Jump to content

ESPN Issues Statement After SportsCenter Anchor Jemele Hill Calls Trump a ‘White Supremacist'


Auburn85

Recommended Posts

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/espn-issues-statement-after-sportscenter-anchor-jemele-hill-calls-trump-a-white-supremacist/

 

So last night, SportsCenter anchor Jemele Hill got into a heated Twitter discussion that quickly devolved into her calling PresidentDonald Trump a “white supremacist.” ESPN has since issued a statement stating that Hill’s actions have been addressed.

The whole thing got started after she commented on a post about country rock/rap artist and potential GOP Senate candidate Kid Rockcomplaining about accusations he’s racist, stating that he pandered to racists, before eventually getting into it with other Twitter users over Trump.

This led her to send out this tweet:

Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.

 
 

 

She sent out more tweets throughout the evening, including one that called the president a “bigot” and another saying he was the “most ignorant” president in her lifetime:

Donald Trump is a bigot. Glad you could live with voting for him. I couldn't, because I cared about more than just myself

 
 

 

Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime. His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period.

 
 

 

This afternoon, after the tweets grabbed a lot of attention, ESPN sent out the following statement, noting that Hill recognizes her actions were “inappropriate.”

 

ESPN has been accused of being way too liberal with the political opinions expressed by the network and its hosts of late. The Worldwide Leader was roundly mocked — especially by conservatives — for its decision to reassign Robert Lee, an Asian-American football announcer, from a University of Virginia game in Charlottesville due to his name.

Last month, fellow SportsCenter host Sage Steele spoke out against the discussion of political and social issues on ESPN programs, stating that the network should stick to sports as no one watches for “Charlottesville.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't think they are attacking her right to free speech.  I think they are attacking two things:

  • The networks inconsistent application of disciplinary procedures toward free speech (vis a vis Curt Shilling, etc.)
  • It's frigging sports for crying out loud...who gives a s*** about her opinion on anything (well, frankly, in her case, including sports) other than sports.  No one pays for an ESPN subscription to listen to this horse***t...if I want non stop anti-Trump political diatribes I have half the posters on here and CNN, MSLSD, etc...don't screw with football
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For once, I'm with Clay Travis on this.  ESPN, going back to Curt Shilling, should have taken a stand then and there that they do not police the political/social views and speech of their employees on their own time and that nothing they say in a personal capacity reflects the views of ESPN.  They pay them to talk about sports and Schilling or anyone else's views on abortion, gay marriage, Black Lives Matter, Obama, Trump, or anything else do not affect whether they are good baseball/football/etc analysts.  Unless someone is advocating violence against another, they are not going to fire or suspend anyone for having views you don't like.

Had they done that, they wouldn't have stupidly suspended Linda Cohn for stating the bleeding obvious: that ESPN is being too political.  And they wouldn't have had to say a damn thing about Jamele Hill's statements on Trump.  But what they've done now is they have set themselves up as an arbiter of acceptable political and social speech and in their treatment of Hill vs the others, have made it clear that they will come down like Thor's hammer on right-wing speech, but give a token wrist slap at best for left-wing speech.  

They deserve to spiral down the drain as they hemorrhage viewers who are sick of it and just want to watch some damn football in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

For once, I'm with Clay Travis on this.  ESPN, going back to Curt Shilling, should have taken a stand then and there that they do not police the political/social views and speech of their employees on their own time and that nothing they say in a personal capacity reflects the views of ESPN.  They pay them to talk about sports and Schilling or anyone else's views on abortion, gay marriage, Black Lives Matter, Obama, Trump, or anything else do not affect whether they are good baseball/football/etc analysts.  Unless someone is advocating violence against another, they are not going to fire or suspend anyone for having views you don't like.

Had they done that, they wouldn't have stupidly suspended Linda Cohn for stating the bleeding obvious: that ESPN is being too political.  And they wouldn't have had to say a damn thing about Jamele Hill's statements on Trump.  But what they've done now is they have set themselves up as an arbiter of acceptable political and social speech and in their treatment of Hill vs the others, have made it clear that they will come down like Thor's hammer on right-wing speech, but give a token wrist slap at best for left-wing speech.  

They deserve to spiral down the drain as they hemorrhage viewers who are sick of it and just want to watch some damn football in peace.

They were extremely lenient with Schilling. He was a problem for months before they parted ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

For once, I'm with Clay Travis on this.  ESPN, going back to Curt Shilling, should have taken a stand then and there that they do not police the political/social views and speech of their employees on their own time and that nothing they say in a personal capacity reflects the views of ESPN.  They pay them to talk about sports and Schilling or anyone else's views on abortion, gay marriage, Black Lives Matter, Obama, Trump, or anything else do not affect whether they are good baseball/football/etc analysts.  Unless someone is advocating violence against another, they are not going to fire or suspend anyone for having views you don't like.

Had they done that, they wouldn't have stupidly suspended Linda Cohn for stating the bleeding obvious: that ESPN is being too political.  And they wouldn't have had to say a damn thing about Jamele Hill's statements on Trump.  But what they've done now is they have set themselves up as an arbiter of acceptable political and social speech and in their treatment of Hill vs the others, have made it clear that they will come down like Thor's hammer on right-wing speech, but give a token wrist slap at best for left-wing speech.  

They deserve to spiral down the drain as they hemorrhage viewers who are sick of it and just want to watch some damn football in peace.

It wouldn't bother me if they wanted to go the other way with it and have a strict no tolerance policy as well. What grinds my gears are the blantant double standards that ESPN is using to support their agenda. It's an arrogant way of their own execs saying to the "Trump voters" that you can either accept it or not watch it at this point. If the content becomes stale and I choose to stop watching on my own volition, that's fine. But they know that they're the leading sports program on the tube and couldn't care less if millions of people dislike the political climate on a sports network. That much is obvious when they are scared to alienate the one percent with the asian reporter but don't give a hill of beans about alienating a whole Trump fanbase"

And the "well don't watch it" retorts bug me as well. I grew up loving ESPN. I shouldn't have to "not watch it" any more than a person should "leave the country if you don't support   _____ political views  ." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

They were extremely lenient with Schilling. He was a problem for months before they parted ways.

They still ultimately fired him over speech that some people didn't like.  He didn't go along with the transgender narrative being pushed, and was a jackass in expressing it.  It's not a fireable offense and again, it puts ESPN in the position of policing personal speech and it's an untenable position.  As we've seen, they can't be evenhanded in doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

It wouldn't bother me if they wanted to go the other way with it and have a strict no tolerance policy as well. What grinds my gears are the blantant double standards that ESPN is using to support their agenda. It's an arrogant

And the "well don't watch it" retorts bug me as well. I grew up loving ESPN. I shouldn't have to "not watch it" any more than a person should "leave the country if you don't support   _____ political views  ." 

To some degree I get that, though it treads some shaky legal ground on First Amendment rights.  But then again, it's a private company and can have stupid policies up to a point.  I remember I was trying to get a job a year or so out of college with a religious organization.  And one of their requirements was a no-alcohol policy across the board, even outside of work.  Abstaining from alcohol was a tenet of their beliefs and you represent them as an employee, so if someone were to see you out in public consuming alcoholic beverages it would reflect on them.  I was willing to go along with it, but still didn't get the job because I admitted that I current did drink in moderation (it was in response to a direct question about it on the application).  Is that stupid?  Yes.  Do I think what someone does on their own time so long as it isn't illegal or violent toward others should be off limits to employers - in the vast majority of cases, yes.  But you're right, at least that would be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They still ultimately fired him over speech that some people didn't like.  He didn't go along with the transgender narrative being pushed, and was a jackass in expressing it.

That was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the sole reason for his firing. There was a pattern of behavior here. He was warned and suspended. He persisted in being a troglodyte and was fired.

http://deadspin.com/espn-fires-curt-schilling-who-finally-became-too-much-1772165466

Quote

This was far from the first time Schilling crossed a line at ESPN. Two months ago, he said Hillary Clinton “should be buried under a jail somewhere.” Three months ago, Schilling joked about being fired from ESPN for his donation to Ben Carson. Seven months ago, ESPN had nothing to say about Schilling posting insane memes on Facebook. Eight months ago, Schilling tweeted a meme comparing Muslims and Nazis, and was suspended for it. Shortly after that, he emailed a long, strange rant to a blogger to clarify his thoughts about Muslims and Nazis, and was suspended for the rest of the season.

 

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 It's not a fireable offense and again, it puts ESPN in the position of policing personal speech and it's an untenable position.  As we've seen, they can't be evenhanded in doing it.

http://www.espnfrontrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/social-networking-v2-2011.pdf

They have a policy. It can be a fireable offense if they want it to be.

But I agree, my biggest criticism is the inconsistent policing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

But I agree, my biggest criticism is the inconsistent policing.

Frankly, I think it's nearly impossible in this climate to police it at all consistently, except as I say, some bright lines such as expressions of violence, advocating things that are clearly illegal, etc.  They would be best served to just avoid delving into it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

To some degree I get that, though it treads some shaky legal ground on First Amendment rights.  But then again, it's a private company and can have stupid policies up to a point.  I remember I was trying to get a job a year or so out of college with a religious organization.  And one of their requirements was a no-alcohol policy across the board, even outside of work.  Abstaining from alcohol was a tenet of their beliefs and you represent them as an employee, so if someone were to see you out in public consuming alcoholic beverages it would reflect on them.  I was willing to go along with it, but still didn't get the job because I admitted that I current did drink in moderation (it was in response to a direct question about it on the application).  Is that stupid?  Yes.  Do I think what someone does on their own time so long as it isn't illegal or violent toward others should be off limits to employers - in the vast majority of cases, yes.  But you're right, at least that would be consistent.

I had to edit the above just in case you need to change your reply.

 

I'll end with this. Michael Jordan once said " Republicans wear sneakers too," and that's probably the best model. Don't get me wrong, shining a light on social injustice in the sports world is okay, but gay men kissing on the set, the championing of Caitlyn Jenner's transgender story, and the firing of a tennis legend over a benign and harmless comment when misinterpreted as racism isn't okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  It's like Clay Travis also said:  Guys come home, pop the top off a cold one and sit down to relax and watch some sports.  ESPN gives them discussions on Caitlyn Jenner and the alt-right.  

Yet they want to blame millennials cord-cutting for their ratings spiral. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

I had to edit the above just in case you need to change your reply.

I'll end with this. Michael Jordan once said " Republicans wear sneakers too," and that's probably the best model. Don't get me wrong, shining a light on social injustice in the sports world is okay, but gay men kissing on the set, the championing of Caitlyn Jenner's transgender story, and the firing of a tennis legend over a benign and harmless comment when misinterpreted as racism isn't okay. 

I watch tennis regularly (wife is a big fan) and I would have been ok with seeing Doug Adler get reprimanded, firing may have been a bit far though. I'd be a lot more sympathetic had he simply apologized for any offense rather than the hilariously lame excuse making he's chucking out there. The Williams sisters are the best in the sport today, but they've been subjected to racist stupidity since they hit the scene. One of the most frequent things these idiots do is, like many racists in the past, compare them to gorillas.

He claims he meant to guerrilla tactics, which may be a legitimate term of art in the tennis world, but that doesn't really hold up. He said "gorilla/guerrila effect. Charging." Guerrillas don't really charge in aggressively, guns blazing. They sit back, waiting for an opportune moment to strike before doing so. Gorillas on the other hand are hyper aggressive and powerful, charging.

Do I think he meant to say something racist? Certainly not. He's surely not stupid enough to do that on a broadcast, but he crossed well into unfortunate implications territory, and his excuse making after the fact is pretty unconvincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

He said "gorilla/guerrila effect. Charging." 

He could've been reprimanded because the word choice was retarded. Even if he said "gorilla," I don't think he meant to sound racist. I've only heard him a handful of times but he was very respected and he obviously is smart enough to know you can't say racist things while broadcasting.

However, There was a 1990s Nike campaign called "Guerilla Tennis."  Unless Adler had a previous history of being disruptive and or racist  in the workplace, I don't see why ESPN didn't at least give him the benefit of the doubt and smooth it over. It may be an incredible poor choice of words but there is clearly lack of cause to fire him. Mending bridges and working things out should've been done. Not destroying one side's career for what may have been an innocent, but stupid mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  There seems to be a prime opportunity for another station to pop up and take the reigns with all the disgruntled ESPN folks  like me and what sounds like most of us. I thought FS1 was going to be more competitive with ESPN at some point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

He could've been reprimanded because the word choice was retarded. Even if he said "gorilla," I don't think he meant to sound racist. I've only heard him a handful of times but he was very respected and he obviously is smart enough to know you can't say racist things while broadcasting.

Yeah, my point exactly. It's his behavior after the fact that I find laughable. Just admit you screwed up and move on with your life. 

Quote

However, There was a 1990s Nike campaign called "Guerilla Tennis."  Unless Adler had a previous history of being disruptive and or racist  in the workplace, I don't see why ESPN didn't at least give him the benefit of the doubt and smooth it over. It may be an incredible poor choice of words but there is clearly lack of cause to fire him. Amending bridges is how to work things out on both sides. Not destroying one sides career for what may have been an innocent, but stupid mistake. 

"You'll see Venus move in and... put the g{o/uer}rilla effect on... charging."

Guerrillas don't charge. Gorillas charge. It's intimidating and something something. Let's hear what the defense has to say:

"The suit points out that “Guerrilla Tennis” was the name of a Nike TV ad from the 1990s featuring Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras. “Obviously, (Adler) saw that commercial many times and the phrase became widely used by those who actually understood tennis vernacular and followed the sport closely,” the lawsuit said."

LOL nah. Nice try. 2/10 would laugh out of court. 

We don't really know the circumstances of his firing. For all we know, ESPN could have asked him to apologize and he stupidly tried to excuse it like he's doing in the suit. 

24 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

  There seems to be a prime opportunity for another station to pop up and take the reigns with all the disgruntled ESPN folks  like me and what sounds like most of us. I thought FS1 was going to be more competitive with ESPN at some point?

They're all suffering from the same issues. A shrinking subscriber base and they're tethered to the cable/satellite model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Yeah, my point exactly. It's his behavior after the fact that I find laughable. Just admit you screwed up and move on with your life. 

He apologized for the word usage on the set. He cannot move on when everybody thinks he's a racist. 

15 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Guerrillas don't charge

"Guerilla effect" can easily be mistakened for agggressive tactics. Guerilla warfare could just as much mean ambushes as hit and run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

He apologized for the word usage on the set. He cannot move on when everybody thinks he's a racist.

ESPN's stated reasoning:

”Adler made an inappropriate reference to Venus Williams for which he felt no apology was necessary, we disagree and stand 100% behind our decision to remove him from the 2017 Australian Open.” 

This is one of those situations when you should be contrite, as there's surely a "don't embarrass the network" clause in his contract. If he didn't display the proper contrition, instead trying to twist language to make it less embarrassing, he will not do well if I'm on that board. The only proper response is "I ****** up. Sorry. It won't happen again."

Quote

"Guerilla effect" can easily be mistakened for agggressive tactics. Guerilla warfare could just as much mean ambushes as hit and run. 

Really stretching it there.

But that's the point. Guerrillas ambush. Gorillas don't. Had Venus been creeping quietly along the baseline, leaping upon and pounding home every little mistake, then guerrilla would have been an applicable (but still very poor) choice of words. Gorillas, the the other hand, are known for charging in agressively and overwhelming their opposition. Venus was charging the net at the serve, an extremely aggressive and unsubtle way of saying "I'm going to kick your ass." Make of it what you will.

The only way one would make that mistake is if one doesn't know the meaning of the term guerrilla warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

ESPN's stated reasoning:

”Adler made an inappropriate reference to Venus Williams for which he felt no apology was necessary, we disagree and stand 100% behind our decision to remove him from the 2017 Australian Open.” 

This is one of those situations when you should be contrite, as there's surely a "don't embarrass the network" clause in his contract. If he didn't display the proper contrition, instead trying to twist language to make it less embarrassing, he will not do well if I'm on that board. The only proper response is "I ****** up. Sorry. It won't happen again."

Really stretching it there.

But that's the point. Guerrillas ambush. Gorillas don't. Had Venus been creeping quietly along the baseline, leaping upon and pounding home every little mistake, then guerrilla would have been an applicable (but still very poor) choice of words. Gorillas, the the other hand, are known for charging in agressively and overwhelming their opposition. Venus was charging the net at the serve, an extremely aggressive and unsubtle way of saying "I'm going to kick your ass." Make of it what you will.

The only way one would make that mistake is if one doesn't know the meaning of the term guerrilla warfare.

Well then what is this:

 During an Australian Open stream on ESPN3, Doug Adler should have been more careful in his word selection. He apologized and we have removed him from his remaining assignments," the statement read.

 

Dude,  I know what Guerilla warfare is. Guerillas do war in a variety of ways. Charging, ambushing, stealth, hit and run. etc. Who is to say that Guerillas don't charge? 

Adler got fired for a homophone. And despite his years of exceptional service, ESPN refused to give him the benefit of the doubt for a damn homophone.  And it sounds like you're agreeing with ESPN more and more for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well then what is this:

Because, in light of the quote below (link the article next time, please), this is hardly an indicator of contrition:

Quote

Adler also said he felt he’d done nothing wrong but issued an apology for his word choice because he believed it would help save his job.

And I imagine he was vocal about his belief he did nothing wrong to his superiors, hence their statement saying he believed an apology was not necessary.

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Dude,  I know what Guerilla warfare is. Guerillas do war in a variety of ways. Charging, ambushing, stealth, hit and run. etc.

I know you know. I was referring to Adler.

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Who is to say that Guerillas don't charge? 

But this is stupid. It's not a tactic you'll see often. They don't usually bring overwhelming force to bear, because a guerrilla war is, by it's very nature, asymmetric. A small force fighting against a larger, sometimes overwhelmingly more powerful, but more unwieldy one. The war would not last long if charging was a common tactic. Raids, ambushes and sabotage are the tactics of choice for that reason.

You're twisting language into pretzels trying to make your point. Words mean things, man. Aggressive charges and overwhelming force are not characteristics of guerrilla warfare. Full stop.

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Adler got fired for a homophone. And despite his years of exceptional service, ESPN refused to give him the benefit of the doubt for a damn homophone.  

Argument by assertion.

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

And it sounds like you're agreeing with ESPN more and more for this. 

It depends on how he acted when it was addressed by his superiors, which we may never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

And I imagine he was vocal about his belief he did nothing wrong to his superiors, hence their statement saying he believed an apology was not necessary.

You're jumping to conclusions. You said he should have apologized. I said he did...even if he did so reluctantly. Whether he believes he should have apologized is another story. He probably doesn't think he should've apologized for something when he knows he didn't have a guilty mind nor a guilty act. (Innocent mind + homophone misinterpretation.  Even with all that said, he still apologized and he is still untouchable because ESPN let him become labeled as racist. 

 

42 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're twisting language into pretzels trying to make your point. Words mean things, man. Aggressive charges and overwhelming force are not characteristics of guerrilla warfare. Full stop.

Who said anything about overwhelming force? Pot meet kettle. Aggressive charges are needed in ambush as well. You don't know s*** about ambushes dude.

42 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Argument by assertion

Lol. You're out of your damn mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...