Football analysis is so much better with race-baiting, don't you think?
Rush Limbaugh Is Gutless, and So Is ESPN
As most football fans know, Rush Limbaugh now spends his Sundays doing commentary on ESPN's pregame show. Limbaugh is obviously well-known for his conservative ideology and willingness to tweak liberals and liberal thought at every opportunity. Limbaugh is also, by most accounts, a learned football observer.
Thus, ESPN hired Limbaugh to provide commentary for them this year, with the obvious goal of increasing ratings. ESPN is not to be faulted for that motive; it's what TV and radio are all about. But ESPN spun Limbaugh's hiring as a football-motivated hiring, and downplayed his pseudo-political primary career, saying that he was there as a football voice.
Bullshit. Limbaugh ain't on that show breaking down the zone blitz. His first appearances have focused on issues like minority hiring, issues that have clear social (and political) import. Do you think people are going to tune in to hear Rush Limbaugh talk football? Hell, no. They want Rush to know football, but they want to hear him apply his controversial bent to football. Otherwise, what's the point? It's like having Dennis Miller come in, but not be funny.
Limbaugh's "football" analysis this weekend? That Donovan McNabb was overrated because he is a black QB. Limbaugh's original quote:
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Let's deconstruct that. The first line, about "a little social concern" in the NFL, is interesting. First of all, the NFL is and should be very conscious of social concerns, given the hiring record for coaches. Why shouldn't a huge industry like the NFL be subject to social concerns (unless, of course, it involves gays in the lockerroom, where everybody in the NFL just pretends that has never, and will never happen). Moreover, that first line is the clue that this is not just Limbaugh as football commentator; it blurs the line completely between Limbaugh as sports analyst and Limbaugh as political analyst. Understand, I don't really have a problem with that; but please, ESPN-don't insult my intelligence by saying that Limbaugh is strictly doing football commentary, because he's not. This is social commentary from the biggest ideologue (with a huge audience of his own that is probably now tuning to ESPN) in the country.
The comments from ESPN's Executive Vice President, Mark Shapiro, are telling:
"This is not a politically motivated comment. This is a sports and media argument," Shapiro was quoted as saying in a USA Today column published Wednesday. "Rush was arguing McNabb is essentially overrated and that his success is more in part [due] to the team assembled around him.
"We brought Rush in for no-holds-barred opinion. Early on, he has delivered," Shapiro told USA Today.
Really? Hmm. Yes, Rush is arguing those things. No problem there. McNabb might, in fact, be overrated, which I'll talk about below. The issue is Rush's absurd explanation for why he is overrated. Nice spin, but no dice. And that last statement about Rush delivering isn't really about his opinions. It's about the ratings bump he has delivered to ESPN. Hey, that bump ain't coming from Michael Irvin.
But it's the second sentence that is the real laugher. Oh, it's the media who wants a black QB to do well, huh? Rush, do you think this is 1978? Where have you been? Do the names Doug Williams, Steve McNair, Daunte Culpepper, Aaron Brooks, Michael Vick, Jeff Blake, Kordell Stewart or Randall Cunningham mean anything to you, Rush? In that group, you'll find Super Bowl champions, MVPs, numerous Pro Bowlers and All Pros and Hall of Famers to be. And none of that even gets to Donovan McNabb, a former MVP in his own right.
Gee, Rush, it seems to me that there have been plenty of great black QB's in the 14 years since Flavor Flav busted out his Doug Williams rhyme: Yo, we gettin' ready to watch the Super Bowl, we got a black quarterback so step back.
So, are you saying that all of those QB's were a product of the media, Rush? No, of course you aren't going out on that limb, because those QB's weren't 0-2 before you're little speech, right Rush? The implication that the media has this dying need for a successful black QB really doesn't seem to hold much water, given how many great black QB's there are in the league today.
And why, if the liberal media is so thirsty for a great black QB, did Kordell Stewart not win universal praise during his time at the helm of the Steelers, when they went to the SuperBowl? Oh, sure, Kordell had plenty of critics, still does, despite his dogged and unrepentant continued blackness. But maybe that had something to do with the fact that Kordell couldn't recognize a defense even if he was standing in the defensive huddle.
Finally, let's just examine Limbaugh's claim, that McNabb got too much credit anyway, when it was the defense that carried the team. Hey, memo to Rush: The QB's on winning teams always get more credit than they may deserve, whether they are as black as Donovan McNabb or as white as Terry Bradshaw. Was Philly a great defensive team? Of course. How many defensive players win the MVP? Very few. (Of course, it's worth noting that they were all BLACK!) McNabb made the Eagles an offensive force when they had very few offensive weapons. Am I saying he was the definitive MVP? No. I couldn't tell you who was. But I can tell you that Donovan McNabb (and Michael Vick, and Chad Pennington, and soon, Patrick Ramsey) are all overrated somewhat because they are young and exciting QB's on successful teams. Ain't got nothing to do with color, Rush, and you know it.
Naturally, Rush isn't backing down from the statement. I got no beef with that, because he said what he said, and it was calculated, probably not just by Rush but perhaps even by ESPN. They need the controversy, right? That's why he's there, right? Donovan McNabb wondered why Michael Irvin, Tom Jackson, Steve Young, Chris Berman or anyone else on the set didn't challenge Rush. It could have been because they were shocked. It might even have been because they agreed with him (though they all had the good sense to not say it on air). But it might also be because they were told that Rush was going to do his bit, and there wasn't going to be debate on it. In fact, according to this story, USAToday said that ESPN "chose not to have Irvin, Young or Jackson comment on the story." Hmm. They can't comment directly about it, but ESPN can run stories on the whole brouhaha on their site. Keep the message out there, drive the ratings, but don't villify the new cash cow, right?
In fact, instead of backing down from the statement, check out what Rush had to say about the furor:
"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community."
Ah, of course, Rush. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right? (Never mind all the smoke floating around about Wilsongate, though, which you have called a "non-story" in your other career...) Yes, it is certainly true that there are times when people will respond most vociferously when they have been confronted with the truth. But there are also times when a jackass says something racially-motivated for the sake of ratings which is false, and people feel the need to point out what a stupid statement it is. Using Rush's logic, if Rush said, "I think Howard Dean is a homo who would like to get pegged by John Edwards", there would naturally be an outcry. But that very outcry would prove that Rush must have been right! Ergo, if Rush says something that nobody responds to, then it must have been false. But since everything Rush says will get a reaction, he must always be right!
The worst part of all of this is that it shows how truly gutless Limbaugh is. McNabb started 0-2. You think any of this would have been said if he was 2-0? Where's the liberal media love for the 4-0 Daunte Culpepper, Rush? Where's that at?
But it goes beyond kicking a player while he's down. Part of the territory. But this is just old-fashioned race-baiting, especially when viewed in the context of his other "analysis" of the NFL's atrocious hiring practices when it comes to black coaches.
This is the same garbage he spouts off on his shows. What next? A spirited campaign to get women out of the lockerrooms again? An Al Campanis-style declaration that blacks "don't have the necessities" to take on leadership positions like QB or Head Coach?
I thought it was about the games. I thought it was about celebrating athletic achievement in a variety of sports and contests, regardless of what society wanted the participants to look and act and sound like. I thought ESPN was immune. I guess being the World Wide Leader In Sports was enough, a worthy title. Now the quest is different, to be the World Wide Leader In Ratings. Stupid me. It's always about the demographics, isn't it?
I thought ESPN was better than this.
3:21:06 PM 
|
|
