Rush Limbaugh Quits ESPN

Rush's great crime was interjecting race into an issue where it doesn't belong. Not many of his media detractors would have jobs if they were held up to the same standard. The utter hypocrisy of the criticism is only surpassed by the idiocy of ESPN for putting Rush on the show, while apparently wanting to avoid controversy.

 

Should pointing out a likely racial bias by the media considered "interjecting race"?

 

I just wonder if this could be evidence of a little chasm developing between ESPN and the NFL. ESPN is looking to grow and expanding into entertainment shows is their current vehicle for doing it.

Later this fall the NFL is starting up its own television network and they hired on of the guys who built ESPN to do head it.

Put two and two together and I think ultimately, they want to produce all their own broadcasts on their own network and keep all the ad money for themselves.

I would imagine that goal runs contrary to what ESPN is trying to accomplish.

This could get real interesting over the next couple of years.

 

It's interjecting race when you try to force a racial issue on something that isn't race related. I believe McNabb is overrated because he plays on a successful team, he was a top draft pick, he plays in the northeast and most importantly he was a collegiate star in the northeast.

 

If Limbaugh had a little class, a little grace....hell, a little soul, maybe this could have passed. But he is simply an exploitive (sp?) self-promoter with no other interests other than Rush Limbaugh (TM). I am conservative on many issues, and in fact agree with "The Godfather" on a several things (mostly fiscal.) But there seems to be no core at the center of Limbaugh. He is a reactionary that preaches to the converted day in and day out. There seems to be not one shred of decency or humanity in the man. I think he is sad and bitter.

 

While I think there is a grain of truth in some of Limbaugh's comments in this segment - I sure don't think he picked the time, place or person to exemplify his point.

I too agree that Donovan McNabb is overrated, but I don't think that the adulation he receives from the press is the product of a pro-black agenda, but his penchant for occasionally spectacular plays.

I think it is part of human nature for any person to be drawn to a rags-to-riches story or a story that reveals people overcoming great odds to succeed in a public endeavor. This is true of people of every color - but I think that it has been broadly extended by the media to cover people of various races/ethnicities as well. Especially in sports where the traditional minority groups have been "underrepresented".

I think it is evident that there is a strong PC mentality in the sports media as well as in the general media. Many black athletes and coaches (such as Dusty Baker or Michael Irvin who seemingly agreed with RL on this point) have made similarly inflammatory statements without anything approaching the outcry that Limbaugh's statements received.

 

And then there was the controversy in, I think, 1987 when Isiah Thomas said that Larry Bird was only considered to be the greatest basketball player ever (this was before the ascendancy of Jordan) because he's white.

 

Come on, man! Why do you keep injecting race into this? Why are you diminishing fat people by associating them with Limbaugh? Especially since he is only "husky" and not really even fat anymore? Don't fall into the trap!

Don't judge what you see - judge what you hear come from his mouth or you might be guilty of an even greater mistake than he made!

 

I don't remember whether or not Thomas said something like that.

I thought that Dennis Rodman said Bird would just be considered an average player if he were black.

Obviously, whoever said that is entirely wrong. But, its hard to dispute that Donovan McNabb is overated. He is a racial minority for his position, so I can't say race isn't the reason people rate him so highly. I'd bet race is the reason Jason Sehorn ( a white CB) was rated so highly for a while.

 

Re: Rush quits ESPN

Rush quit?!? Oh man, I was hoping they would eventually have him cover the Champion's League.



BTW, I do remember Isiah Thomas making that statement about Larry Bird. There was a controversy that followed.

 

Both did, actually:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25884

Possibly, but you also count discount a) his looks, b) playing in NY, c) his wife, d) having made a couple of big plays in key games (though his laughable performance in the Super Bowl a few years ago exposed him for what he was) as key reasons for his celebrity status.

 

The NFL has an anti-trust exemption?

 

Thomas caught tremendous flack for those statements & it took awhile before he was back in the good graces of the NBA. He was left off the '92 Olympic team (Dream Team). Quite surprising considering he was probably 5th best player in the league at that time.

Anyway, back to McNabb. Personally, I think most QB's are overrated to an extent. In a sport where each position plays an important part in the team's success, QB's tend to get the most praise when things go right. Montana & Young's stature were elevated due to the abilites John Rice and John Taylor.

However, I can't dispute McNabb's stats:

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/team/teamRosterDetails.jsp?id=195

Yeah, he's had a bad start but he did well against the Bills last week. If the Eagles continue to improve, win the NFC East and make a serious run for the Superbowl, this'll be water under the bridge.

 

HEY!

Aren't we all losing sight of the topic...that Limbaugh is a prick?

 

Losing sight? Not really, but folks have brought up conspiracy theories and liberal media bias (what liberal media) as the reasons for Limbaugh's decision to leave ESPN.

As for the pain-killer scandal, that was brewing before this McNabb flap.

My major beef was that no one challenged Limbaugh on his "assertion" regarding the media's supposed bias towards McNabb once he made that statement. From what I had been reading, ESPN execs had told Berman, Jackson, etc. not to respond to Rush's comments. From a broadcasting standpoint, the program would've degenrated to claims and counter claims. However, he needed to be challenged in that environment- which he doesn't in radio because all calls are screened and handpicked for air.

ESPN knew what they were getting: an opinionated personality who was there to serve as a provacateur, not a football analyst.

Behold the results.

 

Fixed. Fixed goooood.

 

Heh heh heh

 

I could see people arguing that McNabb is overrated because:

A) He plays in a big eastern market

B) He's Philly's first very athletic QB since Randall Cunningham, and thus any flashes of great athleticism from him get more attention....

C) He's been a QB for a winning team, which always makes the QB look better, no matter how his team wins.

The problem I have with Rush is that he really did pick the wrong QB to make the comparison with. In 1988 he might have had a point, but McNabb's been runner-up for MVP and come close to two Super Bowls - and to me that made the statement even more ridiculous.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that the sports media roots for minorities in sports/positions that are traditionally played by whites. Is there any doubt that, at least early on, the media rooted for Tiger Woods greatness based in part on the fact that he's half-black? The article naming him as Sportsman of the Year at 21 before he had won a major championship specifically said it was because he was bringing young ethnic and racial minorities to golf and thus changing the face of the game. That's part of the attention he's gotten and it's undeniable. And in fact now, you occasionally see it lamented that he's turned out to be a raceless corporate tool more interested in hawking Oldsmobiles than being a groundbreaking racial crusader.

If Donovan McNabb (or Steve McNair, or whoever) goes on to win three Super Bowls, yes, everyone will marvel at his skills, and yes, he will be remembered for the touchdown passes he throws to win the games and yes, he will often be compared without mention of race to all the great white quarterbacks. But he also will be remembered in part as the first great black quarterback, a pioneer who broke the mold. To say that the media gets out ahead of itself IN THE HOPES that such a thing will happen strikes me as far from indefensible. Nor is it necessarily a bad thing. As the guy in Slate article said, would it have been wrong for the media to root for the success of Jackie Robinson in 1947? One of the fw and most significant contributions that sports has made to wider society is in the area of racial integration. But it is something that can distort the perception of performance, and confer accolades on someone who has not yet earned it. I don't follow the Eagles, the NFL and McNabb enough to know if that's specifically the case with the attention he receives.

This isn't as big of an issue as it was in, say, 1988, when the list of black quarterbacks began and ended with Randall Cunningham. And when Steve McNair went to the Super Bowl with Tennessee a couple years ago, his race didnt register all that much. But I suspect there is a lingering hope in the sports media that a great black quarterback emerges, and, given the history of the position in the NFL, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

 

Uh, yes I think there is a great deal of doubt. I certainly don't think one ought to treat claims like these as somehow self-evident. First, on the question of Woods, let's not forget that by the time he turned pro he'd already had the most distinguished amateur career in decades, arguably ever. It's not like he was some unknown that sportswriters could "root" for. As for one magazine naming him Sportsman of the Year, so what? You should know by now that with that particular publication: A) They have often named someone less because of their sporting achievement and more on their social achievement (see: USWNT in 1999); B) the magazine hardly speaks for all sports media; and C) it's not like Woods was a schlub and the award was totally out of left field (see above).

Second, back to the issue of black quarterbacks, let's remember it was not all that long ago, the 80s in fact, when there was open debate in the sports press about whether African American athletes were up the challenge of quarterbacking NFL teams. And let's also remember that these debates were not couched in terms of "gee, it sure would be nice if one could handle the job" but more like "you know, they're better off sticking to cornerback and wide receiver." That's why it struck such a raw nerve, not just among the "liberal" press (a concept that is frankly a joke, especially in sports journalism), but among current and former NFL players who remember these hurtful debates all too well.

(As for the Slate article, I think it wrong for a dozen different football-related reasons. It's also interesting to note that the author doesn't present any evidence -- none at all -- to support his claim that it all has something to do with McNabb being a black quarterback. That's all supposition on his part, no better than Rush's despite having the luxury of writing a long article. Indeed, it is interesting to note how the discussion is totally devoid of any direct evidence on the question of black quarterbacks being "propped up" by the media. Friends, correlation is not causation, and I am dubious that there is even correlation in this case.)

But apart from all these debates, what really struck me about the whole Rush fiasco is what a little chickensh!t he is. He makes this claim and, as soon as he starts catching flak, he hides on his radio show and at that friendly broadcasters' meeting where, not surprisingly, he answered no questions. If you are in the business of making startling claims to supposedly inject debate, then why duck the debate? He was invited to numerous opportunities over the course of the week to engage in serious discussions related to his statement, and he hid from every one of them. Bill O'Reilly is no different: They will bully people they don't like, make outrageous claims, insult character, and then run as soon as they're challenged on it. Yes, Rush is a chickensh!t through and through. In his business, I think that's much worse than whatever political ideology someone holds.

 

Exactly, 2 games don't make a season- even in the NFL. My previous post w/the link to McNabb's stats and honors speak for themselves. One of the great things about athletics is that a player's performance speaks for itself. McNabb has done the job up to this point and done it exceptionally well. Had it been Aaron Brooks or Kordell Stewart- you'd have to find written proof that the liberal media's propping them up for "social reasons." But this is McNabb we're talking about: booed in Philly on draft day and proving 'em wrong since then.

The "Black QB Question" had been answered back when Doug Williams won the SuperBowl back in '88. Hell, it had been an incomplete sentence when James Harris and Joe Gilliam where vying for playing time in the 70's. Warren Moon completed the sentence and Williams simply turned the period into an exclamation point. All who have come afterward are simply adding paragraphs and pages.

ESPN's Ralph Wiley weighs in on Rush's statements with his lengthy article.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/031003.html

There have always been these kinds of "criticisms" when it comes to Black acheivment. The notion that even when we do excel and are congratulated for it, it's still undeserved. Because after-all, it's just "us."

 

Remember how long it took ESPN to fire him.

I think ESPN, left to their own devices, wouldn't have fired him. The NFL obviously had their say in this matter.

I'm actually thinking back to the Grant Wahl article some years ago on the decline of high school football. Gene Washington actually brought up the possibility of a Bradenton-style set of football academies, which was indirectly attributed to the decline of football in the inner cities, whose athletes are highly coveted by the lot of us. Allowing Limbaugh to carry on has the potential of creating less football players and more basketball players... maybe even soccer players. So that, in addition to missing on the chance for someone to actually debate Limbaugh in future weeks on TV, is why I'm really quite sad that Limbaugh was fired.

There's more...

I was driving up to Portland on Thursday when all this hit the fan. I thought Tony Kornheiser had the best point, saying that radio is very much a personality-driven medium, but television is an EVENT-driven medium, and Limbaugh failed to grasp this.

Thing is, in polling several radio stations that day, I recall O'Reilly (and half the "other" conservative commentators) basically bashing and riding him rather than supporting him. Kornheiser's comments are probably the window to this (you know, competition), especially since the drug issue is going to be FAR more damaging than the ESPN issue. Something to keep in mind...

 

A personality driven medium, that really doesn't encourage debate. It allows said radio personality to spout off beliefs without any proof to back up your statements(or data skewed to support your statements).

Gee, had Rush made those comments on "The Sports Reporters," a loudmouth like Lupica would've torn his commnets to shreds. And Lupica emphatically said McNabb was overrated two weeks ago.

I agree that "forcing" Rush out was a bad decision, simply because he gets to play martyr to his radio listeners and his synchophants. He needed to be debated on his statements on the air as soon as he made them. I do believe that the drug issue may have more to with his resignation than the flap over McNabb.