• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SportsCenter with Michael and Jemele SC6

deac29 said:
Absolutely not. Hill is much more prominent and thus should be even more mindful of her employer's business interests.
Click to expand...

But sportscasters have criticized the sports leagues and players they cover for decades. Bud Selig was a punching bag for his entire tenure.
 
tintinisahottie said:
She said to boycott ESPN's advertisers. She said to boycott her company's revenue stream. You can't spin this
Click to expand...

She values her convictions over her job security. What spin is needed? How does this confuse so many people? Kaepernick would likely have a job if he had just shut up too. You act like if people just stayed quiet they could retain their platform of power. But of what use is that platform of power if you can't exercise your opinions? Seems to me these actors are performing rational actions in full view of their consequences.
 
And she would probably gain popularity power and respect if ESPN fired her for speaking her mind. Isn't it telling that the POTUS, Jerry Jones, ESPN management, and old white guys spend this much time worrying about some FEMALE reporter ? She's gaining power and credibility by the minute.
 
MHBDemon said:
Didn't she say that if you didn't like Jones' actions, then boycott his advertisers?
Click to expand...

That is what she said, and that's possible for the people of Dallas, but when you walk into AT&T Stadium, the Cowboys advertisers and the NFL's advertisers, and Disney/ESPN's are one and the same. All of the real advertising money in this country is chasing the best ratings with the most engaged viewers and the NFL is a big expensive target for that.
 
I'd likely get in trouble if I publicly spoke out against my employer. My post, however, was targeted at tintin's earlier response - I should've quoted it - where he ascribes motives to her actions.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'd likely get in trouble if I publicly spoke out against my employer. My post, however, was targeted at tintin's earlier response - I should've quoted it - where he ascribes motives to her actions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, but you don't have the same job as her anyway. She's expected to criticize somebody at some point. Publicly.

And I'm not just talking about criticism of the way Blake Bortles can't throw the ball to his teammates.
 
she should start her own dumbass company with Jordan Rodrigue, who she was (correctly) calling stupid last week for not being careful with her tweets, noting that your company will comb through your social media.
 
tintinisahottie said:
she should start her own dumbass company with Jordan Rodrigue, who she was (correctly) calling stupid last week for not being careful with her tweets, noting that your company will comb through your social media.
Click to expand...

Alas it took you long enough. Finally an admission that more than anything else you just disagree and don't want to have to hear from her.
 
TownieDeac said:
She values her convictions over her job security. What spin is needed? How does this confuse so many people? Kaepernick would likely have a job if he had just shut up too. You act like if people just stayed quiet they could retain their platform of power. But of what use is that platform of power if you can't exercise your opinions? Seems to me these actors are performing rational actions in full view of their consequences.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. On the other hand, ESPN's reaction is also rational and expected (which is not meant to imply that you said it was not)
 
TownieDeac said:
Alas it took you long enough. Finally an admission that more than anything else you just disagree and don't want to have to hear from her.
Click to expand...

i never hear from either unless a large media firestorm happens, do you?
 
C'mon man. She basically advocated a boycott and followed it with "now I'm not calling for a boycott..."



The first attempted suspension, or whatever you want to call it, was BS. She tied their hands on this one. I'm sure there were a lot of angry phone calls. This one went directly to her employer's bottom line. Although at this point if you believe some of what's being written about how the relationship has deteriorated behind the scenes I'm not sure she didn't do it purposely to goad them into something.

As a labor lawyer put it:

ESPN has increasingly struggled to deal with criticism both from those who think the network is too stilted and pro-establishment, and from those who think it is too politically correct and biased against conservatives. But the decision to suspend Hill came not over a political issue but a business issue. Many Cowboys sponsors are also ESPN sponsors, and ESPN was not going to tolerate anything that might make those sponsors angry.
Click to expand...

ESPN suspends Jemele Hill for tweeting about boycotting Cowboys’ sponsors
 
PhDeac said:
That's not what she said. You just spun it into the opposite of what she said.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/09/media/jemele-hill-espn-suspended/index.html

"Just so we're clear: I'm not advocating a NFL boycott," Hill tweeted. "But an unfair burden has been put on players in Dallas & Miami w/ anthem directives."
Click to expand...

Jemele called for people to boycott the Cowboys' advertisers. her exact words were "or, how about not patronizing the advertisers who support the Cowboys?"

Someone tweeted at her that those advertisers included:

AT&T
Bank of America
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
Ford Motor
MillerCoors
PepsiCo

She retweeted that and said, exact words, "This play always work. Change happens when advertisers are impacted. If you feel strongly about JJ's statement, boycott his advertisers."

How many of those advertisers also pay ESPN? I think 100%
 
macktheknife said:
When will these owners present one gram of evidence that flag,anthem, military idolatry has anything to do with patriotism.
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence would you accept? My point being that I am not sure that is the kind of thing you can 'prove'.
On the other hand, what do you consider patriotic?
 
Ugggh, please go to another thread for that debate.
 
scooter84 said:
What kind of evidence would you accept? My point being that I am not sure that is the kind of thing you can 'prove'.
On the other hand, what do you consider patriotic?
Click to expand...

Why is supporting American symbols over American people considered patriotic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top