<My instinct was to start this in the tennis section, but I figure it will fuel some political banter>

Is Connie Chung on crack?? What in the world would make an asian american female journalist suggest to Navritolova that if she had a dissenting political opinion she should go back to Czechoslovakia?? Does she possibly think immigrants should be denied freedom of speech??

Navratilova has lived here for 27 years and has always been an outspoken figure. It's not because she is "unamerican" it's because she's trying to make the system better and the country a better place! I can't think of anything more American.

Chung asked why Martina uses her status as an athlete to make noise. She asked why people should listen to an athlete or entertainer. Hello? Why should we listen to a mediocre reporter that got cut from network television? Don't even get me started listing politicians that started in entertainment or sports. Did Chung not prepare at all for this??

Navratilova also hinted at pursuing a political career in the future. She's got my vote.

Ugh... I wish I had time to vent more anger right now, but I've got to scrub up to meet a boy <giggle>. More tomorrow for sure.

Who else saw this??

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: curtj ]

Curt, I think her attitude stems from her days at CBS. Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias" speaks volumes about the atmosphere there. A good read about a not-so-good view.

Martina Navratilova recently made some very idiotic statements to a German newspaper ... unfavorably comparing the USA to communist Czechoslovakia. I did not see her interview with Connie Chung (who, by the way, has first amendment rights herself). Navratilova insinuated in the German newspaper, in a German-language article, that the USA was just as oppressive as the communist regimes of Eastern Europe 1947-1989.

Fine. Navratilova has a right to express her opinion. I have a right to express mine. Mine is that Navratilova showed herself to be a pea-brained idiot worthy of contempt, and unworthy to be an American.

America is the land of the free. We have our problems, but this country cannot in any intelligent way be said to be as oppressive as was communist Eastern Europe. For example, she could make her comments to the German papers and the U.S. government isn't going to have her sent to a psychiatric hospital (or worse: killed) for being a dissident. Big difference.

Navratilova is a naturalized citizen, after all. And while all citizens have the same rights, naturalized or natural-born, if you choose to live in this country, you should demonstrate a little more prudence (like I would if I freely elected to move to another country). She defected from Czechoslovakia, either because of oppression or greed, likely both. She used the freedoms of this country to make herself a nice pile of money. She publicly disgraced herself by spouting anti-American propaganda that, perhaps, is popular among European pseudo-intellectuals (who are themselves generally a disgraceful bunch of irrelevant snots). If this country is so oppressive: leave. And stop doing those Subaru commercials over here that make you money.

Navratilova should be roundly booed wherever she goes in this country.

WOW Charlie you bring up a lot of interesting issues!

Martina has always been one of the professional athletes whom I admired most. In her time she dominated her sport in a manner that few athletes are ever able to do. She came out publicly (at considerable cost to herself in terms of potential earnings from endorsements) at a time when there were few positive openly gay role models. I for one have always appreciated her activism in the cause of gay rights and her outspokenness on gay issues, in particular, in opposition to Colorado's Amendment 2.
Martina has repeatedly professed her admiration for America and the values it purports to represent. In response to questions put to her by an interviewer, she offered some pointed, but fairly mild, criticism of the Republican Party and the current state of affairs in the U.S.A., and for this she is demonized and branded as "un-american"?

Charlie, what, exactly, did she say? Did you read the German newspaper? Did the German newspaper provide the full text of the interview, or just a few juicy quotes? Or are you condemning her for an interpreted "insinuation" from a translated source, probably taken out of context to start with? Sounds like the sort of thing a pea-brained idiot would do.

I think Charlie's comments, while sad, are typical of post-Sept. 11 America. Anyone who does not think we should suspend civil rights, bomb all Arab nations, and defer to the President for all policy decisions has been deemed unpatriotic and un-American.

Our country was founded on basic freedoms and many of those are outlined in the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech which both Connie and Martina were exercising (as are we on this board).

I hope I don't have to go back to the country of my roots for writing this. (Being a natural-born mutt, I don't even know where that would be.)

May the debate continue, but not the name-calling.

I am all for freedom of speech and if I believed that was Martina's primary reason for defecting, than I'd back her 110%. However, her primary reasons for defecting had nothing to do with her political concerns. She was infatuated with the American lifestyle (McDonalds hamburgers and tacky jewelry were among her favs) and also with the notion of keeping more of her hard-earned money. She didn't have the freedoms we have here, but she wasn't starving or forced to work in a sweat shop or a rice field for 16 hours a day. In 1974, or whenever it was she defected, Martina was no more interested in her freedom of speech than she was in men. At least at the end of rant if she had at least said something like, "You know Connie, where I come from, I couldn't have ever said anything like that about our President". The point is, no America is not perfect. Just try remebering how much worse off you could be if America weren't willing to take you in in the first place.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

Martina didn't say anything terrible at all. She said in immigrating to the United States, she left one kind of regime for another. She was talking about the increased power being given to senior officials within the Bush administration. It's called a metaphor.

This is hardly worth getting up in arms about. One of the negative side effects from the 9/11 attacks is a severe case of jingoism in this country. Connie was trying to exploit that for ratings. I hadn't even heard about Martina's comments until I saw that last night, and for good reason! It was hardly newsworthy.

Connie Chung may be the worst journalist in history. I couldn't believe when she said Martina should go back where she came from. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that statement (however absurd I may find it, personally), let's all take a moment and acknowledge what an unprofessional thing that was to say.

I support freedom of speech but it rings hollow when someone who has profitted mightily from a system, is trying to convince people it's flawed. Especially since it was her choice to be a part of the system in the first place. She's crtical of nearly every current WTA player as if she never dropped a set and really I'm over her. To me she's like an episode of Queer as Folk-- it might be gay but that doesn't mean gays have to support it.

Z

At the risk of (further) politicizing this thread, it would have been good to have a link to the article itself so we could all see exactly what MN had to say. "Any self-respecting journalist" - even one who strayed into graphic design, ahem, CJ! - would have given us that info. (How was your date, BTW? You DID promise us "more tomorrow." (Smiley withheld.))

But not to murder the messenger; it's the substance of what MN had to say that counts. Yes, she and Connie and all of us have I Amdt. rights, although they're not protected by anything other than Jim & Cyd's largesse in this private, non-public, forum. That makes discretion in our posting the rule. The best exercise of our collective discretion is to respect each other however much we may disrespect (DAMN! I used it as a verb! Sorry, Dr., Johnson.) the thrust of the post. (No, not THAT post - or that thrust!)

So, isn't it more than a little extreme when DCSN writes that "Anyone who does not think we should suspend civil rights, bomb all Arab nations, and defer to the President for all policy decisions has been deemed unpatriotic and un-American[?]" Yes, there are pea-brainers, north and south of the Red River, who think in those terms, just as there are those who'd set John Walker Lindh free to commit more acts of trust-funded foolishness, or abandon the War against Terrorism in the name of some supposed "healing." Neither extreme represents what most people, even on this board, think and the name-calling and villainization do nothing to advance an informed and spirited debate, however strident it may become at times. So yeah, take the topic to task and trash ideas and idiots in the news freely, but show some couth when addressing each other in this forum. Otherwise, we all end up looking like fools.

Sorry I missed this interview. Connie Chung, to me, is NOT Leslie Stahl, another journalist whom I respect deeply. The only thing I have ever heard or read about Martina and what she thinks about the United States, is basically the truth, that everything here is based on money. I agree. And yes, she sure is using the system to her advantage, and why not??

I admire and respect Martina,a nd she has done an awful lot for gay Americans as far as I am concerned. Connie Chung is not the most intelligent journalist on tv these days.

Okay, lots of people seemed to have missed the interview, the quotes in the german paper or both, so I'll first offer up some resources to make sure we all have our facts straight.

Scroll toward the bottom of CNN's transcript of the interview with Chung

Rueters story about Navratilova's \"Attack\" on America

Please note that the original interview where the questionable quotes came from was conducted in English, then translated to German. Then those headlines had been translated back into English generating some egregious translation errors.

There are two key parts of the interview that have been discussed and as they are pasted below, Navratilova said they are fairly accurate, if taken out of context:

[quote]
It's depressing. Decisions in America are based solely on the question of how much money will come out of it and not on the questions of how much health, morals or environment suffer as a result."

---

and

[quote]"The most absurd part of my escape from the unjust system is that I have exchanged one system that suppresses free opinion for another. The Republicans in the U.S. manipulate public opinion and sweep controversial issues under the table.

---

These quotes were taken from an interview where Navratilova was criticizing the way the Bush administration has handled some envirnomental issues.

When asked if the quotes were accurate, Navratilova said this:
[quote]Well, that's pretty accurate. I mean, I was talking about the Bush administration making a lot of environmental decisions, again, based on money pandering to the people that perhaps help put Bush in the office. I was talking about a particular amendment that I know about. There was a vote that was about education. It was a good bill. And then they try to sneak in that Alaska Wildlife Refuge drilling. It's like, by the way, we're going to drill but we don't really need to know that we're going to do it.

---

Chung then repeatedly tried to get Navratilova to agree that she was really talking "trading one regime for another". Regime? Gosh, that's a bit more pointed than "system", isn't it? Chung is trying to spin Navratilova's words like the other publications that blew this up into a story in the first place.

I think Navratilova makes a good point suggesting that since 9/11 the bush administration has taken on more and more power. When our government ignores the constitution and creates things like "Operation TIPS" to effectively legalize spying on anyone, someone should say something critical.

To respond to some of the other posts, Navratilova is a U.S. citizen. It doesn't matter why she came here. She's lived here almost as long as I have and is free to express as much displeasure with whatever political party as she wants. But she's not doing it to put America down. She's doing it to inspire enough people to want to improve the situation.

It's laughable that the people throwing around the "Un-American" label are the ones that need to be reminded this country was founded by immigrants.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: curtj ]

Oh, i can't help but post the most asinine quote that came out of this interview. After Navratilova explained that she spoke out because we can do that here and that she believes things are happening that are taking our rights away, Connie Chung came back with this gem:

[quote]I think it is, OK, if you believe that, you know, then go ahead and think that at home. But why do you have to spill it out? You know, why do you have to talk about it as a celebrity so that people will write it down and talk about what you said?

---

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: curtj ]

I think we're all missing the real issue at hand here: how crazy was it to see Martina wearing eye shadow?

Only our media could take Martina's opinions (we all have a right to them, yes?) and turn them into Anti-American sentiments. Charlie in the Trees has given us a lovely post-McCarthyism rant though equally as rabid. Everything in our country does tend to be motivated by money and profit and greed. It's only with the current administration and the climate they've created due to the horrific events of 9/11 that would cause anyone to react to Martina's comments with suggestions that she leave. She's made a great deal of money here, but hey, she earned it...and guess what, she's paid a whole fat wad of non-partisan taxes into our system...

After reading MN's comments, I am scratching my head as to why she has been plastered with the "Un-American" label. I happen to agree with just about everything she said:

Yes...the Bush Administration seems very willing to put the interests of Big Business ahead of everyone else...

Yes...the Republican Party continually wants to stifle the opinions of those who disagree with them (constant comments by Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Orin Hatch, Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmmond [when he's actually awake] support this statement.

Yes...the Republican Party quickly labels those who have serious and legitimate questions about the "War on Terror" as un-american.

Hmmm...I was always taught that questioning what was going on, not just accepting it, was a fundamental principal of our country. After all, the Founding Fathers did just that...and look what it got us: America - with the freedom to express your opinion, no matter who agrees or disagrees with it.

I only wish that there were others like Martina who freely questioned what was going on and what our government was doing...instead of simply accepting it and following the flock like a bunch of lemmings.

[quote]Originally posted by Zman:
I support freedom of speech but it rings hollow when someone who has profitted mightily from a system, is trying to convince people it's flawed. Especially since it was her choice to be a part of the system in the first place.

---

So if a system isn't perfect, but you've done well under it anyway, you're supposed to just shut up and sit in the corner and be happy? If that's the case then I guess this forum should be shut down because almost all of us would be silenced.

I just read the transcript and I don't see anything particularly shocking about it. I think Connie Chung (and I'm no great fan of Mrs. Maury Pauvich) was playing the Devil's Advocate. She was not saying Go back where you came from. She was saying that Martina's statements have been construed as unpatriotic by some, and how does she (Martina) respond to those claims? Martina, like many celebrity advocates, mixes and generalizes her causes and complaints. The whole thing came across as an episode of Politically Incorrect to me.

My guess is Chung was playing Devil's Advocate, which I guess is part of the journsalistic function. As for Martina, I love her for what she's done for gays in sports, but politically she's always been a nightmare. Personally, I love her on-court exploits, and for being so out there, but I just ignore the political nonsense she spews at times. Remember, she's a professional athlete, and in general - and there are certainly exceptions, and people who feel Martina is one of those exceptions - professional athletes are not the sharpest pencils in the box.

If Martina was running for something, she would have my vote, no questions asked.

Joe in Philly,
Again, I am in support of freedom of speech. My point was that it's easier to believe there is inequity from a source that obviously is being held back in some visible way. When you are a multi-millionare athlete, I believe your credibility is hindered in regards to the subject of the ills of greed. My thinking is, if you're so compassionate why don't you go out and adopt an elementary school in the inner city, create scholarships so the poor can go to school without loans, volunteer at a nursing home and help some of them pay for prescriptions. That makes more of a difference in my eye than whining about greed with Connie Chung before driving back home to your mansion.

Z

Canmark, Munson, I love you both more than my luggage, but I think saying Chung was "playing devil's advocate" is giving her a little too much credit. A devil's advocate may very well argue against something without really being it's opponent, but Chung's comment was in her own personal opinion. And since I'm so quote happy today, here's what she said:
[quote]Can I be honest with you? I can tell you that when I read this, I have to tell you that I thought it was un-American, unpatriotic. I wanted to say, go back to Czechoslovakia.

---

That's more than an interviewer trying to elicit a response or dig deeper in the story. That's Connie "don't use your celebrity to promote your ideas" Chung telling us how she feels. Which, granted, she's entitled to do. But it sure reflects poorly on her as a journalist. I'd expect something like that from day time talk shows, but prime time on CNN?

And another totally irrelevant topic tidbit: did anyone else gasp when Martina was talking about lesbian parents and mentioned Jodie Foster? Connie latched on to that one about a beat too late and Martina was ready with the quick cover up! To me, that was the most exciting part of the whole interview.

Oh, and Zman, you know I'd rather walk on my own lip than argue with you but...

In addition to creating the Marina Navratilova Fund many years ago, she is an active supporter of: Chris Evert Charities - which provides funds for children and other social work
The Andrea Jaeger’s Kid’s Stuff Foundation
Women's Sports Foundation
Peta
and obviously numerous gay rights groups.

well I guess this is a step up from the awful disaster that this program has been. I guess some controversy is better than all the negative press about the unprofessional "deer in the headlights" look that connie gives on a daily basis...its ashame she sold out to, because shes such a good journalist

unfortunately O'Reilly is kicking her butt too

curtj, I think the whole "Can I be honest with you?" thing is a big journalistic mistake on Connie Chung's part.

To me, when an interviewer says "Can I be honest with you" they are really sucking up to the interviewee. They're saying, "I'm going to stop being a reporter and be your friend. I'm going to be honest with you."

But then Connie becomes disingenuous. She calls Martina "un-American" and and says "I wanted to say, go back to Czecholslovakia." And then a few minutes later Connie is saying how it "breaks (her) heart" that she (Martina) has reconsidered adoption.

And the kicker is when she says: "Well, if you call me, I appreciate it anyway, just to tell me privately, because I'd be happy for you" (ie. If you do decide to adopt, give me the interview exclusive--now that we're friends). Shameless.

And curtj, I love your expressions ("I'd rather walk on my lip than argue with you..."). Are you sure there isn't some Southern blood in you?

Gaga4Gaby, I agree the Jodie Foster comment was hysterical. I can imagine Connie's eyes lighting up when she says "You mentioned Jodie Foster, but forgive me, I'm not aware that she has..." ("Jodie Foster is a Lesbian, next on Connie Chung!).

Oh Zman - Martina is whining about greed? If she's so compassionate, she should go out and adopt an elementary school? Surely you can do better than that lame response. Martina's very involved in charities and giving back. Her statements and opinions about the Bush administration appear to be very difficult to defend by your comments and other Bush supporters. All you can do is attack Martina which I guess is typical Republican strategy.

What Ever! Wait til the real "Martina" returns! Hingis being outspoken is a problem! Yet most of you accept Navratilova's behavior! Unbelieveable! Navratilova cried because the French fans were "pro Chrissie" She cried many times and dissed many opponents! Hingis was wrong for crossing the net, (Against Graf in 99 French) but all her statements were true! Novotna was old! Mueresmo does look like a man! Steffi was washed-up! "Freedom of speach" is for everybody not just those who you choose to agree with! Navratilova has been very critical of a lot of things, she refused to shake Mandlikova's hand after a match but then a year later dropped long time doubles partner Pam Shriver, to play w/ Hana! Wasn't greed? It sure wasn't friendship!

Bryan D.
For you to turn this into a partisan issue is very democratic of you :- )
Look, if you want to follow the rants of an athlete that obviously can't let go of the spotlight, go right ahead. Be sure to move to Mobile, so when Charles Barkley runs for governor of Alabama you can get your vote in.
And as for calling my earlier response lame, I benefitted from an athlete in Detroit who adopted our school but didn't share their name because they didn't want the attention, they just wanted to help. To this day, I don't know if they were gay/straight; black/white; male/female; republican/democrat. And I don't care. What I do know is I tend to like the celebrity that goes out there and just does what they feel is right, as opposed to spending all of their time crticizing what they believe others are doing wrong.

Z

Hi everyone, Im new here.

I saw that interview and I must say that going by Connie Chung's performance she does appear to be on crack, or at least some sort of sedative !

This is a little off topic but I've heard a rumour that the father of Yugoslavian tennis player Jelena Dokic wanted his daughter's offical website to write an article attacking Martina because she was a lesbian and the website refused and shut down !

Going back to the topic, and this is another rumour, but that original interview that Martina gave to the German magazine, she claimed that translation wasn't accurate. One of my spies tells me that if anything her views were stronger and the German mag watered it down !

Well, this is one view of Connie's show thus far...

http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/diary/2002/07/...ng/index.html?x

Should I laugh?

or think, poor Connie?

Ok, I know now.

Musicalidad, thanks for the link. It has helped put it all in perspective for me. I guess I have some leftover memories of Chung as a reputable journalist. I honestly hadn't seen her show before and only tuned in to see what was going on with Martina. I was so astonished at how poorly Chung conducted the interview, but it sounds like that's how most of her shows go. I can't beleive she actually asked John Stewart if he'd been approached to replace Dan Rather or Peter Jennings!! LMAO. Poor Connie. What happened??

At least now I can just shrug my shoulders and laugh it off. I almost fell out of my chair when I got to the part where the Salon writer said "Connie Chung Tonight" is well on its way to becoming CNN's first breakout comedy hit.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: curtj ]

Connie's shows have been going downhill for ages.

Because it's been a gradual decline it's not noticed as much. Yeah she used to be a very credible journalist. Now she looks.......well sedated all the time. Probably because she's finally realised who she's married to

[quote]Originally posted by Zman:
Bryan D.
For you to turn this into a partisan issue is very democratic of you :- )
Look, if you want to follow the rants of an athlete that obviously can't let go of the spotlight, go right ahead. Be sure to move to Mobile, so when Charles Barkley runs for governor of Alabama you can get your vote in.
And as for calling my earlier response lame, I benefitted from an athlete in Detroit who adopted our school but didn't share their name because they didn't want the attention, they just wanted to help. To this day, I don't know if they were gay/straight; black/white; male/female; republican/democrat. And I don't care. What I do know is I tend to like the celebrity that goes out there and just does what they feel is right, as opposed to spending all of their time crticizing what they believe others are doing wrong.

---

Well said, Zman! Hear, hear!

But I gotta stick up for my man Sir Charles here. While Barkley has been quite outspoken about his politics at times, he is very dedicated to charity work, and only does it on the condition that he remain anonymous. You might hear a lot about Barkley's (Republican!) politics, but when it comes to charity work, you'll never see his mug in the newspapers. For all we know, he's the anonymous benefactor who adopted your school.

lol and welcome to the board Alex!

Just read an article on MSN-Sports about Martina. She confirms, she will stop playing tennis next year, 2004, and then the following year most likely will get involved in U.S. politics. She said words to the effect, "if Arnold can run for Geovernor of California, then why not? I have the muscles, and besides especially with the way things are right now. The conservatives have too much power". Go for it Martina, I hope you do run for something somewhere. In addition to the muscles, I think you have the brains too.

I always like the folks who now state "we live in a free country where you can say what you like--- but you better watch what you say!!". Hypocritical maybe?