[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Well, why did YOU find it worth responding to when Bob pointed out that people are trying to fire him?
[/QUOTE]
I was calling him on his bullshit of course. I knew there was no serious call for them to put the guy in jail, and thus no serious free speech issues, that it was merely some folks ranting about firing him, which is militantly unsurprising.
Would yawn be more appropriate? Sorry, not sure what would work better.
Probably for the best. Sadly, I wish the discussion has stayed on track, though I guess I’m unsurprised that a gun thread would go spinning off on tangents.
Funny thing about partisan advocacy. It’s always something that only the other side does when they air their views. When one’s own side does it, then it is just a statement of the obvious. If Costas had come down on the other side, we’d still have this same thread going only with the other side defending Costas.
It must be nice to live in such a simple world. In my world, people are complicated. They make decisions and they sometimes change their mind. They act impulsively and often regret their behavior. Perhaps we can get together for a Steeler tailgate, and you can let me know what it’s like to have no rgerets about anything you’ve ever done.
Speaking of doing it right, when I was on my internship rotation on the inpatient unit, one guy there didn’t get it right. I understand that his face was majorly fucked up. I never knew for sure, since the bandages didn’t come off during my time there. He was not suicidal when I knew him. I wonder if that changed for him when he went back to trying to live his life, except now with a majorly disfigured face.
I envy beimg able to sit back and conclude “Well fuck him. He bought his ticket; he took his chances.” Life would be easier if I could do that, I bet.
Again, it’s not being anti-gun that I have a problem with in this case, it’s not as if I can’t have a polite conversaton with someone who is anti-gun. It just rubs me the wrong way when you try to play the role of the sage that’s above it all who’s only concerned with the rationality of debate when you’re actually only looking to criticize those on the other side.
Actually being above the frey and rational about issues is something praiseworthy. You are not, hence, you are trying to steal credit for something you aren’t doing, and that’s far more annoying than simply being on the other side of an issue as me.
Yes, that’s actually my point, that sports aren’t important. We don’t need sports journalism to try to inform our worldview on unrelated subjects. Keep it fluff. Go be a journalist in some other field if you feel like you have to lecture to us about the big issues.
Are you saying I’m a liar, and that my position of “sports journalists shouldn’t be pretend to have the gravitas to tackle real issues, and we should keep sports as the harmless escapist fluff it already is” is a complete lie then?
Not worth it and it’s off-topic, so…
Approximately how long did it take Costas to make his statement during that half-time show, and does he have a habit of talking about stuff other than sports during the half-time shows?
edited to add: And do other sportscasters sometimes go off-topic during these shows?
I think I quoted his entire digression in the OP. It didn’t look like long…maybe 30 seconds at most. I have no idea if other sportscasters generally diverge into politically charged topics when they are talking about sports…I don’t watch sports so someone else will have to answer that. I saw this one because it was on CNN’s front page, and thought it would be a good topic for debate.
What are you on about? If that is your opinion, then that is your opinion. How can an opinion be a lie?
Look, I am as pro-gun as anybody at this board and, frankly, far less polite about it than most. If I were interested in football and had my enjoyment of the game marred by some talking head airing his political views, I’d be sure to notify his sponsors that I will no longer purchase their products until that talking head is off the air.
I seem to recall Costas making me roll my eyes on a regular basis. He seems like a guy who wants to cover the Big Issues and wisely lecture us all, but that he’s getting a shitload to be a sports journalist, so he’s trying to integrate his big ideas with his low station. Comes off as douchey to me. I think there was something similar to this a month or two ago, where his halftime speech went political, but I can’t remember what it was about.
You’re saying that anyone who objects to this only objects to this because they disagree with him. That if he were advocating the other way, they’d support him.
I’m saying that I think sports journalism is fluff and should remain so, it’s not the place of a sports journalist to start advocating political issues.
Your statement precludes my position from existing, therefore you’re calling me a liar. This is the trouble you get into when you say “everyone that does X actually only does it for Y reason” - you insult anyone who may actually have Z reason.
It’s a good topic, but finding out how often going off-topic happens in the biz might help determine if people are upset because it was inappropriate, or upset because of the topic itself.
Well, aren’t you the delicate little blossom? If I had wanted to call you a liar, I’d have called you a liar. Don’t let me stop you from finding an extra reason to be morally outraged today, though.
I think he’s trying to divine how often folks in sports casting go off topic about politically sensitive issues, to determine whether it happens all the time or if this was a rare event.
I don’t know the answer to that, assuming I’m correctly interpreting things, but I remember a sports caster or something like that talking about black athletes (so not completely off topic) years ago and how because they are black, or something about being black, makes them better athletes…and getting blasted for that. Maybe it’s relevant.
So, if NBC wants to offer football coverage with a dusting of liberal/pro-gun control messages from Costas, in theory, what’s wrong with that? Perhaps Fox could cover the same game with a conservative/pro-gun control message. And maybe PBS could offer coverage with a neutral political viewpoint. Ah, but you say, only one network can offer television coverage of any one game. Interesting, eh? I think the real problem here might actually be the NFL’s de-facto monopoly on professional football and the NFL’s ability to grant a TV monopoly to one party. Any number of newspaper reporters can show up at a game and cover it. Why shouldn’t the same be true of TV?
I’m just saying you exclude the possibility that someone actually has an opinion on this OP - whether or not it was appropriate for Costas to do what he did - and instead the only thing that determines your reaction to it is whether or not you disagree with it.
And it’s clearly wrong. It relies on a simplistic worldview where you’re willing to declare the motivations of everyone who may have a stance on this issue to be entirely in lockstep. And it shits on the question posed by the OP.
But hey, we’re both pro-gun. Therefore this argument between you and I right now can’t actually be happening, because it’s only whether we’re on the same issue or not that’s relevant, right?
Well, yeah. If it was the fact that he went off-topic that upsets people so, then I’d like to know why they didn’t get equally upset when he supposedly went off-topic in the past. Also, finding exactly how rare this type of thing happens in the broadcast booth would further define whether it’s the action, or the topic itself.
The point is not that there should be diversity in the message, it’s that the damn message never should have been included in the first place!
It’s really a simple thing.
As for the NFL’s monopoly on TV coverage, that’s not even remotely related to the topic, but the answer, just to get it out of the way, is that it’s their product and they can do whatever they want with it, up to and including not showing it on TV at all. Just as ABC has no right to show CBS’s programs, nobody can show NFL programming without their express consent.
They did. It doesn’t take much looking to find people who object to Costas’ bloviating every week. But I hardly expect you to take my word for it, because you’re still trying to get the “right” answer to a question that’s already been answered.