I'd love to see this guy's resume. It appears he has never spoken publicly or been on camera. I think he won a drawing outside the stadium before the game to do a live sideline report.
ESPN Monday Night Football Diversity
- Thread starter Ron Burgundy
- Start date
He Dipped into the wrong field
Same could be said for Rex Ryan... stick with defensive coordination Rex....
Sent from my SM-N900T using Steeler Nation mobile app
Sent from my SM-N900T using Steeler Nation mobile app
IronMike52
Registered
Don't talk **** on the MAC.
IronMike52
Registered
Rex was easily the worst of the three. Beth Mowins is a good play-by-play announcer. Most of the mouth breathing dudes who ***** about a chick calling the game can't string a coherent thought together, let alone broadcast a sporting event.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,527
- Reaction score
- 18,555
- Points
- 113
Tell that to ESPN.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
That's just what I get told when I present more left-leaning viewpoints in here. And I notice it in general all over social media. It's usually the conservatives I've seen complain about "political talk" messing up their football. On this forum, I see demands that posts get moved to the other forum because I polluted them with my left-leaning opinions. But yet, when it's "political talk" that is aligned with their own beliefs, suddenly we don't care that it's in the football forum because it's an echo-chamber of like-minded groupthink spewing out the same opinions so, who cares if it has anything to do with football, right?
ohhhh myyy
Hit!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,527
- Reaction score
- 18,555
- Points
- 113
Rush was hired to be on the pregame with Berman and the rest. They gave him a "challenge flag" and he was supposed to be off at his own desk and throw the flag when he disagreed with something that was said at the main desk.
They were talking about McNabb and how good he was. Rush threw his flag and essentially said 2 things. 1 McNabb was not that good and was totally overrated, getting credit for wins provided by tha Eagles defense. Most of the panel actually agreed with that. 2 McNabb was overrated because the media was "desirous" that a black QB succeed and that was why the media hyped him so much.
Point 2 was barely debated, but most agreed McNabb did get more hype than his play deserved. Tom Jackson debated on how good McNabb was but had no issue at all with Rush saying the media overrated him because they wanted to see a black QB get credit.
the panel mostly agrees with Rush. Irvin ends it by saying Rush has a point.
Of course days later, the media made it out to be some huge racist rant and Rush was fired.
here's the actual segment and you will see it's nothing. Especially compared to the manufactured scream-fests ESPN airs daily today.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,527
- Reaction score
- 18,555
- Points
- 113
I think there's a big difference between a football thread that somebody hijacks into politics and this thread where the whole point is to discuss ESPN injecting politics at all costs. ESPN made this a football topic by making it part of their MNF broadcast.
It's also right on the point that we even have a political forum separate from the foootball forum and have since the beginning of the site (or at least as far back as i can remember). It's well known that sports is the escape from real life and nobody wants the 2 mixing very much.
ESPN should follow suit. ESPN is sports only with only the bare coverage of the non-sports issues. Then have ESPN-S (social) that is all twitter and facebook and social justice and whatever. See which gets better ratings but rarely let them mix, just like on this board.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
I don't disagree that sports are an escape. But man sports and sociopolitical issues have been overlapping since Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, integrating schools, etc. It's just kind of a reality, and really hard one to avoid as a conversation topic among sports fans. But even if we're accepting that they don't belong together on this forum, I'm totally okay with that. I just want consistency. The thread I referenced before was already SEVERAL posts deep of people dumping on Kaepernick (with annoying childish nicknames in tow) for everything else on top of his football skills. It was FAR from a football thread. Just like this is not a football thread. It would have been left to continue and still be in this forum today if I had not showed up with a dissenting opinion to break up the echo chamber.
So all I'm asking for is consistency. A thread complaining about ESPN putting less talented folks on the air for the sake of "diversity" (which itself is not a proven fact, it is an opinion slanted by right-wing leanings) is absolutely, unequivocally, NOT a football thread. So I disagree with you on that point. This is no more of a football topic than me arguing for the merits of Kaepernick's stance with a bunch of folks who have already been slamming him for several posts. Because the prevailing sentiment on this board is a heavy right-lean, all these circle-jerk anti-media/anti-Kaepernick threads are allowed to hang around as long as anyone wishes because no one complains of their existence in the football forum, because everyone agrees with what's being posted. So, consistency please.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,527
- Reaction score
- 18,555
- Points
- 113
You say it's not proven that they used this guy simply because of a diversity initiative. Do you then believe this guy was the best sideline reporter available to ESPN to do a MNF game?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Hopefully this will pare down ESPN a bit so that, when I am in a hotel room, I don't have to click so many times to advance past ESPN programming.
Emmitt : Well the Defense done got blow'd up and all of those pen-tillys, ahh penalties on Third down cost them the First down scrimmage line.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
The fact that you pulled out a side note from parentheses as the only part of my post that you answered tells me everything I need to know. Even if your statement is true, it doesn't make this a football thread. The belief that "if enough people in here agree with me, it must be a football thread" is flawed logic.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
yeah its not about the facts, its what i think your intentions are or how you believe things should be,,,,,,
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
No it's about whether this is a football thread or not. You're the one who demanded the Kaepernick thread be moved ONLY after I broke up your circle jerk of vitriol toward him. It was no more a football thread BEFORE I got there than it was AFTER I got there, but your sensibilities couldn't take a dissenting opinion so it became "Separate my politics and football!" So, it seems to me that you're projecting, and the reality is really the other way around.
And I think you are confused on what is a "fact". Had ESPN said "we did this for the sake of diversity" then it would be a fact. You are, once again, seeing the world thru the lens of "your intentions". ESPN may have seen a future up-and-coming star in Sergio Dipp but then the moment ended up being too big for him. He's been employed with ESPN for four years, so obviously they saw something in the kid. How could anyone have predicted such a huge embarrassing failure? Your opinion that this was about "diversity only" assumes they KNEW how bad he was before they put him on the air, which makes very little sense. Why would any company do that? They MIGHT have, which would be a stupid decision, but there are many reasons why they wouldn't do that, so to just assert that they did is an ASSUMPTION and an OPINION that is based on your inherently conservative leaning, NOT based on facts.
So, in short, no you are not arguing "facts". I am arguing facts. And the FACTS are that:
1) YOU specifically enjoyed a political/non-football thread with many posts and different posters dumping on Colin Kaepernick in the football forum
2) YOU specifically called for that same thread to be moved, citing it was not a football thread, and you need your politics and sports separated, once a poster who didn't agree with the current circle jerk came in and actually made salient points from the other point of view
3) This thread exists to complain about ESPN making employment and programming decisions based on "diversity". This literally has nothing to do with football. It has to do with how the media presents football to us. This is as pure "non-football" and "sociopolitical" as you can get.
4) YOU specifically have posted in multiple non-football/sociopolitical threads, including this one, since then, with no complaints whatsoever about their content. You do not complain for these threads to be moved because the content largely agrees with your sensibilities.
So, given that all 4 of the points above are actual facts, logic would deduce that many posters on this forum (and you specifically) are wildly inconsistent in your stances on which threads do and do not belong in the football forum. In fact, given these facts above, it suggests that for many posters on this board (especially you), the "political talk" you want removed is really just code for 'liberal opinions", because you are completely okay with conservative opinions. As if your conservative opinions simply do not qualify as "political talk" until a liberal shows up to break up the groupthink. This seems like the very definition of "yeah its not about the facts, its what i think your intentions are or how you believe things should be,,,,,,"
Mods - surely you can see this?
Last edited:
Fact , if the guy wasnt ******, nobody would have even noticed he was a diversity attempt. I have no lens of intentions. **** off douche.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Not sure what you are complaining about. This is about ESPN and could be in either forum. Regarding your other point about polluting with opinion, it is a fact that lefties far more commonly air their political opinions in non-political venues. See any awards show or ESPN or even the Irma telethon. It is tiresome.
You won't see the same from conservatives.
It's about football broadcasting therefore I put it in the football forum. Just another Lib that can't handle it when the majority of people disagree with him.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
And there it is, the first and most obvious sign of a lost argument
This is nonsense and you know it. ESPN is a tv network that broadcasts football (among many other things), and this thread is about their hiring/programming decisions being based on sociopolitical factors. ESPN being the culprit does NOT make it a football thread. Just like if this were about the Golf channel it wouldn't be a "golf" thread. It would still be a thread bitching about a company making "diversity" decisions.
It undermines your argument that you think this is a "fact". Your own personal point of view which is naturally biased to your belief system does not equal data or facts. See Curt Schilling, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Tomi Lahren, etc. etc. It is tiresome from that point of view, too.
I love disagreeing and arguing - as you may be able to tell. My gf is 2 hours away right now so I've had more free time than usual. I just want people who say "keep politics out of football" to follow their own advice. That's it. And no this thread isn't about football broadcasting. It's about complaining that a company makes decisions about WHO does its football broadcasting based on diversity. That's different. It's no more about football than if this thread were made bitching about your own company making diversity hires. It is a social/political topic, period, the end. It just happens to have a tangential relationship to football based on the subject of the bitching being ESPN. Again, see the "golf channel" example. If I made a thread "ESPN reporter Jemele Hill has first amendment right violated by White House calling for her firing" y'all would be up in arms trying to get mods to move the thread. BUT IT'S ABOUT ESPN!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
No. It is an obvious fact. It undermines your credibility to argue that.