Editorials: IN DEFENSE OF RUSH: The media need to call it both ways
By Mary Katharine Ham/Richmond
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
All right, hold on to your hats, folks, because this white girl's about to write about race and Rush Limbaugh.
If you haven't heard already, Limbaugh resigned from his position as a commentator for ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown" after being lambasted by the media for remarks he made Sept. 28 about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.
His comments went a little something like this: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Now comes the part where the media get to shake their collective head and tremble with manufactured outrage over Limbaugh's "incendiary" remarks, as they like to call them.
Limbaugh's "insensitive" remarks have been plastered on every sports page, sports show and newscast in the country for the past week. Newspaper coverage of his comments has been paired with "it serves that bigot right" columns from sportswriters giddy with the chance to jump on the Rush-bashing bandwagon.
So, why the rush to hang Rush? Does the punishment fit the crime?
First, it is certainly true that McNabb has not shined recently, even according to McNabb.
Whether the media give him too much credit for his team's performance is debatable, but it's certainly a valid sports opinion open to discussion on any sports show. So Rush is safe so far.
Now, here's where Limbaugh did the unthinkable. He mentioned McNabb's race.
Limbaugh claims McNabb is overrated because the sports media are concerned about the status of black quarterbacks in the NFL. Are they?
Of course they are. If there wasn't social concern for the status of black athletes and coaches in the NFL, there would not have been such a stink over the
Any guess who that stink was raised by?
That's right, the nation's sports media - the same media which now claim to be socially un-concerned with the performance of black QBs and coaches in the NFL.
Whether you agree with Limbaugh's comments, they're neither totally off the wall nor racist. Limbaugh mentioned McNabb's race, but didn't disparage it. I can't count the number of times I've heard mainstream sports journalists refer to McNabb's race, so what's the difference?
Make no mistake about it, the problem is not what was said, but who said it.
Limbaugh is a conservative, white man who, in the eyes of the overwhelmingly liberal media, has no right to talk about race. As soon as the word "black" comes out of his mouth, he's a racist.
On the other hand, if you're a minority or a liberal, you can say pretty much whatever you want and the press, ever the rooter-out of racism, has nothing to say about it.
Take Dusty Baker, who is black. The
"Personally, I like to play in the heat," he said. "It's easier for me. It's easier for most Latin guys and easier for most minority people.
"Your skin color is more conducive to the heat than it is to the light-skinned people, right? You don't see brothers running around burnt and stuff, running around with white stuff on their ears and nose and stuff."
And what did the press do? It didn't demand an apology; it didn't call Dusty a bigot.
In fact, very little was written about the incident. Conservative critics roared that white men would have lost their jobs for comments like that.
In fact, two white men already had.
In the late 80s, sports commentator Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder and Dodger executive Al Campanis were both fired for making racial statements very similar to Baker's.
And it's not just sports where racist remarks from minorities are treated with kid gloves.
You probably never even heard this before I wrote it, did you?
That's because only Reuters news service wrote a story on it. Evidently, the other reporters didn't think it was a story, even though it was an elected official, speaking in a public forum, making violent threats based solely on race.
Barron's response to criticism from conservative radio broadcaster Steve Malzberg was that he was using a form of humor called "black hyperbole" that "y'all wouldn't understand because you're uptight and you're gonna take it where it was not intended." (WABC Radio, Aug. 18, 2001.)
Maybe Rush should try that.
But the double standard doesn't stop there. As long as you're liberal, you're safe it seems.
Take Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), a white man and former member of the Ku Klux Klan who used the "n-word" twice in one interview on Fox News in March 2001.
Did you hear about that one? Probably not.
The New York Times ignored the story. CNN did one report, according to Newsmax.com, a conservative news Web site.
If the press is going to cast itself as racism's biggest enemy, it should fight it on all fronts instead of creating it where it doesn't exist.
But the liberal press is on a witch-hunt.
Not for racists, but for white conservatives it can portray as racists. Limbaugh has made that point many times and now the media are clamoring for all they're worth to prove him right.
If you want a witch worth hunting, start looking for corrupt journalists. You won't have to look very hard.
Contact reporter Mary Katharine Ham at 997-3111, ext. 19; e-mail mkham@yourdailyjournal.com
http://www.yourdailyjournal.com/articles/2003/10/07/news/editorials/oped02.txt
