I realize some people might disagree with me here, and that’s fine. I just read this article about a Golf Channel anchor being suspended for using the term “lynching” in the midst of a joke about how to stop Tiger Woods, and I’m a little steamed about the reaction.
To summarize, the anchor, Kelly Tilghman, was chatting with pro golfer Nick Faldo about Tiger Woods’ current dominance in the game and how other golfers could take him down. Faldo joked that “to take Tiger on, maybe they should just gang up for a while.” Tilghman replied, “Lynch him in a back alley.”
OK. I think it’s not that hard to see why some people might take offense to that statement. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s all that difficult to see how Tilghman arrived at her choice of words given Faldo’s lead-in. Poor choice of words? Absolutely. The diatribe of a racist? Hardly. The article mentions that Tilghman and Woods have known each other for over a decade and are friends, and that she very quickly made an apology directly to him. She issued a statement to that effect, Woods accepted the apology and defended her through his representative saying that he knows there was no ill-intent in her statement. And then she apologized on the air for her mistake.
OK, so it sounds like everyone has handled the issue as professionally as possible under the circumstances, and that’s the end of the story. Right? Of course not. Official Spokesman for All Of Us Black Folk Reverend Al Sharpton had his say. He has essentially said Tilghman is the same as Don Imus, that she has insulted all black people, and called for her firing. Since his protest, the Golf Channel has decided to suspend her for two weeks. I’ve yet to hear whether this will satisfy the great Reverend. He said that it doesn’t even matter whether or not Tilghman is a racist. :rolleyes:
Anyway, all of that to say that Al Sharpton does not speak for me. An anchor made a dumb mistake and apologized to all the right people (Tiger Woods and the public) for having done so. It was good enough for me.
He used to palatable, like when he was on SNL- which I still can’t believe they let someone with his background do. But calling for the job of everyone who makes a comment that could in any way be construed as racist makes him look ridiculous, like he did in his jogging suit/gold chain/Tawana Brawley days. Should Al have been fired (from what job?) for lying on that cop? It’s a good thing people make these comments for his sake, otherwise he’d have nothing to do.
Just a nitpick: I think the title “Reverend” is always supposed to be preceded by “the.” So it would be either “The Reverend Al Sharpton” or “Mr. Sharpton,” but not “Reverend Sharpton” as if Reverend were a military rank. This rule is violated all the time, but just technically speaking, it’s the official grammar.
She’s apparently been suspended by the Golf Channel but I think even that is ridiculous. I think it’s pretty clear that it was just an awkward choice of words with no conscious racist intent. Who hasn’t phrased something in exactly the worst possible way at some time in their lives.
I’m usually not as anti-Sharpton as a lot of people are, but yeah, he’s full of shit on this one. Hell, as awkward as Tilghman’s remark came out, it was actually intended as a compliment to Tiger, not an insult to anyone.
You know, I would have been OK with the suspension, I think, if they had decided right away that it was an appropriate punishment. But what really irritates me is that the Golf Channel did it, it would seem, as a direct response to Sharpton raising his voice. He and his supporters now have everyone quaking in fear at the thought of protests and boycotts if they draw his ire. Which is, of course, exactly how he wants things.
But he’s already issued a statement that he didn’t find the remark offensive, so he’s already gone to bat for Tilghman. And given his statement, presumably he thinks she is having her career damaged unjustly.
I assume it’s obvious (maybe not) that Sharpton’s rationale is such that for Tiger to denounce him or tell him to STFU wouldn’t matter to Sharpton’s argument which, I’d assert, is not to defend Tiger personally but to object to the use of the term in that context within the broader culture. Sort of like when a person is criminally attacked and the state prosecutes; it doesn’t matter if the person forgives the attacker or decides the attack wasn’t intended. The state still pursues it on behalf of the entire society. In the same way, I expect Sharpton’s objection is on behalf of society, as he sees it/thinks it should be.
Personally, I’m as or more annoyed by folks not standing up for free expression and speech in circumstances like that. It just lends credence to the assertions made, IMO. I’m not even sure she should have apologized, frankly. A discussion about the inappropriateness of calling her out might have been more appropriate.
As for suspending her, though I understand the channel has economic priorities that are presumably the entire basis for such a decision, it’s all a part of this entire speech-chilling post-Imus effect. The city from which Sharpton hails, after all, passed a resolution banning (“symbolic moratorium”) the word “nigger” by all citizens.
It’s so amusing that human beings, through their official organizations, consistently miss the point of most everything.
As for Sharpton, you either have to agree that there’s something to be said for wanting to ban/regulate/limit speech in the general culture or not. I vote for not.
If the people who think Al Sharpton is dead on concerning this issue decide to stop watching the Golf Channel, I suspect their ratings will decline 0.0000034 percent. :dubious: