I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
anyone here read about this?
NPR ombud says Gross was unfair to O'Reilly on "Fresh Air"
NPR.org
NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin says he agrees with listeners who complained about the tone of the Terry Gross' interview with Bill O'Reilly. "Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review. ... I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the 'cultural wars' that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias."
Well, Jeffrey Dvorkin can go fuck himself.
Re: Easterbrook--I have to disagree and say I'm rather glad he (apparently) lost his ESPN column. Assuming it doesn't just pop back up in a little while. With any luck, we can get him fired from The New Republic and he can work for Fox News, where he belongs. Or maybe National Review.
I'm fine with Easterbrook being gone. You ever notice how most political writers just don't know much about sports? Even a guy like Charles Pierce, whose work I really enjoy, makes a surprising number of mistakes when writing about sports.
David Halberstam: terrific journalist, right? He's also the author of one of the most poorly researched baseball books ever--Summer of '49.
I think the political writers who write about sports just don't care about the topic and the result is sloppy writing and sloppy journalism.
Does Fox News have an ombudsman? To whom does one compalin when O'Reilly tells his *guests* to shut up or turns off their mics?
Easterbrook badmouthing Eisner: dumb, dumb, dumb.
"I think the political writers who write about sports just don't care about the topic and the result is sloppy writing and sloppy journalism."
Hunter S. Thompson has a column with ESPN writing about sports. Maybe he's lost his touch, or his edge, or probably his mind, but we need people like him writing about politics now more than ever.
Sometimes his columns have a socio/politcal edge, like this one where he absolutely nails what Rush Limbaugh is all about:
"Rush Limbaugh is a lame professional Swine and he makes a good living at it. He is like a hired Geek in some traveling backwoods carnival -- the freaks who bite the heads off Chickens -- but Limbaugh is a modernized Geek who thinks he can bite the heads off of people."
The full column can be found here:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/thomp...son/
031008.html
Does this mean the National Enquirer will expose Easterbrook's addiction to pain killers next week?
KevinA -
Obviously you aren't a regular reader of Easterbrook's. I've been reading his football column for four years now, and while the quality has been declining (due mostly to his slow expansion of amusing idiosyncrasies of the column into primary features at the expense of actual football-related bits), I still like it.
Beyond that, he's a very good technical writer - when he sticks to science (except for environmental issues), he makes for a pretty good read.
Anyway, the point is, nothing he has written indicates an underlying anti-semitism (a bit of insensitivity and a penchant to run his mouth, yes. Anti-semitism, no) and to advocate him losing his job is quite a bit off the mark.
Kaus is a lot worse, and a lot less entertaining.
Sidenote- That ESPN doesn't even address the issue is absolute bullshit. Simply deleting all of his columns and any reference to them is the coward's way out.
I hope it's just a technical glitch, because I'm going to be really pissed if they really did just "disappear" it.
TMQ usually disappears from the website by the weekend to make room for other columns on espn "page 2." If you can't find the thing archive anywhere that could be a problem for Easterbrook.
Frankly, I've always enjoyed Tuesday Morning Quarterback, and look forward to reading it every week during football season. He always has his pet issues (like the way violence is rated by MPAA) and I find his meanderings pretty amusing most of the time, but overall I thought it was a fine sports column. Easterbrook's troubles notwithstanding, it will be a shame to lose TMQ.
Ricky:
Last night I would have agreed with you, but even then, his archives were missing, and I couldn't find a link from the roster of Page 2 columnists. Now even his latest column is gone. It's hard to read that as anything other than a sign he's been axed.
... maybe Slate will pick it back up? Not as much exposure for Easterbrook as ESPN, and he loses his pipeline to hardcore sports fans -- but still, even admitting that his comments the other day were bone stupid, it would be a shame to lose TMQ.
Before Limbaugh, before Easterbrook, the people who run such enterprises should have known to keep the political writers away from sports just by hearing this name - George Will.
IF Easterbrook's anti-semitic comments produced as big a media shit-storm as Limbaugh's comments, then ESPN would've written something, had somebody say something, whatever. But because his comments didn't produce the same stir, he's probably been 'disappeared': no archives, no comment, nothin'. ESPN will do what they wish could've done with Limbaugh--pretend it never happened, like he was never there. So long, Greg.
Roger Simon is reporting the Easterbrook was, indeed, fired from ESPN.
It's kinda sad, honestly. He was the best football writer around -- partially, I think, because he didn't hang out with the players or owners or press people... he had no attachments to any of them and could be critical.
Julie
Easterbrook has been fired.
http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/...es/
00000445.htm
OK but does anyone else notice the difference between Rush-lovers (sorry for that mental image) and those who say, Well Easterbrook kind of deserved it?
I never rewad his column. I have read him in TNR. His supposed anti-semetic leanings are just that "supposed."
He is an asshole at times - trying to make points that really aren't there to make.
But overall he's a good political writer.
My 2 cents.
I won't miss his writing (though I've heard he's outstanding on football), but I wouldn't have fired him. Limbaugh, yeah. As that guy said about black households hearing the Limbaugh remarks and having to explain them to the kids. I don't want that once a week.
I guess the moral is, don't mess with Eisner.
Obviously you aren't a regular reader of Easterbrook's.
Actually, I used to be. I quit reading it after he used almost an entire TMQ column to rip Hillary Clinton for using a ghostwriter. ESPN.com has a stable of talented writers who can write football columns and also do not feel the need to write about Jews in Hollywood or how it's OK to rape women. Bye bye, Easterbrook.
Shorter Jeffrey Dvorkin:
Please don't hit me.
Well, I'm sure we'll be hearing how Atrios/the lefty blogosphere/the "PC Thought-Police"/etc got Easterbrook fired...
to which, let me pre-emptively(tm) say: bullshit.
There have been some complaints about overgeneralization by Easterbrook's defenders here...but, outside of a few overreaching posts in comments, Atrios et al have simply called attention to the stupidity of stupid things Easterbrook wrote in a couple of stupid political columns.
In any case, Easterbrook made the mistake of including--in his insulting call for Jewish executives, by virtue of their Jewishness, to ignore the interests of their shareholders in favor of Gregg's preferred moral standards--the guy who signs his paychecks at ESPN. That's the story.
Also, regarding Eisner, ESPN definitely does not allow in-house talent to criticize other in-house talents. Bill Simmons (the Sports Guy) has written in his Page 2 column about how his editors don't let him make negative comments about, say, ABC's NBA announcers, since they all work under the same Disney umbrella.
Then Easterbrook goes and takes a shot at the head of the company. Not very bright, Gregg.
But, to give Easterbrook his due, I saw "Kill Bill" last night, and it was disgusting. Wall-to-wall hideous violence without any of the wit or snappy dialogue that characterized "Pulp Fiction". Really terrible.
His football column was pretty good, though it had become increasingly self-indulgent.
I'd rather David Brooks got fired. He gives idiotic drivel a bad name.
I think ESPN is still sensitive about the limbaugh firestorm. I don't feel sorry for Easterbrook at all; if there were more repercussions for spewing hate-filled rhetoric in national forums we'd see the likes of Coulter sink quickly into oblivion where they belong.
One would think that at least sports could remain poltical-agenda free, fer chrissake.
Too bad, I liked TMQ. Easterbrook is a good and thoughtful writer most of the time, even when he's wrong.
Gregg makes dumb remarks.
Mickey and friends are displeased,
football gods rejoice.
But, to give Easterbrook his due, I saw "Kill Bill" last night, and it was disgusting. Wall-to-wall hideous violence without any of the wit or snappy dialogue that characterized "Pulp Fiction". Really terrible.
Well, I kind of like the concept of a director not making the same movie over and over, but maybe that's just me.
Yeah, he made a big mistake, and he's wrong about LOTS of political stuff, but TMQ was a great column. Should Easterbrook lose his job writing about politics? Sure, why not - what he wrote was pretty bad. But TMQ was actually an intelligent column about football. Critics can say that having a "cheerleader of the week" prevents it from being intelligent, but have any of you read his common-sense analysis of the scouts' reaction to Terrell Suggs's 40 time? That kind of voice is necessary and long-overdue in sports, and rational sports fans (though perhaps not rational political minds) have lost a great source.
We should try to get him back on the Page 2 lineup. What better way to convince people we're not overly sensitive thought police (we're not, right?) than to say, "Okay, this guy said some bad stuff, and he should be criticised thoroughly for it, and reprimanded. But sports is sports and politics is politics, and if he can keep the two separate, so should we keep our opinions."
Egg
Well, I was never calling on him to be fired and definitely not calling for him to be fired from ESPN. But, he didn't get fired for being an anti-semite, he got fired for criticizing his bosses.
Sorry I'm posting again, but I'm really upset about this.
I could imagine that if some left-wing guy said something offensive in one forum, and then lost an unrelated position in another, the people at Grover Norquist's cocktail parties would be having a good laugh about it. Now, I believe we're different from them, but let's show it.
Egg
Esterbrook, Didn't realize you cannot say anything negative about Israel or the Jews in this country. What is the matter with him,now he will be "blackballed"?
well, let's hope you can't get away saying anything bad about "the blacks," "the asians," "the indians," "the muslims," either.
How patently obvious is it that you can't criticize your boss for being a money-grubbing Jew and get away with it? If you buy Easterbrook's point that his comments were not anti-semitic (which I don't believe although I believe he is not anti-semitic) then the alternative is that Eisner is not a good person and an even worse Jew.
well, let's hope you can't get away saying anything bad about "the blacks," "the asians," "the indians," "the muslims," either.>>
Oh, but you can.
Well, I kind of like the concept of a director not making the same movie over and over, but maybe that's just me.
Look, I didn't say he needed to make Pulp Fiction over again. He could have made a Merchant-Ivory flick or an adaptation of King Lear, for all I care. But "Kill Bill" was nothing but violence from the first frame to the last, and I was really disgusted.
We should try to get him back on the Page 2 lineup.
So he can write another TMQ column bashing Hillary Clinton? No thank you.
I quit reading Easterbrook when he ripped Howard Dean & Wesley Clark at the beginning of the season in this disingenuous who-knows-anything-about-these-guys fashion.
He was a good football writer for many reasons, but it wasn't because he really understood the game that well. All his anti-blitz nonsense was just that.
I'm sure ESPN received a ton of complaints from those anti-Dean columns. I also bet the Disney people weren't too pleased with his dirty old man act with the cheerleaders.
I'm glad to see TMQ go. It was old and stale and growing more predictable, childish, and off-topic by the week.
NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin is a cowering idiot. Terry Gross's interview was a hell of a lot more amusing that her interview with Conan O'Brian. Has he ever answered the man e-mails complaining about Cokie, Juan, Bob, Mara, Steve....?
Terry can be a juvenile idiot, the cuuulest girl in the high school, especially when she has some pop culture twit on, but her journalistic sins are as nothing compared to the Washington crew.
Easterbrook, just goes to show where the acceptable line on bigotry falls these days. I hear that ESPN has made some pretty mean cracks about Billy Bean. Anyone hear them?
Hey, I didn't think his apology covered the ground it needed to cover, but the difference between the way this is being handled and the way Limbaugh was handled makes it pretty obvious that this is about Eisner and not about what he said, and apologized for, on another forum.
Rush stepped in his pile of roadkill on ESPN, and he defended it, and he was allowed to resign.
Tacky, tacky, tacky.
I don't buy the "he criticized his boss" reason for the firing as that's just a way of passing the buck. You can say "bu-bu-bu but i didn't want him fired," but that won't change the fact that in this PC-world if enough people call you a racist or say that you're anti-semetic then you're guilty as charged and you will lose your job.
"passing the buck," Brian?
Let's see. Who hired him? Whom did he criticize as a purveyor of violence, a danger to the culture, and a failure in his special moral responsibilities as a Jew? Who subsequently fired him and erased his old columns from the website?
yeah, a couple of lefty bloggers who criticized his public statements: that's who to blame.
er, whom to blame; or who is to blame...
maybe later I'll try re-writing that last post in English. But you get the idea, I hope...
I posted this over at Roger simon's blog and I think it applies here to what brian has said. This is not, repeat not, a "pc world." Its a world in which the major media are entirely controlled, to a large extent, by republican donors with right wing axes to grind. It is also a for profit media world, in which some kinds of controversy "pay" and others "don't pay"--and what pays and doesnt pay can change week to week. ESPN or Eisner (do you really think he gives a *&^% what some lilliputian content writer writes about him?) decided that whatever value easterbrook had as a writer (I'd argue: not much) could easily be replaced by someone else just like him without any track record of pissing people off. He didn't have a "right" to his spot at ESPN, he wasn't doing anything that ten thousand other morons couldn't do as well or better--and a thousand other bright guys couldn't do superlatively. So why keep him? They can hire someone just like him for less money and turn that guy over when he gets stale or pisses people off. That is the capitalist system that easterbrook and his buddies extol. He couldn't sell his schtick and he got bounced. I'm sure that in one of his earlier columns you would find him arguing that no one is entitled to a job...etc...etc...
Unlike the people whose hearts are bleeding for easterbrook I remember the people who actually lost all their jobs under McCarthy, and the people who were accused of being "traitors" in the last two years for being anti-war. My heart doesn't bleed for a guy who is suspected of being an anti semite on the basis of something he actually wrote, receives criticism that embarrasses his employer who is in the people pleasing buisness, and who loses his job. It bleeds for the students, parents, workers, adults who actually believed they lived in a democracy and who were pilloried for expressing actual political viewpoints that were uncomfortable to the government in power.--aimai
Eisner is a control freak, and notoriously vindictive to boot. i think this, coupled with ESPN's recent Rush troubles, made firing Easterbrook a no-brainer for the man behind The Mouse.
Ok, maybe you're right. It is true that Eisner is known for being vindictive and a control freak. It's also true that Eisner has been head of Disney for a long time. The argument would be much stronger if someone can point out a situation where a Disney-connected writer was fired or demoted for critising the big guy without a corresponding charge of being anti-semetic or anti-other group.
Oh come on. He called his boss a money grubbing Jew. Do you think he'd have kept his job at the Times? Or the WaPo? The folks at TNR may be forgiving, but if I had seen that article, I would have fired him for being an anti-semite. I wouldn't need a call from Eisner to do so either.
He shouldn't have lost his job? ESPN shouldn't pay an anti-semite to harange the Jews. If he had said Disney's movies sucked or Eisner looked funny, well, he might have gotten yelled at. But no one, not Eisner, or his editors, have to run anti-semitic rantings and say "well, it's his opinion.
Here's a hint. Legal liability. It's why Rush was shoved from the plane and why Easterbrook joined him. If ESPN keeps on someone who writes anti-semitic columns and then is sued for racial discrimination, the opposing lawyers will use his work as an exhibit in their case. If ESPN takes swift action, they can say they don't tolerate bigotry of any sort.
Brian, you make a good point; but i should stress that i really don't think the (depending upon your view) anti-semitic comments were the primary reason for his firing. i was trying to say that if Easterbrook had written the same column without any mention of Eisner being Jewish, that alone would have brought him perilously close to being fired. the negative PR this thing has receieved though, regardless of the reason, was the icing on the cake.
in all seriousness, i suspect that just being subjectively "anti-Eisner" is enough to get you canned if you work under the Disney umbrella. i'll see what i can find online as far as past incidents goes, though...
and frankly, if Easterbrook is so god-damned incensed about these movies, why would he want a paycheck from Disney anyway? seems like he should have resigned in protest if he really meant what he said.
If he doesn't like being screwed over, maybe he should clearly state, "This is rape," not just say "no."
Steve: to be fair, this column wasn't written for Disney...if anyone would've had legal liability, it would be TNR, with Disney as the plaintiffs...
ESPN was a side gig for Easterbrook...his column at ESPN wasn't particularly high-profile--either for him or for ESPN itself...which makes his summary dismissal a bit easier to explain...and also makes it that much easier not to shed any tears for him.
...in checking back that the Tarantino column was indeed on TNR's site, I was reminded that Easterbrook didn't just attack Eisner, but Disney as a company, and in pretty harsh terms:
Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself. [emphasis added]
Shorter version: Disney is a bunch of sadists who are leading the whole world to hell, and by the way, its leader, as a Jew should know better.
Once again: it's obviously Atrios's fault that he's not on Disney's payroll anymore.
I'm calming down about this. I am feeling for Mr. Easterbrook. I think he is someone who (generally speaking) tries to think outside the box. This can lead to some dangerous and sometimes harmful thoughts. The problem is, that his political thinking takes place in a vacuum, whereas these words have impact in a real world. In effect, many of his articles tend to undercut liberals (his side) by encouraging us to think differently about ideas many of us already have. The problem is, that some of his different thoughts are stupid and also, many of the liberal ideas are better than the conservative ideas already.
"He didn't have a 'right' to his spot at ESPN, he wasn't doing anything that ten thousand other morons couldn't do as well or better--and a thousand other bright guys couldn't do superlatively."
Did you read TMQ? In the times when he was talking NFL football instead of wallowing in T&A or going off on dumb tangents, he was hands-down the best analyst around. No one watches games like he does.
As for the firing, I'm not surprised that his comment that his boss is a money-grubbing Jew got him canned. Even if you make the claim it's not anti-Semitic, which boggles my mind, it's dumb as hell to write that about a guy who employs you. Especially when it gets ugly press in the New York Times and your apology claims you can defend your thoughts if not your wording.
"Eisner is a control freak, and notoriously vindictive to boot."
He's also a closet case.
But I'm not one to gossip so you didn't hear that from me.
Add us to the voices saying we hope Slate picks TMQ back up. That was probably its best venue anyway.
We think he's absolutely right with "Stop me Before I Blitz Again." And "Stop me Before I Pass Again."
And "Play action on first and goal works. Play action on second and goal doesn't" And "Cold Coach=Victory."
All of that too often gets proven right in the actual experience of watching games. Best example: last year's Super Bowl. Raiders have finally stuffed the Bucs' O in the second half ... behind, but still with a chance to catch up. They have the Bucs at third and something over 10.
What do the Raiders do? They blitz,leaving the right flat uncovered. TB makes the pass, gets the first and change and then goes on to score and put the game out of reach.
Hell, Slate should have him do basketball as well. During the Pacers-Lakers NBA finals a couple of years back, he seemed to be the only one unafraid of pointing out what a terrible coach Larry Bird was (example: keeping that Dutch guy on the bench who could have gotten Shaquille O'Neal to foul out).
He was (and is) an argument that letting political analysts do football can work ... he seemed to pick up on some of the things going on that weren't mentioned elsewhere, like the political things ... the rather obvious tension between Dick Jauron and the Bears' GM (trading Ted Washington, who Jauron had wanted to keep, then picking a QB first after Jauron had promised Kordell Stewart the Bears wouldn't do that to get him to sign).
Maybe all of us here who like TMQ should start a writing campaign to Slate to get them to take Easterbrook back (the Fray discussions after the column came out were great).
And doesn't anyone else find it really creepy that ESPN basically did the Ministry of Truth thing to Easterbrook? “He is not a football columnist here. He has never been a football columnist here.”
...doesn't anyone else find it really creepy that ESPN basically did the Ministry of Truth thing to Easterbrook?
You know, I really fucking don't. Tough shit for Easterbrook. I'm sure Faux News will be more than happy to give his anti-semitic ass a big fat contract.
Meanwhile, NPR stabbed Terry Gross in the back because she had the unmitigated gall to point out what a fucking lying bullshit artist O'Really is, and not a peep from anyone...
It's not so much about Easterbrook; it’s about Eisner.
Interestingly enough, when you search on "Limbaugh" at espn.com, you get a whole bunch-o-results detailing everything from ESPN's official reaction to Rush's resignation, the comments of the on-air personalities of the pre-game show, and reactions from viewers. No such wealth of information on Easterbrook.
Darkwater
"We have always been at war with Easterbook"
Michael (in DC),
It's a legal issue as well as him insulting his boss and employer. You don't call your boss a money grubbing jew and expect to be employed.
dave,
NPR, in their weaselly way, will be hearing in great detail about their lack of defense of Terry Gross. Let's all remember she's hardly defenseless. She is a major income producer for NPR as well as one of their most popular personalities. You can bet that the e-mails and calls the ombudsman gets defending her will keep him busy for days.
Just another reason I don't like or respect NPR.
Shame, as I really liked TMQ. He is a funny, provocative writer.
While he has the right to say what he wants...he does not have to be PAID for it. For ESPN, not to take action over his atrocious "Kill Bill" rant, after taking action against Rush would be hypocritical...wouldn't it?
Just another reason I don't like or respect NPR.
I already sent that weasely ombudsman an email that basically said the same.
who?
he was hands-down the best analyst around. No one watches games like he does.
No offense, Rogers, but that's hyperbolic horseshit. He took careful notes and he supported his points, but he wasn't close to the top tier of analysts. Not even close. Different, yes. More academic, yes. Top tier, no.
But sports is sports and politics is politics, and if he can keep the two separate, so should we keep our opinions.
Everything is politics. Any good first-year journalism student should be able to tell you that no writing is ever "objective." If you are not paying attention to the connections that "everyday activities" (i.e., the commercial sports machine), have with politics, then you are their tool.
should have been
"(e.g., the commercial sports machine)"
I'm hoping that all conservative Instapundit/Pejman (is his site down due to lack of payment...I thought all Republicans were rich)like bloggers finally realize this: Ownership matters. And if the ownership is primarily Scaife and Murdoch it affects the political tone of the country....
I'm hoping that all conservative Instapundit/Pejman (is his site down due to lack of payment...I thought all Republicans were rich)like bloggers finally realize this: Ownership matters. And if the ownership is primarily Scaife and Murdoch it affects the political tone of the country....
Steve,
yes, it could be a legal issue. I was just pointing out that in the case of the Tarrantino column, the liable party would be TNR and not ESPN/Disney, so that's not really a reason to fire his ass. 'course, if you're gonna be suing him, you might not want him on the payroll...
Oh, and yes, the total disappearance of all things Easterbrook, or any residue thereof, from ESPN.com is a tad too Orwellian for my taste...
"Should Easterbrook lose his job writing about politics?"
I would have absolutely no problem with that, but then again, that would leave the rest of the whorehouse that is The New Republic(an) intact.
Perhaps he should remain in place, where he can wreak further damage upon his own credibility as well as that of his employers.
Hey that pic of Ann Coulter is hot, she's hot.
I hope everyone here who hasn't done it yet will do what others here and I have made it a point of doing: firing off an e-mail to Mr. Dvorkin, the cowardly ombudsman at NPR who dissed Terry Gross for not being nice enough to O'Reilly. It doesn't take long to do, his e-mail address is at the bottom of the ombudsman's page at the NPR website, and you'll feel better for doing so. He's apparently been swamped by wingnut e-mails, so it's high time for the e-mail tide to turn: a return to sanity.
I fired off an email to Mr. Dworkin, chiding him for succumbing to more of the working of the refs behavior and cc'ed the Fresh Air crew. Then I emailed all of my friends asking them to do the same.
"No offense, Rogers, but that's hyperbolic horseshit. He took careful notes and he supported his points, but he wasn't close to the top tier of analysts. Not even close. Different, yes. More academic, yes. Top tier, no."
It's silly for you to treat an assertion of opinion as if I've made a factual error. As a life-long NFL fan who has read the work of hundreds of sportswriters, I found Easterbrook's analysis to be the best in the business -- though lately his penchant for writing about non-football topics and T&A was too much to slog through.
I'd still probably punt the guy for the money-grubbing Jew stuff and the dodgy apology, but the claim that he's easily replaceable at ESPN is dubious.
Goddamnit. Easterbrook's a political moron, this is true, but TMQ always brightened my day. Sorry to see him gone from a position where he could write well without deliberately pissing off half his readership.
I didn't hear the interview, is it canned and accessible somewhere. Was it a blogsecution ?
CJ
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
