It's a testament to just how sad professionalism has gotten...You were a Comm. Major, I was a Minor in the same, and I guarantee that almost every freshman in college you and I would make fun of would have caught this...big deal? No. Incredibly stupid? You betcha.
Tell me what is stupid about it? He used a legitimate phrase that everyone decided to take waaaaay out of context. That's not on the writer, that's not on the editorial staff...that's on our PC driven society. My point is, there isn't anything to catch. I don't have a problem that it ended up on their mobile site.
It's a stupid choice of words...the issue isn't the phrase, it's the broad context. It's a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless, that in our society, you have to aim for the bottom of the barrel. While you and I will look at that article and probably laugh at the absentmindedness of the unintended double-entendre, we live in a society that loves to fly off the handle. Is that the writer's fault? No, but at the same time, would avoiding the issue by taking a second to step back to realize that this was inevitably going to cause an issue have been a better choice? Absolutely.
I vehemently disagree with everything you said. I will repeat myself once again; there is nothing stupid about his choice of words. "Chink in the armor" is a commonly used phrase and there is nothing wrong with his usage of it. The farthest I will go is to say that his choice of words was "inconvenient," but certainly not inappropriate or wrong. In order to be offended by it, you have to be actively seeking a conflict and you have to make an awful lot of assumptions; assumptions which are completely wrong and inappropriate.
I'll be very blunt with you; this issue actually makes me very angry and I am wholly disappointed at your response. Like nearly everyone else, you are attempting to place a modicum of blame on an innocent writer in large part to the mob mentality that started this whole mess. There is NO need for context. There is NO reason to expect this writer to see a conflict like this arising. As I said, it took me quite a few looks at the thing myself before I noticed it at all...and I already knew there was a controversy! All you are doing is making a very simple issue into an overly complex one. Don't think so hard! The writer did nothing wrong. He used a perfectly legitimate phrase and unfortunately had to take a bullet to the brain over a total non-issue. End of story.
I absolutely agree that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And I also agree that this never should be an issue. I'm just saying that to publish that as a headline in today's society is very naive. Regardless of the fact that people should understand that it is a common expression an shouldn't look to make every headline into the next racist/sexist/whatever-ist cold war, they do. Like I said, I completely agree with you that none of these things SHOULD be issues, but if things were as they should be, I should be able to leave my car door unlocked with valuables inside, because people should be honest and not steal. I lock my car door because things aren't as they should be, and where that is an exaggeration of the concept, the idea still applies. I don't live in the world as it should be-I live in the world as it exists, and the wise choice would have been to choose another phrase that means the same thing.
Those are all valid points, but remember what we're talking about here. It's not like this was on the front page of ESPN Magazine, or it was said at the top of the prime time Sportscenter. We're talking about a 28 year old guy working the ESPN Mobile site at like 3 in the morning. I highly doubt there is a stringent editorial process at that point, and, as you are aware, the onus for catching such things is always on the editors.
Either way, I wasn't presenting this as a question of what world we live in (actually, I was very honest and critical of that world), but as a question of what is right and what is wrong. Call me naive, but I will always think ESPN should do the right thing in every circumstance, and I feel that they are doing the exact wrong thing in every circumstance. Their race tinted coverage of this, the way they beat the story into the ground, the way they MAKE news and not REPORT news, and the way they handled this issue is unprofessional and wrong on every level.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I just saw this for this first time when you posted this on Facebook! Hilarious!!!
Okay, but on a serious note... yeah, I caught this right away, the second I saw the picture. And no, I didn't know what I was looking for. Perhaps it was the same for Bloomy, so I guess I can see where he's coming from. But the problem here is, I saw it immediately, Jon didn't. Perhaps if we polled 1,000 people, we'd discover that about half of THEM are accustomed/attuned to racial slurs enough to make these connections, and half are not. Please understand this - there's nothing wrong with being on either side! There are a multitude of factors here - general attention to detail, familiarity with common racial slurs, frequency of EXPOSURE to racial slurs, the context those slurs are usually introduced in...
Let me give an example. If you're like me, you don't live in a context where you really EVER hear people using racial slurs derogitorially. In fact, the only context I really ever hear them is in stand-up comedy, and usually by a MEMBER OF that race! It's the world we live in.
Now, I happen to have been born with a huge attention for detail (I'm an accountant, go figure), plus I'm very familiar with lots of racial slurs, so guess what? When I see an article that uses the word "Chink", even in a commonly used phrase, and the guy pictured is Asian, then YES, I IMMEDIATELY see the irony.
BUT HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART!!! Do I dare ASSUME that the writer (as Jon said, some nobody who does mobile posts at 3am), or even his editors, have all the same variables that I named above, which I happen to posses? Heck, some people have never heard the racial slur "chink" in their lives! Perhaps it's naive of me to say this... and if I'm being completely honest, I find it an incredibly coincidence that this particular phrase happened to be used for Lin. Think about it... have you read ESPN headlines lately? They're practically ALL really stupid puns!!! Every last one of them!! Seriously! So I think we have to acknowledge that that is the PRIMARY reason everyone there is assuming this was not simply an oversight. If I had to guess, I'd agree.
But here's where we need to take another step back. I thought this was America! Isn't there a little something called "innocent until proven guilty?" I know, ESPN has the right to fire anyone they want, they're not the police and this isn't a criminal charge. But why is it that, before I even knew this incident ever happened, the guy is already fired?!
This is obviously reactionary. I doubt the guy even had the time to say a word to ESPN in defense. You know how our society works now. Heck, let's quote Anchorman: "I have to fire you." You know that the moment an ESPN exec. saw this, the first thought they had was, "Someone has to get fired." They have no choice. Corporations have made themselves PR slaves, and it is by their own doing. It's all about the dollars, and I guess that's not indictment, because that's what business is. But I wish occasionally someone would stand up for something. Not here, not ESPN.
I just find it extraordinarily hypocritical that ESPN would draw the line in the sand over something that is, at most, an inconvenient phrase when they have been the biggest instigator of the racial discussion. ESPN's coverage of Lin, not an innocent mobile headline, should be the PR disaster!
I agree...espn is the devil...though, they're a slave to the ratings because they're a slave to the dollar (as casey mentioned.) It sucks that controversy sells, so really, at risk of getting all philosophical, our society sucks.
This has nothing to do with ratings. If they had simply reprimanded the employee, or even suspended him, then this would have blown over in no time without any harm being done to their business. Jason Whitlock tweeted something far worse just a few days prior (it was actually racist) and was not fired or reprimanded by Fox Sports. Do you think Fox Sports is any worse off today? Is their business struggling from it? Do you even remember that Whitlock sent out a racist tweet? Keep in mind that Whitlock, unlike this random ESPN Mobile guy, is one of the faces of Fox Sports. Yet, they are none the worse for wear.
I didn't see the tweet, but yeah, that's stupid-I think you're right on that the guy shouldn't have been fired too, unless there was some investigation that concluded that he was deliberately being racist, but like you, I don't think that's he case.
Yeah, I guess when you compare them to Fox it's clear that they're worse, and they are. But still, both companies are ratings slaves, they just take it to different levels. Look, Fox has always been willing to be a little more 'edgy' - have you ever watched Fox news? They have no shame!!! On the other hand, ESPN is owned by Disney, and you can see in many ways about how they have always ran their business that they are much quicker to take a "We're not going to touch it" approach. In my opinion it's not that one is a slave to ratings and one isn't - it's just a more extreme and less thoughtful approach, that's all.
BTW, this just occurred to me but does anyone else find it extremely ironic that we have been tossing around the word "slave" in this comments section? I guess one of us has got to go!!
It's a testament to just how sad professionalism has gotten...You were a Comm. Major, I was a Minor in the same, and I guarantee that almost every freshman in college you and I would make fun of would have caught this...big deal? No. Incredibly stupid? You betcha.
ReplyDeleteTell me what is stupid about it? He used a legitimate phrase that everyone decided to take waaaaay out of context. That's not on the writer, that's not on the editorial staff...that's on our PC driven society. My point is, there isn't anything to catch. I don't have a problem that it ended up on their mobile site.
ReplyDeleteIt's a stupid choice of words...the issue isn't the phrase, it's the broad context. It's a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless, that in our society, you have to aim for the bottom of the barrel. While you and I will look at that article and probably laugh at the absentmindedness of the unintended double-entendre, we live in a society that loves to fly off the handle. Is that the writer's fault? No, but at the same time, would avoiding the issue by taking a second to step back to realize that this was inevitably going to cause an issue have been a better choice? Absolutely.
ReplyDeleteI vehemently disagree with everything you said. I will repeat myself once again; there is nothing stupid about his choice of words. "Chink in the armor" is a commonly used phrase and there is nothing wrong with his usage of it. The farthest I will go is to say that his choice of words was "inconvenient," but certainly not inappropriate or wrong. In order to be offended by it, you have to be actively seeking a conflict and you have to make an awful lot of assumptions; assumptions which are completely wrong and inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI'll be very blunt with you; this issue actually makes me very angry and I am wholly disappointed at your response. Like nearly everyone else, you are attempting to place a modicum of blame on an innocent writer in large part to the mob mentality that started this whole mess. There is NO need for context. There is NO reason to expect this writer to see a conflict like this arising. As I said, it took me quite a few looks at the thing myself before I noticed it at all...and I already knew there was a controversy! All you are doing is making a very simple issue into an overly complex one. Don't think so hard! The writer did nothing wrong. He used a perfectly legitimate phrase and unfortunately had to take a bullet to the brain over a total non-issue. End of story.
I absolutely agree that he did absolutely nothing wrong. And I also agree that this never should be an issue. I'm just saying that to publish that as a headline in today's society is very naive. Regardless of the fact that people should understand that it is a common expression an shouldn't look to make every headline into the next racist/sexist/whatever-ist cold war, they do. Like I said, I completely agree with you that none of these things SHOULD be issues, but if things were as they should be, I should be able to leave my car door unlocked with valuables inside, because people should be honest and not steal. I lock my car door because things aren't as they should be, and where that is an exaggeration of the concept, the idea still applies. I don't live in the world as it should be-I live in the world as it exists, and the wise choice would have been to choose another phrase that means the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThose are all valid points, but remember what we're talking about here. It's not like this was on the front page of ESPN Magazine, or it was said at the top of the prime time Sportscenter. We're talking about a 28 year old guy working the ESPN Mobile site at like 3 in the morning. I highly doubt there is a stringent editorial process at that point, and, as you are aware, the onus for catching such things is always on the editors.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I wasn't presenting this as a question of what world we live in (actually, I was very honest and critical of that world), but as a question of what is right and what is wrong. Call me naive, but I will always think ESPN should do the right thing in every circumstance, and I feel that they are doing the exact wrong thing in every circumstance. Their race tinted coverage of this, the way they beat the story into the ground, the way they MAKE news and not REPORT news, and the way they handled this issue is unprofessional and wrong on every level.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I just saw this for this first time when you posted this on Facebook! Hilarious!!!
ReplyDeleteOkay, but on a serious note... yeah, I caught this right away, the second I saw the picture. And no, I didn't know what I was looking for. Perhaps it was the same for Bloomy, so I guess I can see where he's coming from. But the problem here is, I saw it immediately, Jon didn't. Perhaps if we polled 1,000 people, we'd discover that about half of THEM are accustomed/attuned to racial slurs enough to make these connections, and half are not. Please understand this - there's nothing wrong with being on either side! There are a multitude of factors here - general attention to detail, familiarity with common racial slurs, frequency of EXPOSURE to racial slurs, the context those slurs are usually introduced in...
Let me give an example. If you're like me, you don't live in a context where you really EVER hear people using racial slurs derogitorially. In fact, the only context I really ever hear them is in stand-up comedy, and usually by a MEMBER OF that race! It's the world we live in.
Now, I happen to have been born with a huge attention for detail (I'm an accountant, go figure), plus I'm very familiar with lots of racial slurs, so guess what? When I see an article that uses the word "Chink", even in a commonly used phrase, and the guy pictured is Asian, then YES, I IMMEDIATELY see the irony.
BUT HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART!!! Do I dare ASSUME that the writer (as Jon said, some nobody who does mobile posts at 3am), or even his editors, have all the same variables that I named above, which I happen to posses? Heck, some people have never heard the racial slur "chink" in their lives! Perhaps it's naive of me to say this... and if I'm being completely honest, I find it an incredibly coincidence that this particular phrase happened to be used for Lin. Think about it... have you read ESPN headlines lately? They're practically ALL really stupid puns!!! Every last one of them!! Seriously! So I think we have to acknowledge that that is the PRIMARY reason everyone there is assuming this was not simply an oversight. If I had to guess, I'd agree.
But here's where we need to take another step back. I thought this was America! Isn't there a little something called "innocent until proven guilty?" I know, ESPN has the right to fire anyone they want, they're not the police and this isn't a criminal charge. But why is it that, before I even knew this incident ever happened, the guy is already fired?!
This is obviously reactionary. I doubt the guy even had the time to say a word to ESPN in defense. You know how our society works now. Heck, let's quote Anchorman: "I have to fire you." You know that the moment an ESPN exec. saw this, the first thought they had was, "Someone has to get fired." They have no choice. Corporations have made themselves PR slaves, and it is by their own doing. It's all about the dollars, and I guess that's not indictment, because that's what business is. But I wish occasionally someone would stand up for something. Not here, not ESPN.
I just find it extraordinarily hypocritical that ESPN would draw the line in the sand over something that is, at most, an inconvenient phrase when they have been the biggest instigator of the racial discussion. ESPN's coverage of Lin, not an innocent mobile headline, should be the PR disaster!
ReplyDeleteI agree...espn is the devil...though, they're a slave to the ratings because they're a slave to the dollar (as casey mentioned.) It sucks that controversy sells, so really, at risk of getting all philosophical, our society sucks.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with ratings. If they had simply reprimanded the employee, or even suspended him, then this would have blown over in no time without any harm being done to their business. Jason Whitlock tweeted something far worse just a few days prior (it was actually racist) and was not fired or reprimanded by Fox Sports. Do you think Fox Sports is any worse off today? Is their business struggling from it? Do you even remember that Whitlock sent out a racist tweet? Keep in mind that Whitlock, unlike this random ESPN Mobile guy, is one of the faces of Fox Sports. Yet, they are none the worse for wear.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see the tweet, but yeah, that's stupid-I think you're right on that the guy shouldn't have been fired too, unless there was some investigation that concluded that he was deliberately being racist, but like you, I don't think that's he case.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess when you compare them to Fox it's clear that they're worse, and they are. But still, both companies are ratings slaves, they just take it to different levels. Look, Fox has always been willing to be a little more 'edgy' - have you ever watched Fox news? They have no shame!!! On the other hand, ESPN is owned by Disney, and you can see in many ways about how they have always ran their business that they are much quicker to take a "We're not going to touch it" approach. In my opinion it's not that one is a slave to ratings and one isn't - it's just a more extreme and less thoughtful approach, that's all.
ReplyDeleteBTW, this just occurred to me but does anyone else find it extremely ironic that we have been tossing around the word "slave" in this comments section? I guess one of us has got to go!!