
Moderators: wallace044, rtn393, Irv, cru77jones
dcapodic wrote:Ok, I will bite on this one....
Back during last year's presidential campaign, there was a lot of chatter about whether President OBama received more and undo bad press because of his race. I took the position that I thought not and that historically, POTUS was actually being treated extremely well by the press.
Let's zip ahead....is there anyone that still doubts that POTUS OBama was treated well? Has the past 8 months shown you what it is like to really get treated badly by the press and obviously it has nothing to do with race....right? Or maybe it does.
Mr. Glass wrote:
One would have to be honest about Trump inflicting many of his own wounds. I'd also acknowledge that mass media leans liberal and this definitely amplifies his errors.
However, Obama had no control over being of mixed heritage (thanks Obama Sr.). Obama's treatment was partially based on race, yes. The effigies, pixies, racially charged memes and disrespect were all about that. But other ill-treatment came from criticism of policies and proposals - that's fair game to me.
I can disagree with a president without personal attacks. Both 44 and 45 experience that, but come on dc - this guy is unknowledgeable, unaware and unconcerned about many important things. And THAT deserves ridicule because my country is looking stupid AF right now.
However, Obama had no control over being of mixed heritage (thanks Obama Sr.). Obama's treatment was partially based on race, yes. The effigies, pixies, racially charged memes and disrespect were all about that. But other ill-treatment came from criticism of policies and proposals - that's fair game to me.
The effigies, pixies, racially charged memes and disrespect were all about that.
dcapodic wrote:If you read the comments, they have nothing to do with policy. They are a personal attack. To me, I believe that there may not be a worse insult to a white person, especially in today's climate, as calling them a "white supremacist" ....never mind that the person you called that is the POTUS. I remember well a comment made about the POTUS being on a level that they deserve to be treated with respect regardless of your opinion of them. Of course, that comment was made about POTUS OBama so perhaps things are different now.
Mr. Glass wrote:@ dc - On the ESPN situ - IMO there is a time and place for commentary of this nature. ESPN doesn't seem to be the medium however, many Americans were also angered back in 1968 when Smith and Carlos raised their fists in defiance of human rights violations in the U.S. (during the Olympics hosted by Mexico). Freedom of speech does not come with the caveat of when or where, and I have 103 other channels I can turn to if I'm not trying to hear Jemele Hill's rant.
Some Americans are afraid/offended/uncomfortable with dialog on race. I get that (I hate when erectile dysfunction commercials come on TV) but uncomfortable dialog makes us stronger. I need to hear how a Kirk Shilling feels in order to understand his point of view. Only after hearing him can I conclude that he makes a good point or he's a fucking idiot. Same for Jemele. It would have been better to have someone there to debate her point of view. That might be my biggest issue with the network. Hell, have Kornheiser and Wilbon mix it up.
On the BO/DJT situ:
Two quotes to review:
Jemele Hill (ESPN personality) - "Donald Trump is a White Supremacist."
Carl Paladino (GOP Gubernatorial candidate) - "I'd like her (FLOTUS) to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,"
You're seriously trying to draw equivalency between these two types of comments? One statement can be quantified based on past actions, comments and even recent EOs. The other statement not so much. This logic sounds dangerously close to the "both sides" comment made about Charlottesville. I just can’t. The office should be respected without doubt, but what personal things would you point to showing Obama disrespected the office? What personal things would you point to showing DJT disrespects the office? A while back Bill Maher made a racially insensitive comment on his show. Immediately after a heartfelt apology he invited Ice Cube on and took his virtual lumps for said gaff. Today, nobody is calling Bill a White Supremacist. Why? Because the pattern does not exist. His actions before and after the comment do not indicate racism. Juxtapose that with DJT. Look at his cheerleaders. Look at his policies. Check out his rallies on YT. Look at how he feeds off of it. Look at his staff members and their backgrounds.
Jemele Hill (ESPN personality) - "Donald Trump is a White Supremacist."
Carl Paladino (GOP Gubernatorial candidate) - "I'd like her (FLOTUS) to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla,"
You're seriously trying to draw equivalency between these two types of comments?
dcapodic wrote:- Why is this all kind of a hush/hush "controversy" ? She is a well know on air personality yet I don't see much furor being made.
dcapodic wrote:- Why the double standard by ESPN? Could it be because that they are the left wing, liberal station that detractors have said they are for a while so only conservative views get squashed?
"IMO, Christian conservatism as become an oxymoron. What are your thoughts?"
"Yes. It's unfair that the conservative voice is not equal to that of the liberal voice."
Mr. Glass wrote:I get what you're saying dc. A double standard does exist and it cannot be defended. I went back to check on what Shilling and Cohn said, and Hill should have met the same fate as the others. Right or wrong, unfounded or not, I recognize the double standard and this is not fair.
But stopping there is like saying the Knicks won a basketball game because they scored 40 points in the first quarter. "Biting on this one" may have been a clear cut opportunity to further highlight ESPN (and mass media) for its bias, but are you willing to play three more quarters?
1. How long has the media ignored inner-city policing in this country?
2. How long has right-wing media demonized people of color?
3. How long will the right-wing media be given a pass (although as you stated, Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches are all red - thus confirming their influence) while they ignore the indicators of racism all around them?
I'm curious about your perspective. Is the right without bias? Are you speaking out as adamantly when they are? Who on the right provides dialog on these matters (before being forced):
- Attacked and stereotyped a Muslim Gold Star Mom.
- Said he prefers Jews rather than blacks counting his money as blacks are lazy.
- Said an American born judge was unfair simply because his parents were from Mexico.
- Ordered black employees off casino floors when VIPs visited.
- Put "C" for colored on rental applications from qualified black people.
- For 5 years questioned the American citizenship of our 1st black President.
- Declared the Central Park 5 guilty and deserving the death penalty then later did not apologize when DNA proved them innocent.
- Retweets false black crime data from white supremacists!
The President dc! Not some ESPN geek or some washed up unfunny comedian with a bloody rubber head. El Presidente!
Yes, the path of bigger discussion is my goal.
Yes, the path of bigger discussion is my goa
I'm curious about your perspective. Is the right without bias? Are you speaking out as adamantly when they are? Who on the right provides dialog on these matters (before being forced)
dcapodic wrote:Ok, I will bite on this one....
Back during last year's presidential campaign, there was a lot of chatter about whether President OBama received more and undo bad press because of his race. I took the position that I thought not and that historically, POTUS was actually being treated extremely well by the press.
Let's zip ahead....is there anyone that still doubts that POTUS OBama was treated well? Has the past 8 months shown you what it is like to really get treated badly by the press and obviously it has nothing to do with race....right? Or maybe it does.
https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/09/12/jemele-hill-hears-espn-after-calling-donald-trump-white-supremacist
I am sure you have heard/seen the comments she has made. They are blatant, unquestionably made by her with no backtracking or explanations given since. So, they are obviously what she believes and wants people to hear about. We also know that ESPN has fined/suspended and fired other on air personnel for actions/statements that I believe most would agree pale in comparison to those made by Hill. So I ask....
- Why is this all kind of a hush/hush "controversy" ? She is a well know on air personality yet I don't see much furor being made.
- Why the double standard by ESPN? Could it be because that they are the left wing, liberal station that detractors have said they are for a while so only conservative views get squashed?
I could go on but I think the point is obvious. Curious about what people's thoughts are and whether any of the people that were so adamant about how POTUS OBama was treated badly have now changed their viewpoints?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests