cptau 169 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Craig James gets fired after one show. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130902/craig-james-will-not-return-to-fox-sports-southwest/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I'm no CJ fan but freedom of speech is obviously a thing of the past in the media...unless it is politically correct speech. He was fired for a comment he made during a political campaign for God's sake, not something he said on the air. The sports media has become just like the political media....you better toe the line, say what the suits upstairs believe or you will be gone. Meanwhile, the media bigwigs and corporate sports owners know they have huge TV audiences for sporting events and those millions of folks provide opportunities that should not be missed. So, that's why we now see all of the networks pushing their political and social views on viewers throughout the presentations of their sporting events. The leagues and networks get on various bandwagons...concussions, paying college players, cancer, racial issues, homosexuality and so on.....and woe be unto any sports commentator who slips up and says what HE or SHE thinks....rather than what the bosses want them to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Some wish freedom of speech on this very message board to be a thing of the past, to say the least, ironic. CJ is a very polarizing figure in the southwest, IN THE SPORTS WORLD. BSPN, even gave the man a platform for a while to state his case on the Leach/Texas Tech lawsuit. In retrospect, no one with a business brain, could think that was a good idea, lol. If someone thought this was a good idea, they need to be the person manning the switchboard on his first appearance on a TTU football game they broadcast and it is a matter of time before that happened. IMO, it was strictly a business decision and a very intelligent one to counter the stupid decision that hired him in the first place. As an example, Elway is very politically active, I've yet to see the NFL/Fox/NBC or BSPN, censor his opinions on football. I don't doubt CJ was smart enough to keep his political views off the football air, as well. Contrary to wishes or some beliefs, not everything is political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Cav 0 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Do you think ESPN will rework the SMU 30 for 30 and actually put the stuff about James in they left out or glossed over because he was working for them at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 As a broadcaster, considering that he left no money from SMU on the table, he is the perfect example of amateur athletics<SARCASM>, please. Hypocrisy at its' finest. lol. Complete sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Freak 2,529 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Some wish freedom of speech on this very message board to be a thing of the past, to say the least, ironic. Huh? Freedom of speech does not apply to this (or any) message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Some wish freedom of speech on this very message board to be a thing of the past, to say the least, ironic. Huh? Freedom of speech does not apply to this (or any) message board. Really, no? Could've sworn the most basic of constitutional rights guaranteed that? NOT A LITERAL STATEMENT. Of course it doesn't but the least thing anyone says on this board is subject to others saying it shouldn't be said. For a family sports site we are given rather wide freedom here and some still criticize that. Mainly because it doesn't contort and conform to their own preferred narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Freedom of speech does not guarantee that everyone ( or anyone) will agree with you on an issue. And Craig James surely is not the first unpopular commentator with some segment of a fan base. Remember he was hired by people in the Southwest...and fired by people in NY who, I guarantee you, do not care one bit what some rabid Texas football fans think. I don't think for one minute this had anything to do with the reaction of viewers....most of whom probably have no idea what CJ's views are on the issue that got him canned. In my view, he is the latest sports announcer/commentator to get nailed because he expressed a view (not even on camera) that was not popular with certain people. And sure this is political....in the sense that there is a corporate and cultural viewpoint on various subjects...and everyone must support it...and not just support it...they have to promote it. Does anyone really believe that all the sports commentators are truly excited about gay players "coming out" and that to a man (and woman I expect) they view this as good for the sport? Possibly so at this point because they have probably culled anyone who might disagree with that premise. As for CJ's SMU days and transgressions....my gosh.... if ESPN, Fox and the other networks got rid of everyone with questionable behavior during their college playing or coaching days, they would have empty studios most weekends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU-24 3,119 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Howard Cosell was hated by many Conservatives for his extremely Liberal views, and stupid comments. Most of the time his employment was OK, because his views were liberal. Let a conservative say something well, conservative and they are fired because they are not politically correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Cav 0 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 As for CJ's SMU days and transgressions....my gosh.... if ESPN, Fox and the other networks got rid of everyone with questionable behavior during their college playing or coaching days, they would have empty studios most weekends. It's not a question of whether ESPN hires guys with questionable pasts, it was that they filmed a documentary about an admitted dirty program, perhaps the dirtiest of the dirty, and they said their guy was basically the only guy in the program that didn't receive inducements to attend SMU. It's unrealistic and smacks of a lack of journalistic integrity, especially considering all of the suggested impropriety surrounding Craig during his time at SMU which, even if not true, deserved mention in the documentary. The fact that they tried to portray Craig as the only clean guy in the program is an insult to the viewers and is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle10 77 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 He was horrible at BSPN. He would have been horrible for FSSW. Good move IMO........and it could not have happened to a nicer guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 As for CJ's SMU days and transgressions....my gosh.... if ESPN, Fox and the other networks got rid of everyone with questionable behavior during their college playing or coaching days, they would have empty studios most weekends. It's not a question of whether ESPN hires guys with questionable pasts, it was that they filmed a documentary about an admitted dirty program, perhaps the dirtiest of the dirty, and they said their guy was basically the only guy in the program that didn't receive inducements to attend SMU. It's unrealistic and smacks of a lack of journalistic integrity, especially considering all of the suggested impropriety surrounding Craig during his time at SMU which, even if not true, deserved mention in the documentary. The fact that they tried to portray Craig as the only clean guy in the program is an insult to the viewers and is laughable. I agree with your comment but this was Fox that fired him...he apparently was in good graces with ESPN until he left to run for office. Now that some of his "conservative" views are known you can bet that the suits at ABC and ESPN will not take him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Ditka, Nance, Esiason, Knight, A. Manning, Sehorn, . What do these names have in common? Conservative sports broadcasters. That is a very short list, there are many, many more. James only got 4% of the vote in a republican primary, apparently a very popular man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 So, gays WON'T have to answer to God™ for their lives ? I thought everyone had to go before the Big Guy. Why should gays be excluded ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU-24 3,119 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So, gays WON'T have to answer to God™ for their lives ? I thought everyone had to go before the Big Guy. Why should gays be excluded ? :gofig:/> They are excluded(or they think so) because they don't believe the Biblical view of God. It all comes down to belief. As for me and my house, I believe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Do you think ESPN will rework the SMU 30 for 30 and actually put the stuff about James in they left out or glossed over because he was working for them at the time? Nope. lol. Karma is a ish! The way the university and James family did Leach was just plain dirty. I thought James was trying to get into politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle10 77 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Do you think ESPN will rework the SMU 30 for 30 and actually put the stuff about James in they left out or glossed over because he was working for them at the time? Nope. lol. Karma is a ish! The way the university and James family did Leach was just plain dirty. I thought James was trying to get into politics? He tried. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/05/craig-james-senate-race-ends-republican-primary-/1#.UifiwsbVD_M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenEyedGirl 6 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So, gays WON'T have to answer to God™ for their lives ? I thought everyone had to go before the Big Guy. Why should gays be excluded ? I was coming to post the exact same thing. Everyone will have to answer for their own lives and therefore should only worry about their own lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Do you think ESPN will rework the SMU 30 for 30 and actually put the stuff about James in they left out or glossed over because he was working for them at the time? Nope. lol. Karma is a ish! The way the university and James family did Leach was just plain dirty. I thought James was trying to get into politics? He tried. http://content.usato.../1#.UifiwsbVD_M Thanks for info. The 4% who voted for him must be his family and those who contributed to his Pony Express fund while he was in college. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJBas 4 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Just like all the rest of us Craig James does have freedom of speech. but guess what? So do his employers. His employers also have the right to can him for whatever reason they want. It's their money and their network. I'd have thought the conservative community would have taken exactly that position; that those with the money can do with it what they please. Having freedom of speech does not mean that you're the ONLY person to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonwde 0 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 people are afraid to hear the truth these days its a shame. hope someone hires craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So, gays WON'T have to answer to God™ for their lives ? I thought everyone had to go before the Big Guy. Why should gays be excluded ? They are excluded(or they think so) because they don't believe the Biblical view of God. It all comes down to belief. As for me and my house, I believe! Believe, or not, I just think the too much is being made on the whole issue. I guess we're suppose to accept, from the way this all turned out, that NO gays can believe in God, at all. But for those who do, everyone * I thought * was suppose to answer HIM , so I don't see where this is a big issue. IMO, it's every bit an anti- religious thing as it is an anti 'gay' thing. I guess being anti gay is the bigger "sin " in our society . Don't get me wrong. I'm not standing up for the guy in the least. Just clarifying what's really going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonwde 0 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So, gays WON'T have to answer to God™ for their lives ? I thought everyone had to go before the Big Guy. Why should gays be excluded ? They are excluded(or they think so) because they don't believe the Biblical view of God. It all comes down to belief. As for me and my house, I believe! Believe, or not, I just think the too much is being made on the whole issue. I guess we're suppose to accept, from the way this all turned out, that NO gays can believe in God, at all. But for those who do, everyone * I thought * was suppose to answer HIM , so I don't see where this is a big issue. IMO, it's every bit an anti- religious thing as it is an anti 'gay' thing. I guess being anti gay is the bigger "sin " in our society . Don't get me wrong. I'm not standing up for the guy in the least. Just clarifying what's really going on here. hes just another casualty of the gay agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJBas 4 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Just like to bring up a little common sense here: Anyone who has gone out of their way to become a public figure and is on the payroll of a TV, radio, etc network, nd who appears to speak at a political rally - not just appears in the crowd but is on the platform speaking - is intentionally implying that he is speaking for his employer. That being the case, he'd better be certain that he is. Evidently James was quite willing to accept the implied credibility such a position gave him without clearing his with his employer first. ANYBODY would have been fired for that. Rightfully so. The people spending the money have every right to stop spending it on him just as much as they have the right to stop spending it on whomever they chose. It's a real world; you embarrass your employer...you're fired. Same goes for you and me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJBas 4 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 So, gays WON'T have to answer to God™ for their lives ? I thought everyone had to go before the Big Guy. Why should gays be excluded ? :gofig:/> They are excluded(or they think so) because they don't believe the Biblical view of God. It all comes down to belief. As for me and my house, I believe! Believe, or not, I just think the too much is being made on the whole issue. I guess we're suppose to accept, from the way this all turned out, that NO gays can believe in God, at all. But for those who do, everyone * I thought * was suppose to answer HIM , so I don't see where this is a big issue. IMO, it's every bit an anti- religious thing as it is an anti 'gay' thing. I guess being anti gay is the bigger "sin " in our society . Don't get me wrong. I'm not standing up for the guy in the least. Just clarifying what's really going on here. I think it's a stretch to say it's an anti-religious thing. I think it only becomes that for a right wing extremist fundamentalist for whom the cornerstone of their religion was hating gays. Even then the anti-religion aspect is only in their imagination.The guy embarrassed his employer and he got fired for it. If you or I become an embarrassment to our employer we'd be fired too. Plenty of people have been fired for being a far less public embarrassment to their employers than he was. With communications being what they are today it's a safe bet that every public thing you do is being recorded by someone. And James wanted his actions to be recorded and heard by everyone. He should have known he wasn't immune t being fired any more than were the rest of us. In fact, I think he probably was well aware of that and actually wanted it to become an issue and get him more publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.