KR: Limbaugh's McNabb remarks `preposterous,' Eagles' Childress says

[jbooma]

Originally posted by codeorama

Exactly.

Great Point.

ESPN is loving it ratings are way up since the brought him aboard and that is what they wanted.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by Glenn X

Hmmm, I wonder why? You don't think that it could have anything to do with the media's "so-called" liberal bias actually being real, do you? Naaaaah.

The mainstream media are no more liberal than the conglomerates that own them or the advertisers that pay their bills.

(Go to fair.org and see the results to disprove your assumptions. They've done real studies, not just listened to Rush make up facts.)

"On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues..."

Since the 2000 Election, the conservative media tilt has become a dominant reality in modern U.S. politics. The imbalance also was not an accident. It resulted from a conscious, expensive and well-conceived plan by conservatives to build what amounts to a rapid-response media machine. This machine closely coordinates with Republican leaders and can strongly influence - if not dictate - what is considered news.

As if this leak of the CIA agents' name isn't evidence enough that the media do nothing more than read the PR releases coming out of the RNC.

The worst result is that investigative journalism for the most part is dead.

W snorted coke?

W had DUIs?

W was AWOL?

W had an abortion with an underage girl?

All stories are true, but kept buried because the puppy dog media won't do their homework.

But in the last election, they constantly brought up the Gore "internet inventor" and "Love Canal" stories, which had little to no basis in fact.

---------

And lastly, War is good for ratings!!

---------

Oh, yeah. Accuse me of being a partisan Democrat, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kilmer17]

No those are not all true. Bush did have a DUI. He was NOT AWOL despite desperate attempts by people like you on the left to portray him as being so. He did NOT have an abortion. And he did NOT snort coke. If you have PROOF, not looney lefty conspircay drivel to back up absurd claims like this, please present it. Otherwise you look like nothing but a partisan hack.

I can find plenty of articles showing how Clinton killed people. Lot's of crazy right wing conspiracy mags and websites have "the facts". Doesnt mean it's true.

NYTImes? Obviously a right wing paper.

Wash Post? Uber conservative

CNN? To the right of Buchanan

All the major networks? Totally in the GOP pocket.

Read BIAS for a good look into the media and their political leaning.

[Glenn X]

jsichol, what corporations are you talking about?

Jonah Goldberg of The National Review (a periodical that I'm sure that you just love, j-ster ) nailed it when he observed: "the idea that corporations are serious engines of conservatism, economic or cultural, is a conviction clouded by nostalgia for the days when Thomas Nast drew the captains of industry as fat pigs eating at the trough of the trusts. Corporations are worse than useless when it comes to fighting the culture war and only occasionally helpful in fighting regulations. ABC's parent company, Disney, is a huge champion of gay rights and a sparring partner of the Christian Right. The former owner of CNN, Ted Turner, is the U.N.'s biggest booster and fond of saying nasty things about America, the Pope, Christians, etc. Corporations, as a rule, are ahead of the U.S. government on affirmative action and give mightily to Planned Parenthood and PBS." However, as Goldberg also points out, "These 'heartless' multinational corporations swallow all sorts of regulations because they know they are barriers to entry from would-be competitors and they can pass the costs of these mandates to consumers." http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg031502.asp

And, j-man, as for F.A.I.R. (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), I can't think of a more disingenuously-named media watchdog organization than they, what with all their far-left claptrap masquerading as "moderate analysis." However, if you wanna buy their spiel, sir, have at it.

Anyway, back to the lecture at hand...

Firstly, the bone-through-the-nose comment is one that's been attributed to Limbaugh for several years now, however, it's a hotly contested claim and, as far as I know, Limbaugh denies having ever said it. If someone can point me to an audio recording of Limbaugh making such an extraordinarily nasty comment, I'd be happy to listen to it and then dismiss Limbaugh as a fool. But I have yet to discover the existence of such an audio recording.

Secondly, let me state the obvious and say that the issue of race and the media's handling of it is a very complex and very complicated one, far more complicated that many people would like to let on, either publicly or privately.

I said before that I didn't know if the media may have stumped for Donovan McNabb simply because he's a black man playing a position that has historically been played almost exclusively by whites, a position that not so long ago was erroneously regarded as one that black men simply "couldn't" play because they weren't "smart enough," didn't have "enough moxy," etc. Given the fact that black QBs fought so hard for so long to gain acceptance as legitimate players at their position, not just "athletic" sideshow attractions, and the fact that so many sports reporters & editors are keenly aware of this history, I could see the potential of such stumping occurring (even if only in a minor way).

And if it did, I'm not even so sure that it would've necessarily been a bad thing. But, given the media's stated goal (along with other high-profile institutions) of creating a "colorblind society," it certainly would be an odd thing.

(Kinda like at last season's Oscars, when Halle Berry won for Best Actress and Denzel Washington for Best Actor and then Hollywood gave itself big ups for recognizing such deserving black performers whilst simultaneously saying that the doling out of these awards to these individuals surely marked the film industry as a paragon of well-intentioned colorblindness that could serve as an example to all.)

However, at the same time, it's also worth noting that the sports media will sometimes become obsessed with white athletes who play at positions for which they aren't "supposed to." Remember Jason Williams of the NBA, the "specter" of a white kid playing basketball? (Heck, for a time, he actually played it pretty well, too.) Remember that stupid nickname of his, "white chocolate"? ESPN and SI ate that stuff up and simply couldn't shut up about him for a while there.

And why was that? Because we all -- fans and sports reporters alike -- had become practically conditioned to think that basketball was exclusively a "black man's game" and that whites were simply no longer able to compete athletically. So when Williams proved them wrong (at least for a little while), the sports media jumped all over it.

So I think the same phenomenon could be at work with regard to McNabb, in that McNabb has played and played pretty damn well (replete with spectacular, kinetic Sportscenter highlights) at a position that has historically been manned by white players.

However, I could be wrong.

Thirdly, whether you like or dislike (or even hate) Rush Limbaugh, I think the media sh*tstorm that has erupted over his comments from this past Sunday clearly illustrate one thing: There is a right and a wrong way to think about race in this country, and if you deviate from the right way, your character will be assassinated and you will be marginalized; you will be dismissed as a racist and that will be that.

For example, Chris Berman and Tom Jackson spoke of the NFL's recently adopted affirmative action hiring practices for head coaches on ESPN a while back, and they both said that such practices were a good and necessary thing. This is fine. This is the right thing to say. It would also be right (and politically safe) to say that such hiring practices are a "joke" because they "don't go far enough," or something to that effect.

However, if you take the opposite point of view, if you question the efficacy and necessity of such hiring practices, as Limbaugh did several weeks ago on ESPN, you will be chastised and/or verbally raked over the coals for saying the wrong thing. Saying the wrong thing is, well, wrong. And such deviance from the norm, from conventional [liberal] wisdom, will not be tolerated.

Let us be clear here: In regards to last Sunday's NFL pregame show on ESPN, Limbaugh did not say, "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, which we all know is silly because blacks simply cannot effectively play the position of quarterback in the NFL!" Had Limbaugh said this, he'd be deserving of every bad thing that his critics are currently saying of him, including accusing him of being a racist. However, this did not happen.

Yet you wouldn't have known this from the Bob Ley-moderated panel discussion that was held on Sportscenter last night (prior to the announcement of Limbaugh's resignation). For this panel discussion, Limbaugh's (now former) employer was apparently unable to find even one person to defend either what Limbaugh said or Limbaugh's right to say it. Instead, the assembled panel -- which consisted of Steven A. Smith of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mitch Albom of The Detroit Free Press and Marlin Briscoe, the first black quarterback to play professional football (for the Denver Broncos back in the late '60s) -- left one with the impression that Limbaugh's remarks were "clearly inappropriate" and "clearly racially insensitive" (if not outrightly racist), that Limbaugh was a "controversial" figure because of his "conservatism," and that Limbaugh, his radio show, and the audience that listens to his radio show were all somehow strange and perhaps morally defect.

You see, diversity is fine... as long as it's only skin deep. The sports media, like the rest of the media (entertainment and hard news included) love to pat themselves on the back for their "United Colors of Benetton"-style diversity, however, like that ad campaign, it's a flimsy and illusory kind of diversity. It's the kind of diversity that only works if everyone looks different but thinks the same, adheres to the same conventional [liberal] wisdom. It's the kind of diversity that can't make sense of someone like Rush Limbaugh, much less Larry Elder or Michelle Malkin -- not unless the use of demeaning name-calling, like "Nazi" or "Uncle Tom" or "sellout," can be considered understanding.

Perhaps Bill O'Reilly was right last night when, with regard to the Limbaugh controversy, he advised, "Let's face it: You're almost crazy to even bring up the issue of race in America. I mean, the kind of firestorm that it causes?! Forget about it!" To be sure, almost crazy for most everyone... except for, say, Jessie Jackson, of course.