Sports Media Review by Jonathan Weiler

Tuesday, December 12, 2006
9:13:00 AM EST

Here’s another set of interview excerpts, courtesy of The Big Lead’s recent exchange with Dan Le Batard, of the Miami Herald and ESPN. Le Batard is, for my money, one of the smartest guys in the business, and he’s got incisive things to say to TBL.

For example, Le Batard responds to the charge that his status as a University of Miami alum might bias his ability to cover them objectively thusly: 

“But I understand the perception of the program and of me. Can’t bitch about it too much. I went to the school and often write positive things about the school. Can’t object to allegations of conflict of interest when there appears to be conflict of interest, even if I don’t think it contaminates my work. But, in general, objectivity is a lie, an illusion. We all have our baggage. Being objective isn’t very human. Neither is journalism sometimes. Best a journalist can do is try to be self-aware and aspire to objectivity.”

Le Batard sparked a controversy a couple of years ago when he raised questions about whether Steve Nash won the MVP award over Shaq in part because he was white. (Aside: that vote, following the 2004-05 season, was surely the first time in the history of the league that anyone gave a shit who won the MVP award).

Here’s the exchange between TBL and Le Batard:

“Steve Nash only won the MVP because he was white. Those are your words (or close to them). Still feel that way?

“I didn’t write that. Those are not my words. What I wrote was a question asking whether race, not racism, played a factor in the fourth-closest MVP vote ever. This isn’t that complicated, tho it became that afterward. Did Steve Nash beat Shaq because he was 1) the novelty, 2) the underdog, 3) the guy with smaller expectations, 4) the new thing, 5) different? And if you believe that any one of those five contributed to the victory, a close one, where does him being white fit into him being 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5? It was posed as a question, not as an allegation. Race maybe playing a factor isn’t the same as saying racism may have played a factor. Its subtle, nuanced, but it gets drowned by the screaming that comes after anyone tries to talk about race in this country, so many people coming to the discussion with their fists up. The reaction was fascinating. I don’t know if Nash’s color had anything to do with it. Can’t. Have no empirical evidence. But I do know that this sort of thing would be subconscious, not conscious, after being enlightened about societal behavior and embedded prejudices and the human mind in the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. So I threw the question out there and hopefully some people thought about it and heard what I was asking above all the screaming.”

Finally, TBL asked about Michael Irvin’s recent comments concerning Tony Romo’s ancestry and whether, as many have asserted, a White commentator would have been fired for similar remarks (as Jimmy the Greek famously was). Rick Reilly, of SI, for example, recently complained about this “double standard.”

In the category of “couldn’t have said it better myself,” here’s Le Batard’s response:

“I’ve heard a lot of white people say what you have said Reilly wrote. Don’t agree with him. God, we’re so sensitive. Too sensitive. We’re so willing to end a broadcaster or executive’s entire career over a few words. We love firing people. I wonder how Rick would feel if he wrote one dumb sentence and got fired over it. We’re too willing to erase too much good work over a mistake. And I’m just as tired of hearing white people bitch about the double standard here as white people are of hearing cries of racism. Yes, black people can say things white people can’t. But Jimmy The Greek and Al Campanis don’t make up for slavery, OK? They don’t make up for the fact that just about every person in a position of power in sports is white and hiring other white people. They don’t make up for the fact that 6 of 1 million college-football coaches are black because all the people in power and making the decisions are white and they tend to hire other white people because if you looked around the room at their parties and galas and weddings, all you would see is white people. This isn’t racism. Its human nature. We gravitate toward those with similar interests, experiences, etc. But black people are in an unequal position because of it. So, yes, there’s a double standard. Black people can say things that white people can’t. But I’m OK with that double standard given what has to be endured to arrive at it. Life ain’t fair sometimes. If life were fair, Dane Cook wouldn’t be getting more play than Frank Caliendo and Dave Chapelle.” (my bold)

 Whether what Le Batard says about racism vs. human nature is right, I'll leave to the side for now. But, he's got the proportionality of it all exactly correct here:  the complaining about double standards is trivial and embarassing in the light of the real racial injustices in this country. People don't need to be hit over the head with that fact every time they tune into ESPN or open the sports section of the newspaper. But, it would help the coverage of sports to have more of Le Batard's perspective.

 

Written by sportsmediaguy Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)