Digital_Cowboy

What did he do wrong before? The only controversy that I see referred to at the link is the TdF controversy.

Brennan

One need not be offended to find his comments objectionable. Cyclists on the road often encounter hostility, and sometimes outright assault, from unhinged motorists. The last thing we need is a television personality with a national audience to reinforce the notion that cyclists are targets, and that running them down with a car is funny.

True that.

Chris516

The Wikipedia page for him, implies there was a previous controversy. I Googled it but could not find enough info.

Digital_Cowboy

It would be nice to know what it was, when/where it happened and what the circumstances were.

myrridin

People are responsible for their own actions and it is foolish to place blame for one persons actions upon another persons words...

You may not find his comments humorous, but undoubtedly some of his audience does... If he failts to continue to entertain his audience he will be let go... I suspect that those among the perpetually offended who give him attention by complaining are simply aiding his career much like any other "shock jock" personality.

In short, if you don't like his comments don't watch...

electrik

Too bad... Looks like you've already joined the ranks of "perpetually offended" people you so despise.

Admittedly it was quite a sophomoric idea, hope you learned something about free society.

Brennan

Sounds like a good excuse for spreading propaganda. Isn't there a need for ethics in journalism?

I don't like his comments, but I am not "offended" by them, which was my original point. I don't care what this tool's personal beliefs are, I just think it's irresponsible of him to say things which could encourage hostility towards cyclists, and criticism of him on that basis is totally appropriate. He is free to express his idiotic thoughts about a cycling accident, are we not free to express our thoughts about him?

Chris516

He is also obviously part of 'run them over' crowd...just like ESPN commentator Tony Kornheiser!!

myrridin

And once again you either fail to comprehend the english language or are simply unable to understand simple english...

For the rest of you. There is a world of difference between simply verbalizing disagreement over a statement and attempting to punish the person who made the statement. Most of the posts here are attempting to punish the ESPN idiot... firing, suspension, boycotts, etc... In short you seem to only believe that people have the freedom to speak only if they say things you agree with...

myrridin

Your kidding right? First ESPN (and any other televised program) is hardly what could be considered journalism. Second, journalists have never had ethics. They are entertainment, nothing more.


Criticism of his statements are perfectly acceptable; however, the vast majority of the posts here crossed the line from simple criticism to cries for punishment (suspension, firing, boycotts, etc...) The former is part of healthy debate in a free society. The latter is the technique of oppression and is antithetical to free society.

cranky velocist

Bad forum, myrridin.

You can't rationalize away journalistic integratiy and then claim criticism of journalism will be bad for society.

A good press is always just a few words away from being tarred and feathered - just like bad press.

Nobody asked this jerk to become an effigy of every bad driver cyclists have ever endured. He took that upon himself. Off with his head!

myrridin

I never claimed criticism (of anyone) is bad for society... But there is a world of difference between criticism or debate of any kind and punishing someone for their statements or opinions. For instance, applying the rules you suggest would put you in jail for calling for a beheading... whether you were serious or simply making a poor joke (like the subject of this thread).

crhilton

Do you actually think that's true? Journalists are simply there to entertain?

Maybe I misread and you mean sportscasters. That seems to be the case. But I certainly wouldn't agree that the presses job is to entertain. I don't think they've had an amendment for that. Especially not the first one.

crhilton

Punishing someone for their behavior in the ways people have discussed and are doing is exactly how society regulates its member's behavior. When somebody acts like a complete ****** we whine and complain and someone who can make a real difference in his life punishes him in a real (probably monetary -- these days) way.

I think you just dislike that society doesn't work on a neat engineered system but is in fact messy and not very ethical.

Brennan

You're very quick to generalize. There are journalists who have been imprisoned or killed because of their commitment to journalism. Many more have gone to great lengths to keep their integrity intact. Let's not sell all journalists short.

Now, if you are speaking strictly about TV news today, you have a point. There are a few remaining TV news programs that have journalistic integrity (PBS News Hour, BCC World News), but you are correct that TV news has evolved (or devolved) into becoming "infotainment." Therein lies the problem. It wasn't always so. In the early days of TV, the news was seen by the networks as a public service, not as a revenue generator. As a result, newscasts were of a higher caliber, and the viewing public was better informed. It's been a long downhill slide since then, and today we have a mockery of what the news once was. (This is the red meat of The Daily Show).

ESPN is an entertainment network masking as sports journalism, but I am still happy to point out idiocy on their part, and perhaps encourage them to step up their game to a higher level.

I would agree with you on that. Personally, I think his comments are not a firing offense, unless ESPN deems it so. I was only taking issue with your generalization that people who object to his comments are simply "too easily offended." I am not offended. Again, my objection is that he reinforces the perception that running down a cyclist is something to be laughed at, and that he may encourage further harassment of cyclists on the road. Oh, and that he is basically a jackass.

cranky velocist

So, to sum up, I shouldn't share a (personal) negative opinions about a ESPN casting choice in reaction to a negative opinion published on the electronic equivilent of comapny letterhead?

And you, as someone on a website about bicycling, cannot at least grant that those of us who feel this way are entitled to our opinions in this specific instance?

Much like a local bike shop in a seasonal environment, people loose their jobs over alot less.

I'm willing to bet if ESPN dropped the ball on the things you care about this badly, you wouldn't be defending them.

crhilton

Woh now, let's not elevate Twitter to something meaningful.

myrridin

You are paraphrasing my statements in a way to make your point.

I have not said anything about people who express their opinions about others opinions--which in fact what I myself have been doing here. But there is a world of difference between seeking to punish someone for their opinions and debating those opinions...

It really is a sad state of affairs when people can't tell the difference.

myrridin

There is a major difference between behavior (acts) and opinions (words)... Again folks fail to understand that difference.

And yes, it has become all to common in society to punish people for their opinions... Indeed what you describe as a means of societal regulation has morphed into the tyranny of the minority. Something entirely different. Again it is a sad state of affairs that people can't tell the difference what was once covered by the right of free association has been morphed into we only allow those with the right opinions to associate with society. This is in actuallity the expected outcome of the rise of political correctness that began in the 70's/80's

In a free society people have a right to be assh&*^. And others have a right to choose not to associate with them. But we have gradually added means of punishing those for whom we don't agree. This thread is one example. But let me use some others that are a little more blatant. Since we have deemed prejudice to be unacceptable we no longer allow folks to exercise their "right to free association" by denying service to those customers for whom they don't approve. A fundamentalist christian who owns an apartment must still rent those apartments to *****exuals (of whom they may disapprove)--the government doesn't allow them any choice in the matter. In many parts of the country you can be sued for for making a refusing service to certain religions (islam comes to mind), yet other religions (Christianity in general, but others such as Mormonism are equally unprotected) go without the same punishment.

In short we have systematically been trimming the boundaries of our fundamental human rights, by using what the founders described as the tyranny of the majority... Indeed, the modern ability for mass communication, has introduced something the founders didn't anticipate--the tyranny of the minority. A situation where coordinated effort by a vocal minority can influence behavior far outside the levels warranted by their actual percentages in society...

That, unfortunately, seems to be the lesson we learned from the civil rights movement. Not that it is right and just to stand up to those whose actions would oppress, but that any small group can/should use those same techniques to regulate what we allow others to believe.

We are only a short distance from instituting thoghtcrimes...

A very sad state of affairs...

cranky velocist

Either someone is a professionally competent journalist or they arn't. Either someone is a wise casting choice as an entertainer or they arn't. ESPN should find a better fit. I don't really care if he's punished or not, I care about the football fan I have to share a road with.

myrridin

Yes. Since journalists have always relied on sales as a means to fund their soapbox, they have been primarily an entertainment medium. They entertain to provide themselves income. And this is the case regardless of the medium they use to deliver their "news".

They have also never had ethics. There is simply no such thing in practice as "objective journalism" Something as simple as choosing what to right about is a form of prejudice. And even the best let their preconceptions color their stories...

I am not sure what amendment you refer to. Perhaps you are thinking of freedom of the press, which is simply one component of the the first admendment or "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"

myrridin

It is really scary that you think some jokes made by a sports commentator/entertainer are going to change the opinion of that football fan on what he thinks of cyclists...

electrik

lol... troll

myrridin

Another word you don't understand the meaning of? :-)

electrik

Keep trolling...