Browns Film Room: Who’s to blame for the poor run game in Week 1
September 14, 2017Ohio State releases trailer for bounce-back game against Army (Video)
September 15, 2017
Happy Friday, WFNY people. We’re locked into the most epic regular season baseball we’ve ever seen from the Indians. We’ve got Cleveland Browns moral victories to enjoy, including a quarterback that gives us at least a bit of hope for the future. Let’s send the week out right with some talk about… Jemele Hill? We could, but let’s not do it the way everyone else is doing it.
Jemele Hill needs to be smarter about Twitter usage…
Most of the Jemele Hill conversation has been tied up in the politics of what she wrote and whether she has the right to say those things about the President. To me, that’s barely even the issue. WFNY is not anything remotely close to ESPN. We don’t have employees, let alone an employee manual. ESPN has contracts with their employees and a legal team including an HR department as well as many layers of management, and somehow, WFNY is just as equipped to handle this with our boilerplate to prospective writers.
This is what is sent to prospects, and many of the new folks can vouch for this:
I’ve done a cursory glance over your social media, but I want to make sure you understand the voice and style of WFNY publicly. We tend to avoid fighting with fellow media members. We have the ability to get media credentials for sporting events, and part of that is maintaining a professional public image. That doesn’t mean you have to be nice to the teams we cover, but you have to be professional with your criticism. You don’t have to be agreeable with everyone else or avoid having your own opinions, but we expect anyone who associates with WFNY to help us maintain our standing in the community and not hinder it. That’s pretty non-specific, but if you’re planning on daily flame wars on Twitter or @’ing Browns players who had bad games, it’s not going to work out.
That’s it. And since we started sending that out, we’ve conveyed the responsibility with associating with our platform, as little as it might be in the scope of sports media. Jemele Hill has to be smarter as a headliner for ESPN.
Her error in judgment was in how she was carrying herself, not necessarily the opinion she had on the topic. Why was she engaged in a tit for tat political argument in front of the world with some people who had 743, 34, and 32 followers each? When you have the ability to make statements and engage with influential people, why would you spend your time engaging in that manner? I’m not saying she shouldn’t interact with random Twitter users, but she probably shouldn’t engage in something bordering on a flame war with random people like that.
Whether you like her or not, Jemele Hill is a high profile host on a huge network. She has over 650,000 followers on Twitter. She’s allowed to have an opinion, even a polarizing or unpopular one. Going into Twitter battle from 5 p.m. on September 11 until nearly 8 p.m. is not what ESPN has designed for any of their high profile employees. She should be allowed to express herself, even on Twitter. Still, if you’re ESPN and you want your high profile hosts to carry themselves in a dignified manner, this isn’t it.
So you can get into ESPN’s inconsistent meting out of punishments and try and discuss the finer points of Linda Cohn’s suspension for criticizing ESPN publicly or Curt Schilling’s dismissal after his third or fourth offense, but I’ll just focus on her bad Twitter judgement.
Previewing Browns vs. Ravens with Ben Axelrod
The 3SportsPodcast continues into the Browns’ season with the good guys heading to Baltimore. I explain why I don’t expect the Browns to cover the spread this week and why there isn’t a better rivalry with the Ravens despite the necessary hatred for a rivalry.
Have a great weekend everyone. Hope you’re enjoying the Indians’ historic period of baseball heading into the playoffs. It sure feels good to see Progressive field rocking every night.
73 Comments
https://twitter.com/lindacohn/status/908295913914937344
Jemele Hill appears to be an idiot supremacist.
Saw this last night. Team accounts generally take snarky shots at each other. Rays went right for the jugular.
https://twitter.com/RaysBaseball/status/908503230212173829
I’ll take WFNY over ESPN any day.
I feel like Herbstreit is guilty of the same offense. Why does he need to respond to some random 17 year-old on twitter? I think he should be getting more heat for it.
Is it okay that I don’t have a CLUE what’s going on with ESPN or with their folks in the Twitter world? Never mind. It’s glorious.
I’ll start by stating that I have no issue with what Jemele Hill said or where she chose to say it. I suppose my biggest concern in all of this is this: at what point (if any) does a person forfeit the right to express themselves in the public forum? And I don’t mean in the First Amendment sense of freedom of expression, which specifically addresses the issue as it relates to the limits of government’s control over expression (again, me telling you to cram your opinion with walnuts is not me violating your First Amendment right. The Feds arresting you for voicing your opinion is. At least potentially, depending on a court’s opinion of the situation). I mean more in the sense of how we as individuals relate to one another. Does Jemele Hill lose the right to express her opinion and debate her view with other private citizens in a public forum by virtue of her position at ESPN? Do I lose the right to do the same because of my status as a teacher at a private school? My local sanitation workers represent their employer, so are they limited in their ability to comment on the opinion of the guy sitting next to them at the bar after work? After all, that could reflect poorly on their employer. But then if it all comes down to our “responsibility” as representatives of our employers or as public figures, haven’t we all but declared that expression of personal opinion and the freedom to engage others in open discussion/debate are forbidden? And what consequences does that have for a democratic system? I ask all of the genuinely, because I personally don’t know the answers here. I’m not even certain there are any definitive answers to be found. But it seems pretty important to ask them anyway and for the discussion to take place somewhere.
Freedom of speech, of course, does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.
How many people have been castigated and forced to apologize over the years because they “offended” someone with a benign comment that wasn’t even meant to offend? And in this case, Hill’s comments were in no way benign; they were meant to offend. If you want to push it, you could even drag out the tried and true “hate speech” accusation.
Hill ran her figurative mouth, offended some people, and was criticized for it. So what? She didn’t lose her job or even get suspended.
She ripped Trump, so people ripped her. What’s fair is fair.
I was flipping channels and they were actually asking if the Indians will pull a 2016 Warriors. I immediately found something else to watch.
Not every idiotic comment thrown out into the social media webverse requires a response. I live by this.
Herbstreit claimed that he would have responded the same no matter what team’s QB the recruit was referring to.
I think not Mr. Herbstreit. I think not.
Exactly. If it was a recruit criticizing Ball State’s QB (whoever that may be), Herbie doesn’t say a thing.
I find the evolving discourse around “white supremacy” to be frustrating. The phrase is getting thrown around so much that it has essentially become drained of meaning. The phenomenon of white supremacy (as was expressed most recently in the ethno-nationalist protests in Charlottesville) actually exists, and there is near-universal consensus that it ought to be condemned. It’s valuable to have a concept of “white supremacy” that points to a particular set of ideologies, beliefs, and actions that regard the white race as superior vis-a-vis other races. I absolutely endorse the belief that white supremacy is enshrined in the founding documents of a country that enabled slavery and considered blacks as 3/5 of a man.
But the way we are using the phrase now is as an epithet against anyone on the right who doesn’t align with the “proper” racial and social justice discourse. While I am quite far to the left, I can understand how this would get nauseating to people on the right with whom I strongly disagree. In fact, I visited my undergrad college a few years ago and read an editorial by a black student who talked about walking around campus feeling the “white supremacist gaze” from his fellow students. When every non-black person (or conservative) becomes a default “white supremacist” the phrase ceases to have any useful meaning.
As for Trump, he is certainly a bigot and a buffoon, and has mishandled his treatment of the Charlottesville situation by doubling down on his stupid false equivalency argument, but he is, by the definition above, not a “white supremacist”. To casually imply that our president is a Nazi is just absurd, and crowds out rational conversation about how we ought to be resisting his administration. It’s fatiguing.
On a happier note, I found a stream of the 9th inning last night and was almost moved to tears by the comeback win. Having jettisoned the Browns, I’m ready for playoff baseball (and the Cavs!) – just hook it to my veins!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i3zrzyLOCw
Good stuff, Humboldt. Same goes for the term “racist.” The way that smear is indiscriminately pasted on people is a disgrace.
Riley Neal. 6-6, 225.
23-34, 217 Yds, 2 TD vs UAB last week. Not bad.
Curious: Where do you think “white supremacy” is “enshrined” in our founding documents?
Not bad at all!
Slaves were denied the right to vote
Slaves were considered 3/5 of a man (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of Constitution)
Many signatories of the Declaration of Independence were slave-owners
etc…
Yes, as someone who is interested in Civil War history and opposes the removal of Confederate statues, I’ve experienced first-hand the left’s antipathy on social justice issues. It is a reactive and impetuous anger, and ultimately quite counter-productive.
We are in a challenging cultural moment right now. The left yells “racist/white supremacist” and the right yells back “Social Justice Warrior”, and no one listens to one another. It will eventually get better, but man is it bad right now
I find it interesting that this is the first I heard of the Linda Cohn suspension. You’d think it would have received more coverage.
Then you’d know the vast sume of those statues have nothing to do with Civil War History
Complex symbols like statues have multiple meanings, and, in a pluralistic society, we should resist reducing them to one thing (i.e. monuments to white supremacy)
Thanks.
Slaves were not citizens, thus they couldn’t vote. In a world that endorsed slavery, I don’t know how they could have treated them as citizens.
The 3/5 clause is interesting, as bad as it is to us now. Given that slaves weren’t citizens but representation was based on raw population, the clause was actually a measure imposed in the Constitution by opponents of slavery in order to insure that the slave states would not perpetually have the governing political power and so that the anti-slavery states and position would wield proportional power. To the 21st century mind, it appears to be white supremacy, but it was actually intended as an opposite measure.
I would say that “slavery” is definitely protected by the founding documents, if not “enshrined.” That is definitely the problem – but perhaps we can blame the Dutch and the English? I suppose “white supremacy” is the obvious basis for African slavery, but I think it’s a leap to suggest that the country was founded on that basis (not that you are making that claim – though I have heard it).
Yeah I’m not saying ALL the statues should be destroyed but a great deal of them are there for pretty overt reasons.
I had planned to ignore this thread other than the posting by Linda Cohn who had refused to be pulled into this controversy and decided to utilize her class instead as seen above.
However, your post has gracefully stated my overwhelming frustrations of this ordeal. Thank you much for it.
If we expect the announcers to detach from some of this small stuff, then people need to have less vigor about what these buffoons say. Herbstreit mentioned in the opener how a late 1st half TD by OSU might make Indiana quit (in the first game, at home, vs a ranked team, LOL). I immediately muted the game and reminded myself the bulk of what these guys say fills a thirsty sports vacuum and has no real value
Thanks Michael, am always glad to find some common ground w/ you and others on the right. When I run for president I’m relying on you as a key operative to carry out my Southern Strategy, haha.
Ultimately, my left-wing beliefs are informed by the notion that we should take better care of one another and fight for each other rather than against each other. These petty feuds–amplified by the current partisan media climate–really jam everything up and we end up deepening hostilities and helping no one
Fair point.
THERE’S NO ROOM FOR NUANCE ON THE INTERWEBS!
The Executive Branch was originally intended to have the Vice President be from the opposition party (or the runner-up). That would be so cool. I have often thought that this would be a great modern approach to meaningful centrism. When you run for President, I’ll be your Vice.
great post HUM !!! … well done. No doubt racism is going on now & will probably go on until the end of time , though I would hope people can just learn to get along … for the most part , people do. there are some that just don’t get it. i have said before that I don’t have a racist bone in my body , but it seems to me that whites are not the only racists.
Indeed my right-wing beliefs are girded by the same notions with just a different belief of what it means to take care of each other. From that basis, there is often common ground to be reached.
Also, when we run in tandem as an Independent Party (let’s call it the Common Good Party), you’ll need me to be in the POTUS position in order to win the rural states. I’ll promise to split the cabinet appointments.
even though I’m on the right , I’d vote for you in an instant.
Okay, looks like you guys already have a deal. I’ll step aside. Or maybe find a lefty to run as my Vice!
Her and Steiner are my two Four Letter all-time faves.
An emerging theory in politics is that primary elections should not be partisan contests. Everybody competes for votes across the spectrum of the constituency, and the top two vote-getters have a run-off in November.
The reasoning is that you would elect more moderate people because Democrats would have to appeal to Republican voters and vice versa rather than appealing to just their hard-core base. I think this would also result in a better, more intelligent class of policitian because the crazies would be unelectable.
Of course this would have to accompanied by rational drawing of districts to eliminate gerrymandering, which every politician hates but every politician does.
Not sure what I think of this. Primary elections are also extra-Constitutional exercises run by political parties. I think those organizations should be free to do whatever they want. But if we’re going to mandate Primary elections as part of the Constitutional electoral process, then this is a fine idea (though I would suspect that each party would still appeal only to their base, on the belief that it would be enough to carry the day against the other party, the middle be damned).
Yes, as an extension of my argument I obviously think it’s wrong to argue that statues are *just* benign memorials to soldiers/generals. We ought to validate that they do represent white supremacy/racism for some people in those communities, and that there is very real pain around those lingering meanings. Respect, tolerance, and compassion have to cut both ways; in their absence we get Nazis carrying tiki torches around a Lee statue or mob rule like what we saw in Durham with the statue honoring the Confederate war dead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-uAZa4H1vk
Thanks TG, much appreciated. You will be my minister of propaganda ;). I’d definitely let you choose the classic rock playlist for the rallies mgbode and I would be appearing at
… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98b560980c44ea28cbaccc0ef903863cacc91892b4a9e0de37a75c2fe4eaa0f0.jpg surely , this will have to be defaced or blown-up.
But it might also mean that the middle would decide many elections, and thus would act as a brake on extreme positions.
But I don’t know how I feel about it either. It might just perpetuate the status quo to the detriment of needed change, such as getting a handle on the national debt.
Yeah, I think it’s healthy to embrace the notion that we all have racist tendencies that we may not even be aware of. Harvard offers a free implicit bias test that we have our medical students take every year (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/). Seeing the results of these sorts of tests is not shaming or condemning, but rather can show the universality of racial bias and help us be mindful of the need to be reflective about how our biases may be playing out in our interaction with the world. This is a far more subtle and socially productive approach to the issue than throwing around phrases like “RACIST!!” and “WHITE SUPREMICIST” as happens ubiquitously these days
Yeah, I just don’t know what the purpose of the primaries would be.
Amen. I was blissfully ignorant of both of those worlds. I quit ESPN years ago and don’t do Twitters. But last eve, post Tribe celebration, I made the mistake of checking out Deadspin and even double mistake of looking at their comments on the Indians article. The soulless negative snark was too much…on a 22 game streak! They could manage to ess on an cute puppy with a bow tie being carried by a young Shirley Temple.
Anyway, the interwebz, as always: a magically fertile place where amazing flowers can grow, and yet surrounded by a huge cesspool. Repeat with me…I will never Twitter
I will never Twitter!
They’d better not or they’ll have to deal with my wrath (i.e. me shaking my fist)
very interesting … so , did you take the test ??
Yeah. The primaries might just wind up being a vapid beauty contest in which the front-runners try to appeal to everybody and state no belief if it there’s a chance that it might offend someone. So instead of getting a better, more intelligent class of politician we would be getting a room full of empty suits.
And so it goes — the Great Experiment continues!
I’m certainly aware that actions/words have consequences. And they ought to. What I’m asking is at what point do we effectively muzzle any and every opinion, regardless of a person’s public status, as a result?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYxdJtDWwAEOzWB.jpg
Legend.
“Follow me to freedom!”
Only the pool boy bit comes close.