ESPN Removes Announcer Because of Name

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2017, 02:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: ESPN asked him if he'd be more comfortable calling a different game, he said he would be so they switched him. I am not sure why this is news.

Because IT'S STUPID. This isn't like the corpse or ghost of the confederate general Robert E. Lee will be doing the play-by-play of a FOOTBALL GAME. This is just some guy named Robert Lee. He's not a white supremecist (that we know of, anyway) nor has he publicly defended them.

There is absolutely no reason to do this but ESPN assumes that Virginians are so mentally fragile that just the name Robert Lee will cause another riot. Give me a break.

[Au165]

(08-23-2017, 02:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because IT'S STUPID. This isn't like the corpse or ghost of the confederate general Robert E. Lee will be doing the play-by-play of a FOOTBALL GAME. This is just some guy named Robert Lee. He's not a white supremecist (that we know of, anyway) nor has he publicly defended them.

There is absolutely no reason to do this but ESPN assumes that Virginians are so mentally fragile that just the name Robert Lee will cause another riot. Give me a break.

There is no reason for ESPN to ask an employee if they are comfortable and when told he isn't they change his assignment? The fact people are upset about this actually shows they are the ones too sensitive about things. They are getting upset over something that has no impact on them what so ever.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2017, 03:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: There is no reason for ESPN to ask an employee if they are comfortable and when told he isn't they change his assignment? The fact people are upset about this actually shows they are the ones too sensitive about things. They are getting upset over something that has no impact on them what so ever.

There was no reason for ESPN to even consider asking him anything. This is nothing but a slap in the face to Virginians and Lee that they even worried about this kind of thing.

[GMDino]

(08-23-2017, 03:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: There was no reason for ESPN to even consider asking him anything. This is nothing but a slap in the face to Virginians and Lee that they even worried about this kind of thing.

Really?

Seems like a bit of an extreme reaction to a part-time announcer not calling a game.

[Au165]

(08-23-2017, 03:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: There was no reason for ESPN to even consider asking him anything. This is nothing but a slap in the face to Virginians and Lee that they even worried about this kind of thing.

Asking an employee about a potentially uncomfortable situation is a bad thing, I think that is normally standard practice? How is it a slap in the face to him if he took them up on the deal? Why do Virginians care what a guy does for his personal job?

Seems like a lot of people are worried about something that doesn't effect them one bit. A lot of people just looking for a reason to be offended about someone trying to not offend people. Isn't it ironic?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2017, 03:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Really?

Seems like a bit of an extreme reaction to a part-time announcer not calling a game.

I agree; what ESPN did was an extreme reaction.

[BmorePat87]

That's dumb

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2017, 03:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: Asking an employee about a potentially uncomfortable situation is a bad thing, I think that is normally standard practice? 

Right, so if ESPN went to one of their white anchors and said do you feel uncomfortable about doing play-by-play in [predominantly black neighborhood], that would be perfectly reasonable. Got it.

(08-23-2017, 03:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: How is it a slap in the face to him if he took them up on the deal? Why do Virginians care what a guy does for his personal job? 

It's a slap in the face because it assumes Virginians are so stupid and prone to violence that an Asain guy with the name Robert Lee is going to spark some kind of violent reaction.

Au165 Wrote:Seems like a lot of people are worried about something that doesn't effect them one bit. A lot of people just looking for a reason to be offended about someone trying to not offend people. Isn't it ironic?

I'm not worried, upset, angry or offended by this. I'm expressing my opinion that it's royally stupid of ESPN to do this and that I'd understand if a Virginian was offended.

[Au165]

(08-23-2017, 04:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Right, so if ESPN went to one of their white anchors and said do you feel uncomfortable about doing play-by-play in [predominantly black neighborhood], that would be perfectly reasonable. Got it.


It's a slap in the face because it assumes Virginians are so stupid and prone to violence that an Asain guy with the name Robert Lee is going to spark some kind of violent reaction.


I'm not worried, upset, angry or offended by this. I'm expressing my opinion that it's royally stupid of ESPN to do this and that I'd understand if a Virginian was offended.

Not similar at all actually, it would be more like them asking an announcer named Muhammad if he wanted to call a game in New York City a couple weeks after 9/11.

So again, they are offended that someone was worried they would be offended. This means they are easily offended, so the assumption they could be offended was correct, but not necessarily correct in what would offend them the most. As I said, people are too easily offended it seems.

You'd understand that someone would be offended, but don't like that someone is trying to prevent someone from being offended?

Again, it's really not anyone's business. They asked the guy if he wanted out and he did.

[Dill]

(08-23-2017, 02:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's an interesting theory. In German, the "ei" produces the long I sound, and the "i" on its own would be a short I sound. Saying them in my head, I'm having a hard time figuring out how that got mistaken, but stranger things have happened.

Ist mir Wurst.

"Heil Heidler" sounds more alliterative.

[Dill]

(08-23-2017, 11:04 AM)Millhouse Wrote: This is 100% proof of the direction that ESPN has moved towards. Rather than being neutral and trying to do what they did best in the past, they now put sports secondary to being politically correct for what I call the left California lib crowd. Brucelyn Jenner winning that Espy over Lauren Hill was another sign of this happening a few years ago, which I think was part of the reason Colin Cowherd was basically let go because he blasted it on his show.

I think this is people worrying about advertising, stock prices, and potential litigation. No one takes a "neutral" stance towards the bottom line.

It has nothing to do with "leftism" or sensitivity to Virginians or conversion to California liberalism.  It is just a kind of risk management, very clumsily handled by people making wild guesses about marketing consequences based on labels.

I think there was zero chance that the most committed anti-racist listening to a football game was going to be offended by a guy whose parents named him "Robert" decades ago.

[Vlad]

(08-23-2017, 03:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: There is no reason for ESPN to ask an employee if they are comfortable and when told he isn't they change his assignment? The fact people are upset about this actually shows they are the ones too sensitive about things. They are getting upset over something that has no impact on them what so ever.

A ridiculous reach.
People getting upset over something that does not affect them can be applied to almost any topic discussed on this board.

Furthermore people aren't "upset" in the way you are implying.

They are more like...



 

[Millhouse]

(08-23-2017, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: I think this is people worrying about advertising, stock prices, and potential litigation. No one takes a "neutral" stance towards the bottom line.

It has nothing to do with "leftism" or sensitivity to Virginians or conversion to California liberalism.  It is just a kind of risk management, very clumsily handled by people making wild guesses about marketing consequences based on labels.

I think there was zero chance that the most committed anti-racist listening to a football game was going to be offended by a guy whose parents named him "Robert" decades ago.

Yeah, probably wasnt about appeasing the leftist crowds. Apparently it was a mutual agreed decision between Lee and ESPNrs to avoid possible backlash from a few folks out there, whether genuine or trolls. Which is funny because they created a bigger backlash than if he would have just done the game in which case no one would have cared to begin with.

Its a case of trying to avoid shooting oneself in the foot, but shot the d*** instead.

[Dill]

(08-23-2017, 09:13 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Yeah, probably wasnt about appeasing the leftist crowds. Apparently it was a mutual agreed decision between Lee and ESPNrs to avoid possible backlash from a few folks out there, whether genuine or trolls. Which is funny because they created a bigger backlash than if he would have just done the game in which case no one would have cared to begin with.

Its a case of trying to avoid shooting oneself in the foot, but shot the d*** instead.

Agreed. I am amazed there was no one in the room who stepped up and said "Now hold on guys. This is really going to look silly. Robert Lee is not a statue and he wasn't named by the Daughters of the Confederacy. No one will even notice his name is Robert Lee. But if you want the entire nation rolling its eyes about ESPN then by all means go ahead."

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What's really funny is that I didn't make the connection at all until someone compared the names. Without the "E" in there, it's not the same name...to me at least.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-23-2017, 05:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not similar at all actually, it would be more like them asking an announcer named Muhammad if he wanted to call a game in New York City a couple weeks after 9/11.

Either way, it's still stupid.

(08-23-2017, 05:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: You'd understand that someone would be offended, but don't like that someone is trying to prevent someone from being offended? 

Yes. There's what a reasonable person finds offensive and then there's the idiots and super-easily offended. Tryinig to avoid what a reasonable person finds offensive is reasonable. Trying to avoid offending the super-easily offended is ridiculous, stupid and ridiculously stupid.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-23-2017, 08:05 AM)Vlad Wrote:


The looney left strikes again.

ESPN is a business. This is a business decision. A stupid business decision. Unfortunately, corporations are every bit as capable of making stupid decisions as governments while telling everyone they make better decisions than governments.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-23-2017, 05:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not similar at all actually, it would be more like them asking an announcer named Muhammad if he wanted to call a game in New York City a couple weeks after 9/11.

You just compared Charlottesville with 9/11.

(I just want to point that out without any other attached comment.)

[Au165]

(08-24-2017, 07:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You just compared Charlottesville with 9/11.

(I just want to point that out without any other attached comment.)

Actually I was comparing an analogy not the events themselves, context of the response is key. He said it was similar to a white person not wanting to call a game in a predominantly black area which was a false equivalency. My example was that after 9/11 there was an under current of hate towards muslims, and anyone thought to be muslim, in the wake of the tragedy. A person of Muslim faith, or middle eastern decent, probably would have been weery of calling a sporting event in the city of the event weeks after the event occurred. The comparison is the desire to call a sporting even in a specific area in the aftermath of a tragedy associated with a specific group of people that someone could be tied to.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-25-2017, 09:18 AM)Au165 Wrote: Actually I was comparing an analogy not the events themselves, context of the response is key. He said it was similar to a white person not wanting to call a game in a predominantly black area which was a false equivalency. My example was that after 9/11 there was an under current of hate towards muslims, and anyone thought to be muslim, in the wake of the tragedy. A person of Muslim faith, or middle eastern decent, probably would have been weery of calling a sporting event in the city of the event weeks after the event occurred. The comparison is the desire to call a sporting even in a specific area in the aftermath of a tragedy associated with a specific group of people that someone could be tied to.

The problem with your example being that Muhammad Ali, both named Muhammad and a Muslim, visited ground zero NYC on 9/20. Just 9 days after the towers went down and 3,000 people died.

Meanwhile an asian guy isn't allowed to be an announcer on a football game THREE WEEKS after one person died, because he shares a name with a white guy who died 147 years ago.

Bad example.