An anchor (just a new talking head, really, in all likelihood), apparently said something on the air about lynching Tiger Woods. As a joke? I dunno, but here's a link:
http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/golf_exp...?urn=golf,60618
The reader responses to the editorial don't get too stupid, inane or offensive until the second or third page...
Full Version: Golf (?!?) controversy ...yeah, golf!
Of all the things to say regarding Tiger Woods that could have come out of her mouth, why in the hell would that girl use 'lynch'? Incredibly stupid!! I mean that was just dumb. Because no one in today's era has the game to compete with Tiger Woods, you have to kill him?!! What a moron!!
This, to me, is a nonstory that became a freight train because Al Sharpton and a few others overreacted. She apologized IMMEDIATELY, apologized to Tiger immediately, the network apologized, Tiger said it was a non-story.
I am getting really tired over people attacking one another for a slip of the tongue. Does anyone really think this woman was advocating for some men dressed in white robes corner Tiger in an alley and hang him??? It was an unfortunate slip that had no ill intent, she and everyone at the network apologized immediately (deservedly so), so move on.
But, this is the world we live in, unfortunately, when everyone is looking for an opportunity to get offended and make headlines out of someone who has to fill hours of television accidentally saying something dumb. The public has been turning more and more of a deaf ear to this stuff; soon, they'll stop listening when people say something truly bad.
I am getting really tired over people attacking one another for a slip of the tongue. Does anyone really think this woman was advocating for some men dressed in white robes corner Tiger in an alley and hang him??? It was an unfortunate slip that had no ill intent, she and everyone at the network apologized immediately (deservedly so), so move on.
But, this is the world we live in, unfortunately, when everyone is looking for an opportunity to get offended and make headlines out of someone who has to fill hours of television accidentally saying something dumb. The public has been turning more and more of a deaf ear to this stuff; soon, they'll stop listening when people say something truly bad.
Yes, Cyd, it is a big deal. You're getting offended that black people are offended that white people can still "joke" about lynching black people. It's not funny or acceptable. Ever. And it's not about "looking for an opportunity to get offended", it's about being seriously and deeply insulted that women, gays, and people of color should have to "laugh it off" or take the high road whenever someone says something truly idiotic.
So prepare to stay tired then, because I'm not going to make life easy for people who are rarely inconvenienced and who have the privilege to consider whether someone is being "serious" or not o "really meant to be offensive" with their comments.
Besides, the posters here have proved themselves to be capable of nuanced discussion regarding race, class, and gender, more often than not moreso than other discussion boards. But for anyone to approach this topic with a sense of irritation is really disappointing, especially when college campuses are in turmoil right now over the appearance of nooses on campus and a stepping up of really hateful rhetoric aimed at people of color.
So prepare to stay tired then, because I'm not going to make life easy for people who are rarely inconvenienced and who have the privilege to consider whether someone is being "serious" or not o "really meant to be offensive" with their comments.
Besides, the posters here have proved themselves to be capable of nuanced discussion regarding race, class, and gender, more often than not moreso than other discussion boards. But for anyone to approach this topic with a sense of irritation is really disappointing, especially when college campuses are in turmoil right now over the appearance of nooses on campus and a stepping up of really hateful rhetoric aimed at people of color.
I'm not remotely offended, BMan. But it's interesting that you would use that word and apply it to me. It speaks to my point.
And before this gets filled with "Cyd is a racist" bullshit, I've said the same thing about the reaction to some gay-themed off-color comments, too. Our culture will never feel "healed" until we stop trying to get people fired and start talking with them. No question, "lynch" was a dumb word to use, and she shouldn't have used it. But sitting down and talking with her and the people at Golf Channel can prove a lot more fruitful than angry mass emails and calls for her to be fired (not that you've done that BMan, but I've gotten a couple of the mass emails, and Crazy Al has demanded she be fired).
And before this gets filled with "Cyd is a racist" bullshit, I've said the same thing about the reaction to some gay-themed off-color comments, too. Our culture will never feel "healed" until we stop trying to get people fired and start talking with them. No question, "lynch" was a dumb word to use, and she shouldn't have used it. But sitting down and talking with her and the people at Golf Channel can prove a lot more fruitful than angry mass emails and calls for her to be fired (not that you've done that BMan, but I've gotten a couple of the mass emails, and Crazy Al has demanded she be fired).
The whole topic of what offends people is very interesting; a dynamic that has gained steam in the last 10 years in our culture. I started a general discussion about it; I'd love people's thoughts:
What offends you? Discuss.
What offends you? Discuss.
OK, so you're not "offended", you're just "really tired" and you want people to reserve judgement, or not ask that someone be fired or suspended until they say something "truly bad", because saying a black person should be lynched isn't "really bad", but ...I dunno, a pro football coach speaking in front of a group that doesn't want gay people to get married IS?
I have no problem with the approach of educating, having people apologize, hoping for a teachable moment, all that stuff - Tim Hardaway is a great example of what COULD happen. But just because some voices are strident doesn't mean the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. And, Al Sharpton doesn't immediately discredit a concern from being valid.
Our country will never heal if people are put in a position of having to justify their offended-ness, or if offenses are constantly weighed or scaled. As in, "Oh, that's just Carlos Mencia offensive" vs. "Whoa!, That's Klan Sheet Offensive, call our sponsors now and tell them..." Of course, that already happens, and it closes off more potentially "healing" discussions that we can imagine, because so few people ever bring concerns forward for fear of being shut down or told, "It wasn't that offensive...".
And let's not forget that Ann Coulter doesn't want to "talk" and "heal."
Nor do the dozens of campuses that Equality Riders visited.
Nor do the hate groups that are bubbling under the surface in our suburbs.
My belief is that if we want to be concerned about any of these issues or people, we need to be a bit more generous in our willingness to consider what might be offensive, trouble, "real" or "serious." I remain concerned that very few have address the sexual violence that was directed at the anchor in the response threads. Truthfully, that concerns me a bit more...
I have no problem with the approach of educating, having people apologize, hoping for a teachable moment, all that stuff - Tim Hardaway is a great example of what COULD happen. But just because some voices are strident doesn't mean the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. And, Al Sharpton doesn't immediately discredit a concern from being valid.
Our country will never heal if people are put in a position of having to justify their offended-ness, or if offenses are constantly weighed or scaled. As in, "Oh, that's just Carlos Mencia offensive" vs. "Whoa!, That's Klan Sheet Offensive, call our sponsors now and tell them..." Of course, that already happens, and it closes off more potentially "healing" discussions that we can imagine, because so few people ever bring concerns forward for fear of being shut down or told, "It wasn't that offensive...".
And let's not forget that Ann Coulter doesn't want to "talk" and "heal."
Nor do the dozens of campuses that Equality Riders visited.
Nor do the hate groups that are bubbling under the surface in our suburbs.
My belief is that if we want to be concerned about any of these issues or people, we need to be a bit more generous in our willingness to consider what might be offensive, trouble, "real" or "serious." I remain concerned that very few have address the sexual violence that was directed at the anchor in the response threads. Truthfully, that concerns me a bit more...
QUOTE(The B Man @ Jan 10 2008, 12:04 PM) 
OK, so you're not "offended", you're just "really tired" and you want people to reserve judgement, or not ask that someone be fired or suspended until they say something "truly bad", because saying a black person should be lynched isn't "really bad", but ...I dunno, a pro football coach speaking in front of a group that doesn't want gay people to get married IS?
I never asked for or wanted Dungy to be fired, suspended, fined or anything else. I don't believe I've ever called for ANYONE to be fired, suspended or fined for something they said. Where did I say that?
And she did not say that a black person should be lynched.
QUOTE
I remain concerned that very few have address the sexual violence that was directed at the anchor in the response threads. Truthfully, that concerns me a bit more...
What do you mean? What response threads?
Right, neither you nor Outsports ever said T.D. should be fired, etc. I was employing a rhetorical legerdemain to illustrate what I believe to be an inconsistency: that T.D. is believed to be a "jerk" (by virtue of his Outsports Jerk of the Year nomination) not for what he said but for who he spoke to on one hand, but that being alarmed at references to lynching is "looking for a chance to get offended" because comments about lynching are not something "truly bad."
I posted the initial link with almost a bemused approach, and I directed readers to the comments section on the page linked, where nasty things were said about Ms. Tilghman. I never said Ms. Tilghman should be fired nor did I intimate that anyone is racist.
I perhaps wrongly assumed that some of the folks on this site might be curious, interested, etc., especially considering that this non-story has been on Yahoo for three consecutive days.
I find it extremely disappointing that I can't defend my right to be concerned or, yes, even offended without being lumped into a group of people who are crazy or overreacting about just any little thing. This is especially disappointing considering that my initial posting was more or less, "Hey, look at this..."
I don't disagree that more often than not we can respond more productively to "controversies" promoted and promulgated by the media, and I even gave an example of how something can work out positively. What I was also reacting to was the comment on this thread which seemed to suggest that commenting about lynching a black person (or biracial person, or anyone) isn't something "truly bad."
What people don't want to hear in this day and age of "Free Speech" is that YES, some things are still hurtful, offensive, and inciteful, and even though we can say them, we certainly can't and shouldn't be surprised when a sh!+storm is kicked up once those things are said.
Faggot = media sh!+storm, whether we like it or not. And so even if we ARE fatigued after Coulter, Imus, Peter Brady's wife, Dog the Bounty Hunter, the SF 49er who'd say fag in front of his gay athletic trainer, et al., I don't think the response should be: well, maybe you people should stop being offended. I question the efficacy of telling other people when to feel offended or how to feel when an historically offensive term or phrase is used in a context in which it has no place.
But, you know what, whatever. There are always going to be athletes/pop stars/talking heads and pundits/celebutantes and others who will say stoopid shit about race, gender and sexuality, and there will always be people who get offended at what they said, and there will always be people who get offended that anyone got offended.
I just didn't think it'd happen in this context in golf, and I would have thought the tone of our discussion would have been different.
I posted the initial link with almost a bemused approach, and I directed readers to the comments section on the page linked, where nasty things were said about Ms. Tilghman. I never said Ms. Tilghman should be fired nor did I intimate that anyone is racist.
I perhaps wrongly assumed that some of the folks on this site might be curious, interested, etc., especially considering that this non-story has been on Yahoo for three consecutive days.
I find it extremely disappointing that I can't defend my right to be concerned or, yes, even offended without being lumped into a group of people who are crazy or overreacting about just any little thing. This is especially disappointing considering that my initial posting was more or less, "Hey, look at this..."
I don't disagree that more often than not we can respond more productively to "controversies" promoted and promulgated by the media, and I even gave an example of how something can work out positively. What I was also reacting to was the comment on this thread which seemed to suggest that commenting about lynching a black person (or biracial person, or anyone) isn't something "truly bad."
What people don't want to hear in this day and age of "Free Speech" is that YES, some things are still hurtful, offensive, and inciteful, and even though we can say them, we certainly can't and shouldn't be surprised when a sh!+storm is kicked up once those things are said.
Faggot = media sh!+storm, whether we like it or not. And so even if we ARE fatigued after Coulter, Imus, Peter Brady's wife, Dog the Bounty Hunter, the SF 49er who'd say fag in front of his gay athletic trainer, et al., I don't think the response should be: well, maybe you people should stop being offended. I question the efficacy of telling other people when to feel offended or how to feel when an historically offensive term or phrase is used in a context in which it has no place.
But, you know what, whatever. There are always going to be athletes/pop stars/talking heads and pundits/celebutantes and others who will say stoopid shit about race, gender and sexuality, and there will always be people who get offended at what they said, and there will always be people who get offended that anyone got offended.
I just didn't think it'd happen in this context in golf, and I would have thought the tone of our discussion would have been different.
Oh boy...I really don't think this girl meant anything bad in her statement. I'm defending her because you have to look at one's intent. What Don Imus said was not a slip of the tongue. What this girl said was. Granted, of all the words to use, she shouldn't have used the word 'lynch'. If Tiger happened to be Jewish and she said some people should "gas" him to death you better believe she would have been called on it. I find it curious though that this young girl would even use a word like lynch. I would think she would say something like "take him out" or something a bit more modern than lynch. But, whatever. I will say though that just because Tiger is ok with it doesn't mean that others can't respond to it. Lynching in regards to blacks in this country brings up deep, deep wounds. What I'm actually offended by is people so quick to dismiss it and say it was overblown. Everyone has their own sensitivity meter. While this really doesn't bother me, I talked to some black co-workers today who were not happy with her comments at all. So, I mean...its going to vary based on your personal characteristics.
Look, even if she didn't intend it to be offensive, it was. I guess she grasps that now. Maybe she'll think before speaking in the future. On the air, that is. On top of which, she's from South Carolina, a state that has a very bad racial history (cf. first state to secede from the US, Ft. Sumter, Confederacy, Orangeburg Massacre, etc.). So maybe she could use a little history lesson or two, just so she understands the salience of her words.
I'm also a bit baffled why someone would use a term like "lynch" about a friend of theirs, particularly a friend who's Black/a person of color. It seems highly insensitive and just plain ignorant, and yes, if she's on TV, she needs to learn better self-control, even if this is what she's thinking.
(BTW, what was Nick Faldo's response when she uttered these words? Did he sit there in silence? Or go on to the next thing, or did he check her right then and there?)
In terms of free speech, she can proclaim she wants Tiger lynched to the high heavens in the middle of any town square, but if she's working for a private institution, they have the right to penalize her however their rules see fit. She's lucky she didn't get fired.
All in all, I think people should speak out about this kind of crap. We hear endlessly about how PC we have to be, yet you have the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, David Horowitz, William Kristol, and Ann Coulter, heroes of the right wing, saying extremely hateful and offensive things all the time. All the time. Ann Coulter's homophobic and anti-Semitic comments last year might have seemed like the straw that broke the camel's back, but don't think she or anyone else will stop, because of fear of PC police, etc. That whole concept was just another way of trying to shut up people who are fed up with racism, homophobia, etc.
I'm also a bit baffled why someone would use a term like "lynch" about a friend of theirs, particularly a friend who's Black/a person of color. It seems highly insensitive and just plain ignorant, and yes, if she's on TV, she needs to learn better self-control, even if this is what she's thinking.
(BTW, what was Nick Faldo's response when she uttered these words? Did he sit there in silence? Or go on to the next thing, or did he check her right then and there?)
In terms of free speech, she can proclaim she wants Tiger lynched to the high heavens in the middle of any town square, but if she's working for a private institution, they have the right to penalize her however their rules see fit. She's lucky she didn't get fired.
All in all, I think people should speak out about this kind of crap. We hear endlessly about how PC we have to be, yet you have the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, David Horowitz, William Kristol, and Ann Coulter, heroes of the right wing, saying extremely hateful and offensive things all the time. All the time. Ann Coulter's homophobic and anti-Semitic comments last year might have seemed like the straw that broke the camel's back, but don't think she or anyone else will stop, because of fear of PC police, etc. That whole concept was just another way of trying to shut up people who are fed up with racism, homophobia, etc.
Golfweek editor fired for noose cover.
QUOTE
The parent company of Golfweek magazine on Friday fired the editor who approved this week’s cover image of a noose for an article about the Golf Channel host Kelly Tilghman’s use of the word “lynch” to describe how young players could challenge Tiger Woods.
“We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers around the country,” William P. Kupper Jr., president of Turnstile Publishing, Golfweek’s owner, said in a statement.
Dave Seanor, the fired editor, who on Thursday defended the cover choice as one that was not intended to be “racially provocative,” was subdued Friday. “Sitting in the editor’s chair in this day and age is sort of like walking a tightrope,” he said in a telephone interview. “I lost my balance and slipped off.”
“We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers around the country,” William P. Kupper Jr., president of Turnstile Publishing, Golfweek’s owner, said in a statement.
Dave Seanor, the fired editor, who on Thursday defended the cover choice as one that was not intended to be “racially provocative,” was subdued Friday. “Sitting in the editor’s chair in this day and age is sort of like walking a tightrope,” he said in a telephone interview. “I lost my balance and slipped off.”
Okay this just got really interesting.
Tiger Woods was taken to task today by Jim Brown, hall of famer, about not coming down harder on the reporter's use of the word "lynch". This isn't the first time he was seen as "too soft" on the issue of race, but in the context of the statement and that God-awful magazine cover, his silence is now becoming the issue, not the comments or cover.
Here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3212224
I think Jim Brown has a point. Tiger Woods is the most high-profile black athlete in an almost wholly white sport, one that has its obvious historical baggage, and he has an obligation to say something besides "I didn't take it personally and neither should anyone else." He should have used this as an opportunity to speak up.
Tiger Woods was taken to task today by Jim Brown, hall of famer, about not coming down harder on the reporter's use of the word "lynch". This isn't the first time he was seen as "too soft" on the issue of race, but in the context of the statement and that God-awful magazine cover, his silence is now becoming the issue, not the comments or cover.
Here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3212224
I think Jim Brown has a point. Tiger Woods is the most high-profile black athlete in an almost wholly white sport, one that has its obvious historical baggage, and he has an obligation to say something besides "I didn't take it personally and neither should anyone else." He should have used this as an opportunity to speak up.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.