns our McNabb was the #2 pick in the 1st round in 1999. So maybe his situation was a bit different than others since he was drafted so high with such high expectations. I have not taken the time to go back and search for any articles, but I am guessing there are probably a few written pre-draft in 1999 based on McNabb being a potential high round pick.
Again, I don't think the media sought to overhype (if he is overhyped) him becase of his race, I think it was just the result of the media using his race as an angle in the story, just as it has done with Sehorn and Lynch
|
|
| | | 52 | beastiemiked
Sustainer
ID: 3531815
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 12:12
|
this is the reason why we hear so much about John Lynch, Adam Archuleta and the ex-football player tunred Marine, Pat Tillman is because they have qualities which go against these standard ways of thinking. They are tough, hard hitting players. No one brings up the fact that they get beat like rented mules in coverage whenever they have to line up against someone or that half of the other black safeties who hit just as hard can torch them in a foot race.
Actually Archuleta shut down Terrell Owens in week 2(he had him one on one coverage for a good portion of the game). The touchdown that Owens scored in the 4th quarter to tie the game was one of the only times Archuleta wasn't matched up against him.
|
|
| | | 53 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 12:14
|
Rabid Chickens, you are the one arguing semantics.
Gary said that the media has been harping on the lack of black QBs for years. I disagree and ask him to show me two articles as evidence of this. Frankly, I'm not interested in your interpretation of what Gary meant. If he was unclear about his position, then he can say so for himself. Your contention that he meant something other than what he said without him here to clarify is pointless.
However, the article you provide does meet my challenge (or at least come hairsplittingly close). It seems to acknowledge that the tides were turning on that issue at the time that the article was written, and most of the injustices and biases that were brought up were items that at that time were in the past - especially in the first half of the article. But it is subtitled (somewhat inaptly);
Can the 'reasoning' behind the lack of minority coaches in the NFL be paralleled to the 'reasoning' behind the lack of black quarterbacks? I.e. are these the 'intelligence' positions?
So I'll give you that. That's one.
|
|
| | | 54 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 12:15
|
Not only that, but I don't believe there is a single coach in the NFL who would put someone on the field who wasn't there on ability alone.
Maybe there are harder hitting guys, or faster. But they all play for different teams.
pd
|
|
| | | 55 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 12:19
|
ESPN is a Disney owned entity. My kids, 5 and 8, watch a ton of Disney cable TV shows. Disney has put a great deal of effort into kids' shows featuring black families and casts, i.e "Sister,Sister," "Raven," "The Smart Guy," and the animated "The Proud Family."
Disney can not afford to give even the slightest hint of racism in any of its programming for fear of boycotts and other possible economic negatives(advertising revenue). The decision to hire Limbaugh was a bad idea. I would imagine you have to go all the way to the top, Michael Eisner, who would have to sign off on such a hiring. Limbaugh became famous for representing the "angry, white man", and represents an extremist viewpoint. It was only a matter of time before he buried himself.
|
|
| | | 56 | KrazyKoalaBears
Sustainer
ID: 2752157
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 13:06
|
MITH, I provided articles for your originial claim. Beyond that, I'm through with this because it's clearly obvious that if you want to find the articles, you can. Sorry, but I'm not going to spend time trying to dispute your changing requests when you could easily do so with the 2 links I provided earlier.
|
|
| | | 57 | KrazyKoalaBears
Sustainer
ID: 2752157
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 13:08
|
MITH, by the way, while the article I did post may be bashing Johnny Cochran, it also starts out, "Johnnie Cochran is absolutely right. The lack of head coaching opportunities for African-Americans in the NFL is shameful." I think that's pretty much qualifies as a reporter who thinks there is a lack of minority coaches in the NFL despite where he goes with the rest of the story.
|
|
| | | 58 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 13:31
|
KKB, the fact that the media harps on the lack of black coaches is not in dispute. I conceded that point in post 38. I never intendede it to be in dispute. You are claiming that you have proved me wrong about an issue that we agree on.
My contention from the very beginning is that the media bias regarding black QBs that Rush cites is overblown. Gary tried to support Rush by claiming the media has harped on that particular bias for years (he also added in another, related bias that I do not take issue with). I called his bluff and asked for some evidence of that bias. Really, it shouldn't be too hard if it's true.
|
|
| | | 59 | Sore Thumb
ID: 571049813
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 13:40
|
Surprised nobody has mentioned that Rush might have a drug problem NY Daily News
Maybe this also factored into his decision.
Funny that a guy that abhors addicts might be one himself.
|
|
| | | 60 | j o s h
ID: 2393429
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 13:49
|
Pain killers huh? Probably oromandibular dystonia!
|
|
| | | 61 | CanEHdian Pride
Sustainer
ID: 33812516
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 14:48
|
After reading through the thread my opinion hasn't changed much, the comment was not racist IMO however,
"It was a show about football, not a political format. I personally don't believe that the particular bias he cites exists and I have no interest in tuning in to a show about football to hear a blowhard's opinion about racial media biases."
AND
"The decision to hire Limbaugh was a bad idea. I would imagine you have to go all the way to the top, Michael Eisner, who would have to sign off on such a hiring. Limbaugh became famous for representing the "angry, white man", and represents an extremist viewpoint. It was only a matter of time before he buried himself."
Just about sum up my views on the subject.
|
|
| | | 62 | Rabid Chickens
ID: 3281648
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 14:58
|
MITH - I just want to be clear what we are looking for. Articles that show "if there have been years of harping" as you said in 26 or articles that "say that there are not enough black QBs in the NFL." Clearly these are two different things. Your first statement after quoting Gary clearly refers to past items. Whereas your 2nd request refers to the current situation
You can't argue that in the past there have been many discussions in the past about the number of black QB's in the league. Recently these arguments have been toned down because of the increasing numbers of black QB's in the league. But given the fact that McNabb was the first black QB to be picked so high in the draft, it seems possible that there was increased interest in him. It also seems possible, that given Rush's point of view on most things, he could view this increased interest and hype as being at least partially due to McNabb's race. I think all that is fine, where Rush got so much attention is assuming that the media desired to publicize McNabb so much and build up his reputation in an attempt to see a black QB succeed. As I stated before I don't think the media had this agenda, but I could see how the argument could be made by Rush.
I do agree with you MITH that the media bias is overblown in this issue. I do think this is an issue that has not gotten as much attention anymore because the inequity has pretty much been corrected, but I do think it has definetly been an issue in the past.
|
|
| | | 63 | CanEHdian Pride
Sustainer
ID: 33812516
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 15:03
|
re:62....
except I do believe the bias exists for both black and white athletes as i stated before.
|
|
| | | 64 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 15:20
|
Chicken
And you're accusing me of arguing semantics? Look:
Gary:Don't say the media isn't racially bias, because they have been harping for years about not enough black QB's and head coaches in the NFL. This is getting really stupid and I am really questioning my choice of addressing you here. In that statement, Gary was defending Rush's statement regarding a CURRENT media bias. One regarding their current portrayal of McNabb TODAY - AND SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN THE LEAGUE. You are arguing that Gary was only talking about previos biases in the past here? Like I said, I am not interested in your belief that Gary means something other than what he said.
I used the same tense that Gary did.
MITH 26Show me two articles. Surely, if there have been years of harping, you should be able to produce half a dozen or more in no time. Lets see two. Then after I saw KKB's 34, I realized that I was not clear on what I meant, and that I should have only challenged half of his statement. So I clarified my position with the following in post 38:Btw, no argument from me about the media harping on the lack of black coaches, I should have made that more clear. That issue is a different story because there is a real beef there. For some reason, teams do shy away from hiring qualified black men as head coaches, so that second set of results is irrelevant to my challenge.
..........................
You can't argue that in the past there have been many discussions in the past about the number of black QB's in the league.
Right, Chicken, but the terms of this discussion are in the present. Rush was not saying that a media bias used to exist. He is saying there is one here NOW and it is distorting the way they portray McNabb.
Recently these arguments have been toned down because of the increasing numbers of black QB's in the league.
Agreed, and that's why I believe that Rush is blowing smoke, and also why I believe that Gary is blowing smoke. And that's why I issued a challenge for him to prove his and Rush's point.
|
|
| | | 65 | bookie
ID: 364442220
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 15:50
|
I shouldn't get involved here, but there are a few things that should be pointed out.
1) To me, there is clearly a media bias toward all QB's in the league, they get both more credit and blame for a teams success and failure.
2) The destinction of Black QB's being specifically singled out is also very prevalant... When Farve or Tommy Maddox or any other white QB does anything, they are just the QB.... Whenever McNabb or Culpepper do anything they are a Black QB. It's forever pointed out in print, by announcers during games, and even in highlight shows. I personally don't understand why the media or anyone feels the need to point out that McNabb is a black QB... he's just a QB in my book and a pretty good one, who just got off to a bad start this year.
3) With #2 in mind, I can't believe that McNabb would make his comment about this all being behind us... It won't be behind us until people stop referencing skin color during broadcasts and in articles.
|
|
| | | 66 | Tree
Donor
ID: 599393013
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 16:43
|
i gotta say, after reading this whole thread, a lot of people are saying "black QB this" and "black QB that", most recently in the post just before this one When Farve or Tommy Maddox or any other white QB does anything, they are just the QB.... Whenever McNabb or Culpepper do anything they are a Black QB.
i'm sorry. i don't agree with that. since most of us are fantasy sports players here, go check out rotoworld.com.
i see some things about Byron Leftwich and Mark Brunell. i see "Byron Leftwich will start at quarterback this week..." and "Even though he's healthy enough to play, Mark Brunell won't start..."
i don't see "Black QB Byron Leftwich will start at quarterback this week..." and "Even though he's healthy enough to play, White QB Mark Brunell won't start..."
i see "Donovan McNabb is probable for Sunday's game with a bruised thumb."
i don't see "Black QB Donovan McNabb is probable for Sunday's game with a bruised thumb."
i see "Daunte Culpepper...The Vikings are expected to announce today that Gus Frerotte will make his second consecutive start Sunday."
i don't see "Black QB Daunte Culpepper...The Vikings are expected to announce today that White QB Gus Frerotte will make his second consecutive start Sunday."
they're all just QBs....
|
|
| | | 67 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 16:48
|
agreed, Tree. If the bias was everywhere, it would be here, too - and it's not. Run a filter search in the football forum for 'black qb' or 'black quarterback' and the only result will be this thread.
|
|
| | | 68 | Skidawg
ID: 34828226
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 18:07
|
It's nice to know that we live in a society that after Rush's comments people want his job and when a baseball manager (Dusty Baker) says white players can't play in the heat we just say "He was speaking his mind". That should be disturbing to you.
|
|
| | | 69 | The Dan's Your Daddy
ID: 22792222
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 18:13
|
Yeah, we whites have it so hard . . . everyone else gets to make dumb comments about race, but not us. Why can't we all?
|
|
| | | 70 | bleedgiantblue
ID: 4074730
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 18:58
|
I thumbed through most of this post because it is all BS. Bottom line.....Philly won because of their defense. How else could they succeed when McNabb was out? He isn't that great. He hasn't done squat to prove that he is the man. Who cares that he is black? I don't. All I know is that a QB with his numbers on my team would be cut. Defense wins championships, bottom line. For a man to be racked through the coals like this is horrible. What is Tom Jackson had said this? Would you care? no. So Doug Williams won a super bowl, so what. A team wins, a team loses. This is a non-issue in my book, and the fact that he lost his job is just proof that some people can not let racism go. He stated the facts, and if the truth hurts, then so be it!!
|
|
| | | 71 | Smackdown
Donor
ID: 498482917
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:00
|
41 Mattinglyinthehall
Dude I am not saying that! I am talking about times like when Doug Williams throws 5 TD's in a game. It is all about him doing this AND being Black. I beleive he was the FIRST QB to do this in a Superbowl? But it was all about the fact he was BLACK! And what do these boards have to do with what the NFL says! I was not aware they were posting on here now? I am talking about how the NFL talks about it's black QB's! Sear ESPN or NFL .com dude~!
|
|
| | | 72 | bleedgiantblue
ID: 4074730
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:09
|
if you base a qb on his race.....then you are racist. you produce, or you don't. you want to win, stay color-blind.
|
|
| | | 73 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:13
|
I didn't know Leftwich was black until this thread.
|
|
| | | 74 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:15
|
Me either, PD. Honestly, I didn't become a football fan until high school, so there's a lot of history that I'm not familiar with, but I didn't know who Doug Williams was before today, either.
|
|
| | | 75 | bleedgiantblue
ID: 4074730
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:15
|
regardless...he is young and he had 0 td, and 3 int.
|
|
| | | 76 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:31
|
PD in response to 43. I would be more then happy to sit across from the guys on Sunday Countdown and talk football and get paid for it so if you hear anything send it my way:)
|
|
| | | 77 | Gary
ID: 247463123
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 19:49
|
MITH-I was talking about the past when McNabb came into the league even when Culpepper came into the league as well as McNair. These QB's were hyped up due to race and how high they were drafted. The media as well as the fan expected and hoped for them to be successful. I also believe that is what Rush believed. I could be wrong and don't want to sit here arguing about it.
I still beleive McNabb has termendous talent and works very hard during the offseason to improve. I just believe that he could spend more time with his WR, RB, Linemen, and such to improve on the chemistry and maybe by working with a QB coach he would improve on his mechanics also.
Sorry about the spelling guys.
I also want to state that I still believe Rush was misunderstood and people are hearing things they want to hear because Rush's political views. I think if Berman had said that statement it wouldn't have gotten the rash of hoopla that it has gotten. Once again I may be wrong but like Rush I have the right to my opinion and I am sticking with it:)
|
|
| | | 78 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 217351118
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 20:30
|
Oh. So then you agree that the notion of the kind of racial bias that would overhype a QB because of his skin color is overblown?
And you believe that Rush's statements about McNabb referred to things that took place four years ago, when McNabb first entered the league?
So Rush's little social concern that we have in the NFL refers to something that only used to be true?
Gotcha.
|
|
| | | 79 | bleedgiantblue
ID: 4074730
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 20:36
|
yup, that is like saying that it is biased that dennis green get an interview besides the fact that he f$%*ing sucks as a head coach. Marvin Lewis isn't "black", he is a great coach.....what. If you can play (mcnair), or you can't, it doesn't matter, if I am out to win games, fans, and money in the pros, the last thing that I care about is skin color and opinion over skin color, bottom line. The teams that have cared, have lost.
|
|
| | | 80 | TBRaiders
Leader
ID: 31811922
Thu, Oct 02, 2003, 22:05
|
Links discussing lack of black QB's:
link 1 Second section down under 'The right to get a chance to fail'.
Yet certain glamour positions, such as quarterback in professional football, are dominated by whites.
link 2 4 paragraphs down. If you think about it, it really wasn't so long ago that the subject of black quarterbacks was a hot-button issue. For decades, there were few black NFL quarterbacks, and virtually no starters. I think we all know why. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, the James Harrises, Doug Williamses and Warren Moons began to modify the way football owners and their coaches — men of a different race and culture — thought about quarterbacks of African-American descent.
link 3 About 7 paragraphs down. The need to point out in print that a man was perceived as the best candidate for the job (and thus, by extrapolation, not hired for the color of his skin) is the type of unconscious bias that has held African-Americans back from pro football’s leadership positions, such as quarterback, middle linebacker, center and head coach, for decades
link 4 5th paragraph down. Far and away though the most impressive development of all is what we have labeled the revolution taking place at quarterback. After decades of denial, biases based on color, Black quarterbacks are proliferating
link 5 Almost near the bottom. Then there's the idea that in team sports there are "black" positions and a dwindling number of "white" positions. There is but one white cornerback in the NFL, the New York Giants' Jason Sehorn. Until a few years ago, football's quarterback position was usually reserved for white athletes.
I read dozens of others and could keep posting articles talking about the previous lack of black QB's being a hot topic. As has been stated above, with the number of current black QB's in the NFL, it isn't such a hot issue.
I couldn't find as many articles talking about the lack of black punters or black kickers. Took this info from the last link: While only 13 percent of the population of the United States is black, black athletes constitute 65 percent of the players in the National Football League.
If 13% of the starting QB's or coaches were black that would amount to 4 each. Jon Entine calculates the odds of a black American teen-ager becoming a professional athlete at 1-to-4,000 -- a longshot to be sure, but still more than 20 times better than his white counterpart.
|
|
| | | 81 | F GUMP
ID: 352161623
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 00:39
|
FACTUAL NOTE OF SIGNIFICANCE
In this thread, the fact that McNabb was "the first black QB to be picked so high in the draft" has been accepted as a given and used as a basis for further argument. However, such a statement without context and clarification distorts both the full facts as well as the public perception.
The bare fact is true - he was "the first black QB to be picked so high in the draft". But the real record is, that he was picked 2nd overall, and in the very same draft other BLACK QUARTERBACKS were picked 3rd and 11th overall in the same (1st) round! And there were 2 other QBs in the same draft in later rounds (round 2,4) that also became starters in the NFL.
Thus, he (alone) was NEVER singled out in the general public as The Torchbearer for Black Quarterbacks: his high draft status as a Black QB was made non-noteworthy because there were two others just like him at the very same time. There was never "increased interest in him due to his being a highly drafted black QB" (like a sort of Jackie Robinson.) People didnt sit around the nation and wonder if "McNabb the Black QB would make it in a white man's position." He never became the focus of attention as "the possible first black franchise QB in the NFL to make good." To say those things WERE true of him distorts the reality of what went on the last few years.
So to use such a fact re McNabb ("the first black QB to be picked so high in the draft") as a basis for further argument becomes misleading. He was never the "Jackie Robinson of Black Franchise QBs" and the subject of ADDED focus of a scrutinizing sports world - he was just one of a group. Just a high draft pick, who was being expected to make good, like the others.
|
|
| | | 82 | TDM
ID: 5682916
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 06:26
|
Proof of double standard?
Here's Warren Sapp's position on this. In the first paragraph he rips Rush and in the third paragraph he says that there are too many whites in the league who are scrubs... I think Sapp and Rush are both idiots.
"I think Rush Limbaugh has already laid his blueprint in front of America on what he thinks and how he views," Sapp said. "It was just a shock to me that ESPN gave him an opportunity and an open mike in front of a nation to spew out what he wants to spew out, then it came to a head. The thing I want ESPN to do is, don't take his resignation ... fire the man, because he stepped across the line. Once you step across that line someone has to be an authority to say that's wrong and I'm going to take a stance on it."
Sapp, echoing comments McNabb himself made earlier this week, also came out strongly against ESPN analysts Tom Jackson and Michael Irvin, who were part of the show when Limbaugh made his comments.
"I'm shocked that Tom Jackson and Michael Irvin just sat there and let this roll across their faces and didn't say anything. Do we not have anybody that understands that there's way more scrubs in this game that are Anglos than there are black ones that are being pumped up? Trust me, it's not even close. I don't know what Rush Limbaugh was thinking, but Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson didn't do us much justice, that's the one thing I was more teed off about than anything."
|
|
| | | 83 | Micheal
ID: 50748152
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 07:01
|
We all know there are double standards when it comes to stuff like this. Larry Bird is a good example. Who said:
(He)would be just another good player if he were black.
Tiger Woods would be just another good player if he were white.
|
|
| | | 84 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 08:17
|
Are you kidding? Two of the greatest players in their sports would just be another of the group if their skin color were different?
Their achievements in their sports were not a result of overhype stemming from their race. In fact, sports is one of the very few areas of society where skin color is moot when compared to ability.
pd
|
|
| | | 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
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 135 | J
Leader
ID: 49346417
Mon, Oct 06, 2003, 09:36
|
the good stuff starts about 6 minutes into it...
|
|
|
|