That article (see link in post sub
) is amazing in a number of ways. One of those ways is that Scoop seems to make points and then immediately contradict them; or else, he presents his arguments so badly that it is hard to see what side of the argument he is on. To wit, re-read this section from Junior's post:For a target audience of several million that are forced to watch "Being Bobby Brown," in a Neilsen (sic) era when UPN stands for United Plantation of Negroes because it is one of the few networks where you find "quality" African-American programming, the "officialness" of Stephen A.'s hosting a daily sports talk show was bigger than anything Ron Artest or Terrell Owens did to push us a few steps back.
No one is "forced" to watch "Being Bobby Brown." If Scoop wants to comment on the sad state of African-American programming (both that intended for
and that created by
African-Americans), it might be better to get upset at the actual show than to assert that people are "forced" to watch it. As for the UPN thing...I don't even know what to make of that. And as for the third and final few clauses: it's just a big jumble. I assume what he is trying to say is that in a year when TO and Artest did things that perhaps cast a negative light on the African-American community, S.A. Smith getting a talk show was something that cast a positive
light on said community. But to say that it was "bigger" than what they did "to push us a few steps back" is just a poorly-presented mixed metaphor.
Now read this, from the same article:White Sox not getting the cover of Sports Illustrated
They said it wasn't on purpose. They said it was because of the way the World Series ended (on a Wednesday night) that it was impossible to put them on the cover of the issue. Whatever. Couldn't they have at least put them on the cover the following week?
Fair enough. But he continues.Didn't the White Sox deserve the cover after their unexpected World Series win? But the slight was indicative of the way the media (and the North Side of Chicago) treated the Sox all along their improbable, impossible ride. From my own doubtful, bandwagon-sensitive column written right after the All-Star Game to Joe Buck's unforgettable omission of African-Americans when he mentioned the variety of cultures, races and nationalities that filled the South Side minutes after the Game 4 victory, the treatment of the White Sox shocking the world was similar to Toccara's treatment on "America's Next Top Model." Foul.
Two quick things:
1. Joe Buck's "unforgettable" omission? Does anyone really think Joe Buck intentionally or unintentionally meant to slight African-Americans? The story of the ChiSox, ethno-culturo-nationally speaking, was that they had guys from like fifteen countries. I'm sure that's what Joe was trying to highlight.
2. I don't know who Toccara is, but if you hate UPN so much, and think that it is indicative of some kind of problem in the African-American community, you probably shouldn't, immediately after stating that you have this problem, make an obscure and cozy reference to a UPN show, which reference clearly indicates that you are a huge fan.Because after giving the Braves (1995), the Yankees (1996, 1998-2000), the Marlins (1997, 2003), the Angels (2002), the Diamondbacks (2001), and the Red Sox (2004, and they got the cover of Time too) the cover of the bible of sports magazines, they decided a non-playoff Monday night football game featuring Peyton Manning and Tom Brady was a bigger story. A more important story.
Okay. I get your point. I think it was a mistake too. In no way, shape, or form was it one of the "most important sports stories of the year," as Scoop claims, but I think it was a mistake. We're agreed. What's that? One more thing?The sad part is (outside of Chicago), as wrong as SI was, it may have been right.
Labels: scoop jackson, white sox