with the election drawingcloser and closer with every passing day, espn has decided toput out a memo for their on-air talent to tell them what theycan and can't do vis-รข¿-vis political speech and talkingabout candidates and issues, who they are voting for, thingslike that. so here are some
Android TV espn, things from that memo -- that makes sense. using data. that is true. that is anattack on a lot of other media.
that is such a new idea. so like, you can mentionwaterboy or office space but not do a whole bunch of thosereferences. it went on and on about the different kinds ofthings they can talk about, basically they don't want theirhosts talking politics. this is a sports network, which i don'twatch a lot of, so for those of you who might actually watch, doyou think it makes sense for them to sort of get out in frontof this sort of thing? should there be some open expression?you have people like keith
olbermann who were obviouslyexperienced and talented on the sports side, but also extremelypolitically opinionated. the problem comes more fromthe right-wingers on espn, because keith olbermann, if hesays something, it might be political but it won't bebatshit crazy or racist or off the charts. so curt schillingwas tweeting -- you want to show those? go ahead. i won't understand the backstory.
i like the term, drive-bycomments. we had another drive-by commenting in wattstoday. a guy drove by, called me a dick, it still hurts. three other kids got hit by thatsame dick. he called me a dick, he saidsomething about the epa -- i don't know for or against, itwas a drive-by. it was a climate change thing. carbon! and i was like, scientists areall on the take.
when i first read this ithought i might be in the minority thinking it was a goodidea. you talked about curt schilling, he got in some issueslast year tweeting about the nazis and comparing them tomuslims, and after the suspension, because it was rightwhen the major league baseball playoffs were happening, he isoff the team and they replaced him, then he comes back, we canlook at both of these, and after getting back he decides to postthis to facebook. because i've been busted on twitter so hetakes to facebook.
the thing about people whoare racist is that they are so dumb. like, he doesn'tunderstand the difference, what is wrong with that. he doesn'tget that. like, that would be like a saying because of vietnamwe should not have any vietnamese presidents, or weshould not have any serbian presidents, or should not haveany german presidents. you know what i'm saying. curt schillinggoes, that sounds right. we shouldn't have any of thosepresidents. because the differencebetween those positions is the
preconceptions you have aboutone group as being distinct in some fundamental way fromother sorts of people, but that is simply the bathwaterthey dwell in, so they can't see that they aresurrounded by it. he has no idea. literally soignorant, so dumb and ignorant, that curt schilling tweets thatout. why doesn't he just put "i'm dumb" at the bottom? how have americans completelylost their minds? besides me, i never had one tolose, i'm dumb.
not just curt schilling, 484are like, nailed it. "like." i'm okay with it, whether itis a progressive talking point or some conservatives. we canalso do the first one that got curt schilling in trouble. thisis what got him in trouble in the first place. it's said only5 to 10% of muslims are extremists. in 1940, only 7% ofgermans were nazis. how did that go? apparently the math isstaggering. again, muslims are like nazis.again he should have at the
bottom, i don't get things. i amcurt schilling, dumb guy on tv. that is tough. history. do he and adam baldwin gettogether and just try to do math problems? try to figure out howto tie their shoes at the same time? how do you tie your shoes,curt? i use slip-ons. i love the little things youcan figure out. like this person who took the screenshot, not afollower of curt schilling. i love that. not a follower of him.
espn, they are a privatecorporation, they can limit certain types of speech. this isnot the government. most people don't understand what the firstamendment is about, they can limit that if they want to. ithink if they wanted to have it open that you can talk aboutthat sort of thing i think that might help them, it might makethe personalities seem more like real people as opposed to justsports figures from the past. but at the same time, people goand want to watch sports and figure out what is going on withthe team and the roster or
whatever, and do they just wanta random reference to planned parenthood? probably not. thereis a youtube channel i follow that is actually aboutboard games, and occasionally they just go off on thesediscussions about religion that
seem oddly out of place. theyare allowed to do that 100%, i still love the channel, butthere is something to be said for having a bit of consistencyin the sorts of things you talk about. espn is probablymaking the right choice
