ESPN and Politics

[homersapien 11,431]

10 minutes ago, MDM4AU said:

If we're being honest, it could have been ANY Republican and the number would be very small. This is no secret. So his point rings true. A huge section of their audience has a different political view than they (sports media). Continuing the push to the left (or to interject politics at all) is a ridiculous idea. 

No, that's not true.  Trump is far far far removed from ANY Republican.

As I recall, Trump got 27% of the total eligible votes.  It's not difficult to imagine his support in many different subsets of professionals could be in single digits.  (Not that I am accepting the polling results according to "Big Lead".)

My point is that a relative lack or Trump voters in a subset is hardly a measure of thoughtfulness for that subset.  Simple observation proves that.

However, techically speaking, I will grant it does reflects a relative lack of diversity in the same way that having relatively fewer racists or psychopathic narcissists would reflect a lack of "diversity".

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Bias of Twitter"?    

Is that sarcasm?

Why don't you read the article that MDM4AU posted?

[MDM4AU 336]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, that's not true.  Trump is far far far removed from ANY Republican.

As I recall, Trump got 27% of the total eligible votes.  It's not difficult to imagine his support in many different subsets of professionals could be in single digits.  (Not that I am accepting the polling results according to "Big Lead".)

My point is that a relative lack or Trump voters in a subset is hardly a measure of thoughtfulness for that subset.  Simple observation proves that.

However, techically speaking, I will grant it does reflects a relative lack of diversity in the same way that having relatively fewer racists or psychopathic narcissists would reflect a lack of "diversity".

So you think the split in votes would be more equal with _______ Republican candidate? MORE for the R candidate??? You aren't being honest or you are not paying attention. 

Even still, you still miss CT's point. It's not really about people supporting Trump as it is about the political make up of the cast/staff at ESPN and their audience is not the same therefore this move to the left and marginalizing or getting rid of those who don't fall in line is a bad move. 

[homersapien 11,431]

16 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Why don't you read the article that MDM4AU posted?

I read it.  I didn't see the term "bias" used with twitter, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, my understanding of twitter (I don't "tweet") is that it is a platform, period.  It doesn't edit, it simply posts what people tweet.  Is that correct?

If so, how could twitter (itself) be biased?  I mean, the people using twitter might be biased, but how can twitter - the platform - be "biased" if all they do is post whatever they are sent?

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I read it.  I didn't see the term "bias" used with twitter, but I may have missed it.

Anyway, my understanding of twitter (I don't "tweet") is that it is a platform, period.  It doesn't edit, it simply posts what people tweet.  Is that correct?

If so, how could twitter (itself) be biased?  I mean, the people using twitter might be biased, but how can twitter - the platform - be "biased" if all they do is post whatever they are sent?

 

Twitter defends liberals and has banned bully's who tweet mean things towards liberals but allow conservatives to be attacked.

Quote

The things being Tweeted about Steele were racist, sexist, and demeaning. Yet Twitter didn't step in to protect her. Too bad. Guess Steele should have been a black liberal Ghostbuster instead of a black conservative sportscaster.

 

Quote

And more importantly, why does everyone in the media, including Twitter, stand by and watch a conservative black woman get crushed on social media yet immediately rally to the defense of a liberal black woman? Should't we be opposed to all demeaning treatment online regardless of the political beliefs of the individual involved?

[AURaptor 1,126]

How anyone drawing a salary and in a position to make this call could misread sports fans so wildly baffles me. The backlash from when Bob Costas lectures viewers about guns, when he's suppose to be covering sports, apparently didn't register w/ the geniuses at espn. Apparently, they feel they NEED to tell us what we need to hear, whether we like or agree with it or not. 

[Strychnine 1,803]

10 hours ago, AU64 said:

I don't think that is true.    In fact it came intro being in a much more divisive environment where people were killing each other.   The American revolution was won by a minority of people living in the British colonies.   If I recall, about 1/3 were in favor of independence, 1/3 were loyalists and the remaining 1/3rd did not take sides in a great way.   The division was strong enough that in a good part of the south...particularly the Carolinas, the War for Independence was as much a civil war as a war against Britain.  It was a brutal war of brother against brother....not much unlike what happened 90 years later.  

 

While it was not clear, I was referring to the Constitution, and I did not mean it quite so literally.  I do not believe that our current political environment could produce anything remotely like the Constitution, as it would require a combination of consideration, compromise, and cooperation that is currently impossible.  That was all I meant.

[AU64 10,122]

ESPN strikes again.....http://sports.yahoo.com/m/8f87cbe5-ad84-374b-acd6-a356b1de65d9/ss_espn-replaces-sage-steele-on.html

Somebody PM me when the first talking head at ESPN gets fired for expressing liberal views that management finds offensive. 

At least someone had the guts to admit the reason.  Don't know that I ever saw or heard her....but too bad....you should have known better but I appreciate your courage.