Thank you rgw. I understand it when you put it that way. I understand LGBT, veterans, NOW, NAACP and other groups with an agenda boycott TV shows and the like but I never realized taking a neutral/unbiased stance would cost business. I suppose a neutral opinion is against PC. Never thought about it like that.
Link: ESPN pinky swears to stop political commentary
- Thread starter AlexanderFan
- Start date
You're right. I've never felt in game coverage had anything political in nature to it. It's all the coverage that fills the airwaves during the week between games. I used to enjoy watching the weekly coverage when they actually talked about the game and everything associated between the white lines. It's when I felt like I was watching FoxNews/CNN that I began to become uninterested.
There is no such thing as a neutral stance. Not remarking on something or censoring opinions is in itself a political position. Often it favors conservatism in this country but it cuts both ways.
What about when a player is ineligible due to violating NCAA rules on amateur status of which have a litany of racial/class political implications?
I disagree. If I'm at a birthday party and the purpose of everyone there is to celebrate. Yet there's "that guy" who decides he wants to bring up some hot topic political discussion. I am in no way obligated to respond or "give my stance" simply because he chooses to hijack the event we're there for. If I choose not to respond doesn't mean I condone or am against whatever he's talking about. It just means I've chosen to respect the event we're attending. I think companies have this same right to "not respond" and to provide their customer with what they are actually paying for and are there to do or receive.
I've got a family member who unfortunately does this every Thanksgiving and Christmas. He's about gotten his butt kicked several times. He's been asked to leave on more than one occasion.
Last edited:
I think for the most part, I think the ESPN political commentary in sports has been very very very mild. There are three huge exceptions in which I think ESPN let things go way too far, and they are 1) The whole Colin Kapernick situation and 2) Brady and Belichick's relationship with Trump 3) every Trump-sports related incident. Other than those two situations I think ESPN has been no worse than any other non political entity in throwing a little politics in here or there in their programs.
Last edited:
It's what we call in the auditing world as "scope". It's not within the "scope" of what we're doing so even though we realize there maybe an "issue over here". That isn't within the "scope" of this audit.
So, would this mean you can't criticize a player for breaking said rule? Because once you criticize someone for breaking a rule it'd be pretty disingenuous to then ignore the context of the rule/and that players situation.
Really? Do players not get criticized for penalties committed during a game because they might be at a disadvantage (ala FCS against P5 games)?
Again, there's a way to do it without bringing up politics into the discussion.
Also understand I'm not saying don't talk about it at all. I'm just saying know the time and place of the discussion. Just because a rule was broken doesn't mean the topic should be why the rule itself was bad. It's two separate discussions.
I think at some point there has to be a stopping point or predetermined boundaries set in the conversation or it becomes an endless conversation of topics that ultimately completely takes you away from the original reason you're there. I think that is what ultimately happened to ESPN's weekly daytime programming. They simply didn't know where to draw the line.
If the rule we are talking about is player compensation (and probably drug issues as well) then I think its almost impossible to not touch on topics many would consider political while having a fair discussion. If its a penalty during a game then I agree, no reason to bring politics into it.
Idk I don't completely disagree, in fact I think I probably mostly agree with you, i just also don't think the line is always that clear.
Last edited:
Really?
Only saw one side, on this post (with all the usual characters applauding), yet no one said "Uh, yeah..............this will get it kicked to NS, so you might want to tone it down."
Seriously, you were there, when some of this took place. You knew athletes who might have known it was going on. And if they did, they kept it to themselves.
But someone from API knows the answer. We know why he "knows". So, spare me the "both sides" argument.
So, since we know why he knows, yet remained silent, and did not call out our visitor, is that also a "political" response?
Was it apathy, or just "whatever, dude................"? Or just being nice hosts?
(I guess even being non-political can be spun as being political, if you really want it to be.)
Time for pre-dinner nap.
Latest threads
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 1
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 9
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0