Miklasz leaving Post-Dispatch

[Elmgrovegnome]

So lets see if I can answer this without offending you and I apologize in advance if I fail. I'll start with your last point first.

No, ESPN will not miss him , as another poster already mentioned, he was already on his way out the door.

On to your main point. But before I do, let me point out that not only did everyone else see it as racist, so did Cowherd himself. That's regardless of whether or not he meant it that way. You, on the other hand, are arguing that the statement that he made, as written, wasn't racist. A contention that even Cowherd doesn't agree with and he said so.

There are two different defenses people use when they say something offensive. The first A) is to try and cloak it in the "I worded it badly and what I really meant was this" defense. Whereupon they try their best to convince people that they really didn't mean what they said.

The second defense B) is the "that was taken out of context" defense.

In this case and your Limbaugh example, the context is all important and makes defense A a nonstarter. Defense B is of course also a nonstarter because he didn't claim that.

What is the context in both these cases.

In the Limbaugh case, he was trying to provide a reason why blacks are so often superior to whites athletically that didn't contradict the racist claim that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. The use of that "truth" as you call it, belies their real racist agenda to wit, blacks aren't inherently more athletic than whites, they are only superior because of the outside intervention of whites. To contend that blacks are for the most part superior to whites when it comes to some athletic endeavors because they were bread to be superior is not only wrong (look up fast twitch vs slow twitch muscles for part of the real reason), it's offensive to blacks and non-racists alike. One need only look at the performance of blacks in other countries to see how ridiculous that contention is. The use of these so called "truths" only fool those who wish to be fooled because it fits their preconceived prejudices. In addition, how can anyone who is even slightly aware of Limbaugh's and known racist attitudes not look for underlying reasons for why he would be talking about these "truths?" Bottom line though is that you can easily see that context is all important. I hope that after reading what I just wrote you now understand exactly why that "truth" wasn't actually a truth and how racist he was when trying to use it.

Now let's get to what Cowherd said.

OK, I've written this paragraph 4 times and I've deleted what I said 4 times because I can't figure out how to say this without being offensive to some. So I'm going to leave why the context of what he said makes it racist at what I've already said in an earlier post. I will add that Cowherd is using that same kind of "truth" that Limbaugh used. A truth that seems true and is true in another context but is not true in this context. Just as the fact that breeding for certain characteristics can increase the amount of offspring who carry that trait is a "truth" in both animals and man (Hitler would agree with that premise eh?) but does not make his contention true and is merely an effort to obscure the actual pertinent facts.

I still contend that ESPN will miss him. Cowherds show was a huge draw and he was the most polarizing and interesting part of their radio broadcast. They really have little left at this point. Mike and Mike are a clown show in comparison. They are beriddled with hokey shtick that does nothing but irritate real sports fans. Russilo is the new hot thing and if that is the best they can come up with their radio show is gonna nose dive.

Now, I didn't see where Cowherd came out and said that his comment was racist. He could have named any small country. He said that himself. He could have said Venezuala, or the Haiti. Hell, he even said that players don't even have to learn English to play baseball in America and they can still comminucate well enough to play the game at a high level. You couldn't do that in football. His apology on radio was more to Baseball and fans than it was to the Dominican Republic....at least the part that I heard. His whole premise was that baseball is a much easier game to play and even a dumby can understand it. Yes he chose his words poorly when trying to give an example of a less educated non English speaking player, but he should have known better, because in the current environment if anyone slips without extensive scrutinization of every word they say someone or some group will be butthurt. It is ridiculous because I could care less if some Dominican radio host said that Amercians were stupid. The world needs therapy because a huge majority of it suffers from an inferiority complex. Why is it so important? Who is saying it? A sports radio host. Does his opinion matter so much that this has to be such a big topic?


As far as Limbaugh goes, I never listened to him more than a few minutes because he lied a lot and was a blowhard. However the idea of manipulating natural selection actually works and you site Hitler and his 'Master Race' as an example and I am not sure because It works. He wanted tall, athletic, blond people and that is what he got. If you have two Olympic athletes that have children the chances are pretty high that they will have some pretty athletic kids. It is common. Now maybe there still are other traits that are inherently superior in each race...in general, but I wont go there because that is probably viewed as racist by someone. But I know little of Limbaugh and the way you point out how he used his argument does certainly have a racially motivated lean. So yes I can see your point on that and understand that using Limbaughs ideas as an argument can send the wrong message.

I really am not trying to piss people off. I enjoyed listening to Cowherd. He was interesting. He had great stats and slants on football and was real good with dissecting points spreads and such. Add to it that he had very interesting guests that were not just sports related. So he chooses his words poorly once and all of his good work is wiped away. I am really hating how our society works these days with everyone being so sensitive and using it all to take away rights. I wonder if some Australian radio host had said the same thing, if anyone would have cared.

 

[jrry32]

ESPN will miss Simmons way more than they miss Cowherd.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Can't say I'm disappointed Bernie is leaving. Wish him the best at ESPN.



What he said wasn't accurate. Alan has explained it well. He didn't say, "It's a shame DR players didn't have educational opportunities." He said, "Baseball isn't a complex game..."

The implication here is that baseball can't be complex if all these "stupid" people from the DR can pick it up. It had nothing to do with education and everything to do with implying that people from the DR are not intelligent.

It was an idiotic comment from an idiot. And it gave ESPN an excuse to pull him off the network when he's already leaving. I'm the last person to defend ESPN but they're in the right here. I don't want to hear any bullcrap about politically correct. It's called tact and decency.

He didn't say people from the Dominican were stupid. It can be read into like that but that is the problem. People are so sensitive they are very quick to read into every nugget to find a flaw that puts them down. He could have said that about dumb Pennsylvania baseball players and it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. He can have his opinions Everyone has their own opinions. People are too sensitive about things that really dont matter in the big picture. 50 years from now nobody will remember what he said, but they will remember stats from some of the great Dominican players that played baseball, especially the ones in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

ESPN will miss Simmons way more than they miss Cowherd.

Completely disagree. Cowherd was widely more popular.

 

[jrry32]

Now, I didn't see where Cowherd came out and said that his comment was racist. He could have named any small country. He said that himself. He could have said Venezuala, or the Haiti. Hell, he even said that players don't even have to learn English to play baseball in America and they can still comminucate well enough to play the game at a high level. You couldn't do that in football. His apology on radio was more to Baseball and fans than it was to the Dominican Republic....at least the part that I heard. His whole premise was that baseball is a much easier game to play and even a dumby can understand it. Yes he chose his words poorly when trying to give an example of a less educated non English speaking player, but he should have known better, because in the current environment if anyone slips without extensive scrutinization of every word they say someone or some group will be butthurt. It is ridiculous because I could care less if some Dominican radio host said that Amercians were stupid. The world needs therapy because a huge majority of it suffers from an inferiority complex. Why is it so important? Who is saying it? A sports radio host. Does his opinion matter so much that this has to be such a big topic?

Even if it wasn't racist, it was a dumb thing to say. He insulted an entire country with his ignorance.

And the contention that players don't have to learn English to play baseball is a horrible one. They don't have to learn English because 25+% of every team are players that speak Spanish. Which means that a teammate can translate.

His way of arguing his premise was inflammatory, tactless, and idiotic. He deserved to be punished. And the fact that he's leaving ESPN is why they didn't feel reluctant to throw the book at him.

 

[Alan]

No problem @Elmgrovegnome . It's all good with me and I hope it is with you.

Here's something about Cowherd, Simmons and Olbermann that might interest you.

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/espn-bill-simmons-keith-olbermann-colin-cowherd-1201542920/
Juggernaut’s Game?

JULY 17, 2015 | 09:05AM PT
Analysis: Disney-owned sports-media giant is navigating a new kind of playing field
Brian Steinberg
If the New York Yankees jettisoned Brett Gardner, Alex Rodriguez and Chase Headley from the team’s roster, fans would likely revolt. What will viewers do now that ESPN has cut ties with three of its most singular voices?

It’s no secret that ESPN has been bearing down on costs recently. While the Walt Disney-owned sports-media outlet is said to have bid aggressively –and subsequently failed – to keep radio host Colin Cowherd on board, it let both Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons go in decisions that have been framed as ones made with its business in mind. Olbermann’s ESPN2 program wasn’t nabbing the viewers the company needed. And Simmons, despite leading a new sports-and-culture site called “Grantland” and developing into one of the most distinctive sports voices of a generation during his time at ESPN, wasn’t going to add as much value through future endeavors as ESPN might like, John Skipper, the unit’s president, told reporters in May.

Behind the scenes, other veterans have left as well. In recent months, veteran executives like Sean Bratches and David Preshlack – people who helped ESPN get top dollar from its cable and video distributors – revealed earlier this year they were packing up after long careers at the company.

Is ESPN trying to supply 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal and CBS with enough talent to last until the next round of NFL rights negotiations with TV networks takes place in 2022?

Of course not. But even a media giant needs to tread carefully these days.

Like every other old-school media player watching its customers latch on to streaming video and on-demand mobile viewing, ESPN is navigating an uncertain path. ESPN stocks its schedule with the one thing the experts say TV audiences won’t record and watch later – live sports. Even so, ESPN’s subscriber base is down, a testament to pay-TV customers moving to cheaper and more portable venues for video entertainment. Meanwhile, the rights fees it shells out to leagues like the NFL and the NBA are gargantuan and poised to grow more onerous.

Consider the fact, reported by the Wall Street Journal, that ESPN’s subscriber base has fallen 7.2% between 2011 and July 2015. Then mull over the eye-popping dollar amounts ESPN will pay to sports entities in coming years: a reported $1.9 billion to the NFL annually for eight years and an sum estimated by analyst Michael Nathanson to be between $1.1 billion and $1.6 billion handed over to the NBA each year for nine.

Fewer subscribers typically augur ratings erosion and, subsequently, dips in ad revenue, but the trend also suggests ESPN could see a decline in the programming fees it collects from the companies that package the sports service for couch potatoes and weekend warriors. No surprise, then, that Skipper and other executives are scrutinizing the value of high-priced talent, then figuring they can make do with a large roster of announcers and analysts who are just dying for a bigger turn in the spotlight.

For every giant like Bill Simmons or Keith Olbermann, there’s a Jemele Hill or a Dan LeBatard looking to show her or his stuff. If Bob Costas were to leave NBC Sports, his absence would be felt more strongly, these executives theorize, than if a handful of popular hosts take their leave of ESPN.

The burden of proof, however, is on viewers, not the executives following a business plan. Sports coverage in 2015 has grown beyond who won last night’s game and who made the great play. That stuff is available in abundance, along with statistics galore, from the leagues’ own digital sites. Sports stories in the social-media era are about matters of race and privilege; performance enhancement and cheating; the economics of the games.

The tales that captivate fans in this time are ones about football running back Ray Rice caught on tape hitting his then-fiancee – and the effects it has on the NFL’s efforts to keep younger viewers and women interested in the game. Or two WNBA players, Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson, getting married and then annulling the union. Or the New England Patriots and “Deflate-gate.”

Little wonder that NBC’s Costas is better known in this decade, perhaps, for his comments on gun control and Vladmir Putin’s Russia than for calling play-by-play.

Not everyone can opine on such stuff and keep the crowds from hurling popcorn at the screen. It’s a delicate balancing act that will not always result in success. ESPN last July suspended its own Stephen A. Smith for a week after the popular host made controversial comments about women and domestic violence in the wake of the Rice controversy. Even Michele Beadle, another well-regarded ESPN personality, lobbed a few brickbats Smith’s way, courtesy of Twitter.

ESPN still needs people who have flair and can draw a big crowd. The network has taken digs for years about whether its editorial product can highlight problems and controversies involving its business partners, the sports leagues. A longtime viewer might bring up the demise of the 2003 scripted series “Playmakers,” or the company’s decision to break ties in 2013 with PBS’ “Frontline”over a joint project to examine the effects of head injuries on NFL players. Simmons was suspended for three weeks last year after calling NFL commissioner Roger Goodell a “liar” on a podcast.

Despite all that, ESPN operatives ranging from Hannah Storm to Tedy Bruschi have all lobbed a few fireballs in the NFL’s direction. It’s not that these folks’ comments don’t matter. They do, and they reflect well on ESPN. It’s just that their footprint of followers is perhaps a little smaller than those cultivated by the people who are leaving.

ESPN’s Skipper said in May he wants more people like Bill Simmons on his roster. “We will continue to look for outsized talent,” he told reporters in May – but within a certain price range: “Like any general manager, I’d like to find them as a rookie and get them in the rookie cap,” he said.


ESPN remains a titan in the media business. Yet casting off expensive announcers in the name of keeping costs down gives rivals the chance to grow. NBC’s “Tonight Show” was once the only game in town. In 2015, Jimmy Fallon has everyone from Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert to Neil deGrasse Tyson on National Geographic Channel and animated lunacy at Adult Swim vying for his audience. The same is true of ESPN, which must contend not only with Fox Sports 1 and NBCSN, but digital competitors like Bleacher Report, Awful Announcing and SB Nation. What sort of value does keeping Simmons, Olbermann and Cowherd out of these rivals’ clutches have? Their audiences will be smaller, to be sure, but they could also siphon away ESPN die-hards.

ESPN is big, and likely to remain so. With every one of these breaks with talent, however, it runs the risk of looking a little smaller.

 

[jrry32]

He didn't say people from the Dominican were stupid. It can be read into like that but that is the problem. People are so sensitive they are very quick to read into every nugget to find a flaw that puts them down. He could have said that about dumb Pennsylvania baseball players and it wouldn't have bothered me in the least. He can have his opinions Everyone has their own opinions. People are too sensitive about things that really dont matter in the big picture. 50 years from now nobody will remember what he said, but they will remember stats from some of the great Dominican players that played baseball, especially the ones in the Hall of Fame.

Yes, he very clearly did. It has nothing to do with sensitivity.

Everyone can have their own opinion...in their own home. You don't get to claim "everyone can have their own opinion" when ESPN is broadcasting that opinion. In that situation, ESPN has a right to pull you off the air when you state an idiotic and insulting opinion towards another country.

He could have said that about dumb Pennsylvania players...but he didn't. He called an entire country stupid. And ESPN yanked him. His fault.

It's called tact. You don't want to use tact, you deal with the consequences.

Completely disagree. Cowherd was widely more popular.

30 for 30 and Grantland both came from Simmons.

It won't be hard to find another inflammatory idiot to replace Cowherd. There are plenty out there.

 

[-X-]

Cowherd had said Thursday that he didn't believe baseball was complex, saying a third of the sport was from the Dominican Republic, which had "not been known, in my lifetime, as having, you know, world-class academic abilities.''


Gee.

String him up.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Even if it wasn't racist, it was a dumb thing to say. He insulted an entire country with his ignorance.

And the contention that players don't have to learn English to play baseball is a horrible one. They don't have to learn English because 25+% of every team are players that speak Spanish. Which means that a teammate can translate.

His way of arguing his premise was inflammatory, tactless, and idiotic. He deserved to be punished. And the fact that he's leaving ESPN is why they didn't feel reluctant to throw the book at him.

ESPN has been making money off of this very thing that he does for years. He is the most polarizing figure on sports radio. He has been doing it for years. Why can him now when they loved it 3 years ago? Social pressure? Probably.

edit: Just read that article above and they were actually outbid for his services. So I guess what he said was not so bad afterall.

 

[fearsomefour]

Even if it wasn't racist, it was a dumb thing to say. He insulted an entire country with his ignorance.

And the contention that players don't have to learn English to play baseball is a horrible one. They don't have to learn English because 25+% of every team are players that speak Spanish. Which means that a teammate can translate.

His way of arguing his premise was inflammatory, tactless, and idiotic. He deserved to be punished. And the fact that he's leaving ESPN is why they didn't feel reluctant to throw the book at him.

Well, then I suppose I just don't care.
I am not saying that is right, but, I just can't be bothered with whatever the political correct flavor of the day is. Having an opinion is what is offensive today. This is how it is.
Free speech carries consequence for people all the time. The consequence he is paying is missing some paychecks on his way to go collect other big paychecks.
I dont agree with what he said by the way. I just don't see the big deal.
The example of Smith being shielded basically while others are canned bothers me as well. It (the thought/speech police) are hypocrites.

 

[fearsomefour]

ESPN has been making money off of this very thing that he does for years. He is the most polarizing figure on sports radio. He has been doing it for years. Why can him now when they loved it 3 years ago? Social pressure? Probably.

Exactly.
The same reason pro sports teams are so against drug use (blue font)....meanwhile they hand out pain pills like candy and they know many of their players use PEDs. It only matters when it affects time on the field, outside of that, they don't give a toss. About PEDs, about drugs or about the players as people.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Yes, he very clearly did. It has nothing to do with sensitivity.

Everyone can have their own opinion...in their own home. You don't get to claim "everyone can have their own opinion" when ESPN is broadcasting that opinion. In that situation, ESPN has a right to pull you off the air when you state an idiotic and insulting opinion towards another country.

He could have said that about dumb Pennsylvania players...but he didn't. He called an entire country stupid. And ESPN yanked him. His fault.

It's called tact. You don't want to use tact, you deal with the consequences.



30 for 30 and Grantland both came from Simmons.

It won't be hard to find another inflammatory idiot to replace Cowherd. There are plenty out there.

Well they were trying to keep Cowherd and not Simmons. 30/30 was a mix of people Simmons was not the only guy contributing on that.

 

[fearsomefour]

Cowherd had said Thursday that he didn't believe baseball was complex, saying a third of the sport was from the Dominican Republic, which had "not been known, in my lifetime, as having, you know, world-class academic abilities.''


Gee.

String him up.

X,
we live in a society now where opinions, thoughts, are worse than actions.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Well, then I suppose I just don't care.
I am not saying that is right, but, I just can't be bothered with whatever the political correct flavor of the day is. Having an opinion is what is offensive today. This is how it is.
Free speech carries consequence for people all the time. The consequence he is paying is missing some paychecks on his way to go collect other big paychecks.
I dont agree with what he said by the way. I just don't see the big deal.
The example of Smith being shielded basically while others are canned bothers me as well. It (the thought/speech police) are hypocrites.

Agreed. Smith is far far more offensive than any other voice on ESPN. He is a total racist and everyong seems to think it is okay.

 

[jrry32]

X,
we live in a society now where opinions, thoughts, are worse than actions.

Nope. They're both bad.

Well they were trying to keep Cowherd and not Simmons. 30/30 was a mix of people Simmons was not the only guy contributing on that.

They were "trying to keep" Cowherd until he bit the hand that fed him. Like Simmons.

Cowherd had said Thursday that he didn't believe baseball was complex, saying a third of the sport was from the Dominican Republic, which had "not been known, in my lifetime, as having, you know, world-class academic abilities.''


Gee.

String him up.

Exactly. He called an entire country unintelligent. What did he expect?

Well, then I suppose I just don't care.
I am not saying that is right, but, I just can't be bothered with whatever the political correct flavor of the day is. Having an opinion is what is offensive today. This is how it is.
Free speech carries consequence for people all the time. The consequence he is paying is missing some paychecks on his way to go collect other big paychecks.
I dont agree with what he said by the way. I just don't see the big deal.
The example of Smith being shielded basically while others are canned bothers me as well. It (the thought/speech police) are hypocrites.

Having an offensive opinion is offensive today. Which is a good thing.

Look at all the Americans pissed off by the tweet from the Iranian leader. Let's not act like it's not reciprocal.

 

[fearsomefour]

Agreed. Smith is far far more offensive than any other voice on ESPN. He is a total racist and everyong seems to think it is okay.

If if they don't think it is ok they are too cowardly to say anything. Everyone is a victim now, always someone else to blame.
To say you are offended by something someone else says....I just can't relate to it. It just seems so weak to me. I can have discussions about things. I can hear other points of view and understand where someone else is coming from. I can have my own opinion and point of view changed.
So something is offensive to someone else....I can still respect someone who holds a different view than mine.
Edward Younkins said this:
"Political correctness involves the translation of Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. The premise underlying political correctness is that if the elite can change the language then they can change the way individuals act and thus change society. Political correctness has corrupted the news media, universities, business, Congress, politics, etc. Declaring that some thoughts and words are “correct” while others are not permits those who are among the correct thinkers to escape free competition of ideas by using threats, intimidation, and force against non-correct thinkers."
This is just a sports talk show host getting canned for saying something that might be a dumb thing to say, but, certainly (in my opinion at least) is not offensive. It doesn't matter. What does matter is what is happening to our society.
The goal is to eliminate the conversation.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Nope. They're both bad.



They were "trying to keep" Cowherd until he bit the hand that fed him. Like Simmons. They were still trying to keep him. CBS saw a chance and pounced. ESPN lost and they know they did. I did too because I get ESPN radio and not CBS sports radio.



Exactly. He called an entire country unintelligent. What did he expect? Compared to France our education system sucks and we know it. I still don't get why they care what a sports radio host says. If the President said it? Okay maybe.



Having an offensive opinion is offensive today. Which is a good thing. No, I disagree because too many groups exploit it in favor of their own opinions. Sometimes those opinions aren't representative of the majority either.

Look at all the Americans pissed off by the tweet from the Iranian leader. Let's not act like it's not reciprocal.

That's not me. I could care less what they say. It is what they do that concerns me.


I guess in the end some of us are just men of action.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

If if they don't think it is ok they are too cowardly to say anything. Everyone is a victim now, always someone else to blame.
To say you are offended by something someone else says....I just can't relate to it. It just seems so weak to me. I can have discussions about things. I can hear other points of view and understand where someone else is coming from. I can have my own opinion and point of view changed.
So something is offensive to someone else....I can still respect someone who holds a different view than mine.
Edward Younkins said this:
"Political correctness involves the translation of Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. The premise underlying political correctness is that if the elite can change the language then they can change the way individuals act and thus change society. Political correctness has corrupted the news media, universities, business, Congress, politics, etc. Declaring that some thoughts and words are “correct” while others are not permits those who are among the correct thinkers to escape free competition of ideas by using threats, intimidation, and force against non-correct thinkers."
This is just a sports talk show host getting canned for saying something that might be a dumb thing to say, but, certainly (in my opinion at least) is not offensive. It doesn't matter. What does matter is what is happening to our society.
The goal is to eliminate the conversation.

Well said.

 

[fearsomefour]

Nope. They're both bad.



They were "trying to keep" Cowherd until he bit the hand that fed him. Like Simmons.



Exactly. He called an entire country unintelligent. What did he expect?



Having an offensive opinion is offensive today. Which is a good thing.

Look at all the Americans pissed off by the tweet from the Iranian leader. Let's not act like it's not reciprocal.

Offensive determined by whom?
A reporter? A celebrity with more twitter followers than someone else? A special interest group with a viewpoint that in reality is shared by a small minority of people, but, they angle to produce a lot of social pressure?
I agree there is a price someone may pay for free speech.
The disconnect you and I have is the ability to have the conversation is being smothered by social engineers.

 

[jrry32]

That's not me. I could care less what they say. It is what they do that concerns me.


I guess in the end some of us are just men of action.

I care both about what a person says and what they do. Because in many respects, what a person says will predict what they do.

Offensive determined by whom?
A reporter? A celebrity with more twitter followers than someone else? A special interest group with a viewpoint that in reality is shared by a small minority of people, but, they angle to produce a lot of social pressure?
I agree there is a price someone may pay for free speech.
The disconnect you and I have is the ability to have the conversation is being smothered by social engineers.

Offensive determined by the standards of our society.