An opinion is not a fact.
But opinions can contain lies. For example, Don Imus was fired for calling a woman’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos”. This was a lie, as many of them did not have nappy hair and none of them were confirmed sluts. Therefore one can criticize Imus even though he was just expressing an opinion
Costas stated opinions. Some of his claims are debatable, obviously - that both Belcher and Perkins would be alive, for example, is unprovable. As is the claim that gun culture increases fatality rates in domestic violence (although perhaps some sort of statistical analysis could be done). But he didn’t lie, so unless his employer objects to him expressing his opinion then he’s free and clear. I’d guess his employer loves the coverage, myself.
Debatable? He was utterly dishonest talking about something that he really knew nothing about. It was all about Costas being self righteous and going where he had no business going.
Costas’ business is talking on TV about whatever his bosses tell him he’s allowed to talk about. In this case it was the role a handgun had in a handgun murder/suicide involving a player in the sport he was covering. The idea that he “had no business” talking about it is ludicrous. His primary business is to drive viewers to SNF - I’d say he succeeded in that beyond his bosses wildest dreams.
Whether he “knew nothing about” it or not is irrelevant. Sports commentators have been talking about things they know nothing about for years - a willingness to talk about things you only peripherally understand is basically a prerequisite for the job.
If you can point out a factual claim in his statement that is utterly dishonest then maybe we can agree that he screwed up on that point. But I don’t see anything that goes beyond “debatable” or perhaps “dubious”. It certainly isn’t a “nappy-headed hos” moment, or even a Jimmy the Greek moment.
What’s unconscionable is the way gun proponents go completely overboard about any anti-gun thought. A guy makes a brief comment expressing dislike of our gun culture , and all of sudden it’s some huge controversy, like he just insulted Mohammed. I’m sorry that gun owners had to have their ears assaulted by an opinion that guns make crimes worse, and then were forced to discuss that opinion over and over again so their personal anger over it could be heard.
It won’t. People were speculating about the possibility of traumatic brain damage almost immediately after the shooting, and they’ll continue to do so after most people have forgotten that Bob Costas said anything about it.
This is so uninformed I will have to consider never complaining about breast cancer paraphernalia in NFL games again.
This is a terrible analysis. There’s no point in defending Whitlock here. He presented something that is plausible but unknowable as if it were a fact, and at best, that’s very disingenuous. Imus was not criticized for being wrong about the hair and sexual activities of the Rutgers basketball team. He was criticized because his commentary was offensively sexist and arguably racist and based mostly on the fact that some of them have tattoos. Even if it had been accurate, who would give a shit? The fact that they play basketball and some of them have tattoos and kinky hair isn’t an invitation to a Don Imus to weigh in with his opinion on their sex lives.
As a general rule, I find that people who start by trying to define their points as undebatable are saying “I sure hope nobody challenges me, 'cause I got nothing”.
This is both over-broad, and misses the point. [ul]
[li]Most human beings don’t kill their girlfriends no matter how badly they lose their shit.[/li][/ul][ul]
[li]If drugs and alcohol are partially responsible for triggering this incident, should Costas not equally have been calling for prohibition of drugs and alcohol?[/li][/ul]
It’s too bad that he isn’t willing to debate. Because otherwise someone could counter “I get that people (mostly wrongly, but it isn’t totally insane) think that guns cause people to kill, but to deny the obvious - that defensive uses of guns in the US greatly outnumber the number of gun murders every year - is mind-boggling.”
Regards,
Shodan
That would depend on how much of the responsibility you might assign to drugs or alcohol and how much to, say, guns. After all most people who get drunk or high don’t commit murder either.
The gun advocates bear a lot of similarity to Muslims reacting to any negative depiction of Mohammed. They like to think that guns are what make freedom possible, but apparently that freedom they pretend to love doesn’t include the freedom to disagree with them about guns. I’m sure that if Costas had said something like “Of course we can’t use this tragedy to talk about gun control”, the gun advocates would be praising him, although this view would be no less political than the one he actually expressed. The problem isn’t that he expressed a political viewpoint, the problem is that they disagreed with it. The problem is that the audience likely included a lot of people who don’t digest a lot of political discourse, so it’s in the gun advocates’ interest to keep people from thinking about the problem. I’m sure the NRA is shedding crocodile tears over this, knowing that the increase in paranoia that it sparks among gun owners is going to put money in their bank.
But neither Costas nor Atrios made any mention of outlawing drugs or alcohol at all. Why focus solely on one factor and ignore the others?
Regards,
Shodan
Odd, I thought drugs were outlawed…
At the moment there’s no evidence of drugs or alcohol (or head trauma). We know a gun was used. If it turns out those other were factors were present we could have that discussion. This is one reason why the public isn’t well served by a brief soundbyte as a substitute for an actual conversation. Atrios, unlike Costas, seems to have focused his commentary on domestic violence and at least used some statistics to make an argument - not an argument about any particular gun laws but an argument that guns make domestic violence situations more likely to end with a murder. We don’t know that there was a history of violence between Belcher and Perkins (although it’s starting to look like their marriage was in trouble) but it’s at least possible to have a reasoned discussion about it.
So is murder.
Which explains why Costas didn’t call for a ban on murder, just like he didn’t call for a ban on drugs. He probably didn’t call for a ban on alcohol because we’ve actually tried that as a nation.
Of course, he didn’t call for a ban on guns either. He commented on gun culture and how access to guns can turn fights into murder/suicides. And, predictably, he’s attacked for even mentioning the weapon - even told that he “has no business” talking about it.
I have no interest in defending Whitlock - he’s proven himself an idiot many times over. I’m merely saying that Costas has exactly as much right to talk about his opinions on gun control during SNF as you or I do at our jobs. Which is, precisely as much right as our bosses give us.
Conceded, although it’s not like sports commentators have a sterling record of not talking about athletes sex lives.
How long was the halftime show, and what percentage of it did Costas take up with his little speech?
I agree. But that doesn’t speak to the accuracy of what he said.
Yeah, my opinion is that the halftime show would have been perfectly fine without that bit on Jovan Belcher and I don’t think anyone else on the planet WOULD disagree, but hey it’s done and now that game without this controversial comment won’t ever exist so reality we live in is the half time game the way it turned out. At this point I think most people who watched it aren’t analyzing why it was brought up or not left out the analyzing branches out at should (should we ban guns or not?) I’m not quite sure what his idea of control is. I think it was a brilliant plan on their part, I mean that stuff was tele prompted so it was planned out, and whoever planned it was obviously in favor of gun control and what better way to swing an audience jam packed with football fans in that direction than to bring up the unfortunate death of a football player most of his immediate family.
First, has anybody tried to deprive Costas, or you , or anybody else from either side of the debate of their freedom to disagree? From what I see, everybody concerened is still free to bloviate to their heart’s content. Whether I agree with Costas, or not, all he has done is to instigate discussion of what is “appropriate” material for a sports broadcast. Costas still has his job. The various sports radio broadcasts and their hosts are still in place. You’re still a mod. I’m still a guest.
When a public figure takes the opportunity to air his personal opinions, he is also accepting the risk that public reaction to that opinion will not all be positive. The pro-gun lobby has been vocal and well-organized for a long time. Unless Costas has lived in a sensory deprivation chamber for the last 25 or 30 years, he had to be aware of that and aware of what reaction his speech would cause.
Gun rights advocates are within their rights to disagree with him, to criticize him, and to express their own opinions to his network bosses and his corporate sponsors.
BobLibDem wasn’t a mod last time I checked.