N/S Pat McCAfee Claims ESPN is trying to Sabotage Him (3 Viewers)

[scuppa9]

if i was a betting man, I'd bet his answer would be because they didn't condem kneeling during the national anthem...

One example that sticks out for me was when Dominique Foxworth was on ESPN pleading for the OK State Football coach to be fired because someone snapped a picture of him wearing an OAN shirt somewhere. Hardly anyone knew who OAN was, but since they were considered right leaning Foxworth was demanding that he lose his job. If he were wearing a CNN shirt not one person from either side would have said anything.

 

[Boy_of_wonder75]

No. I do t want to get into politics, but many of the show host expound on politics and give their take on subject way outside of sports. It’s ridiculous, just because they were great athletes they now have insight into subjects like science or economics.

Which upsets you, the politics, science, or economics? I'm trying to understand your position.

 

[STB1]

One example that sticks out for me was when Dominique Foxworth was on ESPN pleading for the OK State Football coach to be fired because someone snapped a picture of him wearing an OAN shirt somewhere. Hardly anyone knew who OAN was, but since they were considered right leaning Foxworth was demanding that he lose his job. If he were wearing a CNN shirt not one person from either side would have said anything.

How about ESPN taking a moment of silence over Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill. LOL. Not a police officer being killed. A law voted on by duly elected officials of a state. Yeah, totally not a biased left wing Disney shill.

 

[KleinBottle]

I don’t care what either side discusses but when ESPN blatantly picks a side, how is that fair? Coming from a side that always whines about fair and inclusion and equality? It’s not. Let’s just be honest about it.

You’re not unique, in ideology or otherwise, in claiming ESPN “picks a side,” though. That’s why I asked who does/doesn’t have the green light to venture outside of sports, in your view. I am singularly interested in your answer, though this non-answer is sufficiently illuminating.

 

[STB1]

You’re not unique, in ideology or otherwise, in claiming ESPN “picks a side,” though. That’s why I asked who does/doesn’t have the green light to venture outside of sports, in your view. I am singularly interested in your answer, though this non-answer is sufficiently illuminating.

How is that a non-answer? Either let your anchors, contributors, guests have an opinion or don't allow it all. Only allowing one side is like showing up at a baseball game and the umpire is wearing a jersey for other team.

 

[webster]

Which upsets you, the politics, science, or economics? I'm trying to understand your position.

None of it upsets me. I just don’t watch the channel unless there is a game playing. The shows used to be about sports, now many have former professional athletes expound on everything from entertainment, politics to science. For me, it’s not interesting.

 

[webster]

One side says the earth is flat - the other side uses observable data to determine an answer
Not all sides merit broadcast
In fact it is irresponsible (and sometimes unethical) to broadcast some ideas solely because a number of people hold them

Just think at one time there were people who wanted to silence those who proposed that the world is round. Having debates is not wrong, silencing those who you disagree with is.

 

[RJS]

Just think at one time there were people who wanted to silence those who proposed that the world is round. Having debates is not wrong, silencing those who you disagree with is.

People have known that the earth is a sphere by about 500 B.C. and no one wanted to silence them, The idea that people in the middle ages believed the earth was flat is a relatively modern concept from the late 1800's.

Also, I believe the Saints could use more depth at safety.

 

[KleinBottle]

Just think at one time there were people who wanted to silence those who proposed that the world is round. Having debates is not wrong, silencing those who you disagree with is.

Disagreement is, like, “I’m going to have Apple Jacks for breakfast,” and you tell me that’s your least-favorite cereal ever made

“This thing is true, and this thing you’re countering my true statement with is not true” is not disagreement. It’s one person speaking truth and a different person making noise. If I say “I’m going to plug my phone in while I browse Saintsreport so it has some more battery power,” and you say “actually plugging your phone in will make the battery deplete twice as fast, your phone is on a one-way path to a dead battery” - you didn’t disagree with me, you lied to me. You can speculate that my charger isn’t long enough for me to use my phone while it’s plugged in, or you can dislike what color my phone charger is, but telling me it’ll deplete my battery moves out of opinion or speculation into falsehood.

 

[kcirdor]

One side says the earth is flat - the other side uses observable data to determine an answer
Not all sides merit broadcast
In fact it is irresponsible (and sometimes unethical) to broadcast some ideas solely because a number of people hold them

I like being able to see the idiots plainly, not silencing them to hide in the shadows.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I like being able to see the idiots plainly, not silencing them to hide in the shadows.

I think there is merit to that theory
But in practice, last several years, I haven’t seen the value in the exposure

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Just think at one time there were people who wanted to silence those who proposed that the world is round. Having debates is not wrong, silencing those who you disagree with is.

We’re confusing silencing with not giving a megaphone to
There is value in not broadcasting lies

 

[Semper]

It’s simple. If you don’t like it don’t watch. I haven’t watched anything sports related since the Saints and LSU were done.

 

[Saint Jack]

Just to get back on topic.
I think Pat has the type of power because his show is set up more like a podcast and not like every other ESPN show.
And more people under 40 watch or listen to sports pods than ESPN.
Has nothing to do with politics.

 

[Boy_of_wonder75]

None of it upsets me. I just don’t watch the channel unless there is a game playing. The shows used to be about sports, now many have former professional athletes expound on everything from entertainment, politics to science. For me, it’s not interesting.

But you can't give an example