Your second graf is dead on, and if I’m reading it correctly, says that Dan was right to ask the question.

I’m glad to see you still swimming in the pool, Holmes. My point was that commenters here (myself included) have to stop sniping at each other, stop acting like we’re the Incredible Hulk or Johnny Blaze or some shit – or Noam Chomsky, for you more intellectual commenters – and saying whatever we want to others behind the safety of our keyboards and moniters without respecting other people’s thoughts. (Delusional? Ludicrous? C’mon, Marin, I know YOU’RE better than that.) Educated and/or street smart adults should be able to express themselves without resorting to put-downs and name-calling. Otherwise, ad hominem only leads to a quarrel, i.e., cats stop talking and start fighting. That’s how it is around my way, at least. Surely we can all show how smart we are without calling each other names – and again, I’m obviously including myself in this assessment. Harsh words cloud one’s judgment as well as one’s argument. It’s a lesson some of us learn the hard-a-way (pun intended, of course).

Now regarding your last comment, I’ll say only this: full disclosure would have altered Hardaway’s response, I think. If we can assume that Hardaway is not a TOTAL idiot, and given his lengthy career in the NBA as well as his successful transition to the business world after hoops, I think we can safely make such an assumption, then full disclosure from LeBatard/ESPN would have perhaps subtly encouraged Hardaway to engage in a little self-censorship. That is to say without speaking, “Hey, Timmy, this question is ultimately coming from cats with more CREAM than you, cats who can make or break you, so answer accordingly…” Game recognize game, and surely Hardaway is smart enough to recognize such subliminal messages. Then, with his reply sufficiently altered, the listening public is right back where Tragic Johnson rightly said we didn’t want to be: i.e., athletes delivering sound bites and cliches instead of answering questions honestly. In other words, Hardaway’s bigotry and homophobia would have remained concealed and either Tragic is right to say that we would not now be having this discussion that stands to highlight and perhaps benefit LGBTQ issues, or I am right to say that we wouldn’t now be having this discussion that stands to benefit the CREAM for the world wide leader. As far as that goes, Marin, there ain’t no overestimating them, indeed one does not become the acknowledged “world wide leader” by being “sloppy.”

Not even close to white my friend, but it’s interesting how you automatically assume that anyone who “flips the fuck out at the mere mention of race” is white.

I just disagree with your assertion as to how much back story he should have provided Hardy. Even if he should have, do you really think it was part of a well-oiled machine or just a sloppy journalist? I think you give ESPN far too much credit.

And I go back to a question I posed earlier, what do you think Hardaway’s response would have been to “Tim Hardaway, John Amaechi, a former journeyman center/power forward for the Jazz, Magic and Rockets, recently announced he was homosexual in a book, Man in the Middle, published by ESPN. How would you feel about a gay teammate?” Dan didn’t goad him into saying what he did, and he did try and give him an out but Timmy just went further over the edge.

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. The quicker that is internalized the sooner it is known that there is a context or many contexts for every thought or action taken by a human….

I never claimed a racial conspiracy. It’s funny as shit that white people flip the fuck out at the mere mention of race.

Like Tragic Gugliotta quoted:

“It makes ESPN complicit in pressing ethical boundaries to ensure sales of an ESPN-published book. It makes all black people, as extensions of Hardaway’s bias, open to undue questions of prejudice, bigotry, and yes, racism, by a parasitical press and an unthinking public.”

I blame this shit on Hardaway! He provided the opening for the undue questions. I didn’t say a damn thing about a racial conspiracy. What ESPN has done with the marketing of the Amaechi book isn’t a conspiracy, it’s ESPN’s modus operandi. Just because you don’t notice that they employ variations on a theme to whatever it is they want to push (see the NASCAR coverage for a perfect example of “Man in the Middle”-like marketing of stock car racing) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Working and being “out for the money” are more often than not, two very different things. People work because they must. And if gettin’ a paycheck for whatever work one performs is being “out for the money” then your statement means nothing relative to my article. Also, yes ESPN did sacrifice Hardaway to help Amaechi’s book sales – what you think Tim-uh’s statements hurt the book sales?! It didn’t matter who the person was, it could have been Shawn Bradley – ESPN would have sacrificed him just like they did Hardaway.

“And another thing, it’s talk radio. The whole journalistic ethics things kind of go out the window because they (and most sports writers in general) become entertainment.”

That’s a sorry-ass statement, not by you but as a condemnation of the state of sports journalism. That statement is part of the reason I got into journalism, part of the reason I left, and part of the reason I’m back in the game; the shit needs to change and the more responsible journalists there are out there the better the field will become.

All this, “Of course ESPN is out for money, but so are all of us or we wouldn’t be working,” is just shit. That’s a b.s. mindset; when I was young I was told never take a job you don’t love – even if it’s just love for a moment. So I personally don’t knwo what the fuck you’re talking about. And perhaps if you looked a “work” that way, you’d find there are actually a lot of people who work for the love of what they do first; they know money comes and goes but the quality of the work they do in the job they love is their measure of employment success, not the size of the paycheck.

Yes it is too much to ask most athletes – most anyone, for that matter – to pick up a newspaper and research questions an all that. Especially when most radio personalities NEVER give someone they interview a full set of the questions they’re going to ask. They may provide an outline, but that’s it – period…. but who really gives a fuck about that.

Besides, I’m not defending Tim-uh’s statements, so you might as well stop crying about what he did or didn’t do to prep for his interview.

Finally, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING -

Context is definitely important, but like I said before, sometimes you don’t have to set it up because it should already be known.

I honestly don’t give a fuck about Dan, I just found it funny that Dwil was somehow able to tie some corporate/racial conspiracy to this issue.

Of course ESPN is out for money, but so are all of us or we wouldn’t be working. But to think that it’s this vast scheming organism that’s trying to sacrifice a black player to help the sales of another black player’s book is silly, and you know this.

And another thing, it’s talk radio. The whole journalistic ethics things kind of go out the window because they (and most sports writers in general) become entertainment.

A simple “John Amaechi recently stated that he is gay. Since he played during your time in the NBA, how do you feel about the prospect that there were gay players when you played?” would have sufficed.

No one is saying that reporters can’t ask bigger issue questions. I do it all the time.

ESPN does not care about the bigger issue, they care about money.

Don’t front. I’m sure they wouldn’t behind close doors.

Because Tim Hardaway used to play in the NBA, and he would be a better source on how a gay teammate would be received in the locker room than some fat newspaper hack. It’s reporting 101. And, for some reason, I don’t think Hardaway’s cool with Amaechi.

If he had asked it like I posed, I would imagine there would be more outrage for the plugging. But it doesn’t matter if Tim knew about the book or not because the question was about larger issues than the book. To say that ESPN reporters cannot ask the bigger issue questions because one arm of the corporation is publishing one man’s dealings with being homosexual is ludicrous.

By the way, Hardaway is entitled to his opinion no matter how hateful and ignorant I think it is.

It might seem foolish to you but you want me to believe only LeBatard’s words? So, I present the words from the person LeBatard attacked and suddenly it’s not enough to reports from the other side – what do you want Campbell’s IRS statements?! Additionally, The entire point of of my discussing the Miami incident is to illustrate that LeBatard is not the athlete-friendly people think he is – jeez, I spend many paragraphs elucidating that point and you pick out one or two sentences and act like they are the main point. This is why it’s so difficult for me to understand what some commentors are talking about? Without understanding the CONTEXT in which something is written or said, communication is meaningless.

About Hardaway, where did I imply that we should cut him some slack for his ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry?! I wrote this:

“You think it’s sad that a vast majority of college students can’t name the present U.S. Cabinet members? Ask professional athletes if you really want to cry.”

If you read the paragraph that contains those two sentences, you’ll find that I’m lamenting the myopic way NBA players and too many everyday people view the world around them. How this gets turned around to imply that I’m excusing Hardaway is beyond me.

Finally, I actually agree that an athlete SHOULD know that Lebatard was asking, in the manner in which the question was asked – without any previous contextual information – was a loaded question. But “Tim-uh” fell for the “okey-doke.” And that’s his problem. And that he’s getting shitted on for his answer is his problem. I gather you failed to take the time to read my post Tim Hardaway and the Language of Hate…” to further understand my sentiments toward Hardaway.

ESPN-LeBatard really didn’t need to seek out someone like Hardaway
for this type of statement – and I wrote that in this post! All one needed to do was to read Chris Broussard’s column on ESPN.com’s Page 2 for basically the same info…. or read the post on the “…Language of Hate.”

However, the fact remains that ESPN had a book written by a relatively obscure English ex-NBA player who is telling the world he’s gay and this is what it’s like to play professional sports in the U.S. and be gay. Is it a big deal – not really. There are too many statements or quotes – like the one I used by Garrison Hearst – by athletes in all major sports leagues that let the average fan know that to be a homosexual in the “macho” sports world is a rough way to go.

So, how does ESPN sell the book? They need to create a buzz about the book – well I describe the process in the post.

Maybe if you go back and read the post and think about everything I write, maybe you’ll understand it better. And if you’re really interested, just type in John Amaechi in the “Search” bar on this blog – and read everything I’ve written about John Amaechi as subject matter. You may find that this post is the culmination of all that come before it.

I don’t think Lebatard is some bastion of integrity (his reaction towards Sabin leaving was hypocritical) but I also am not naive enough to blindly believe your point of view just because you say its true. When it comes to the Luther Campbell/Miami scandal I don’t have the requisite background knowledge to take one side or the other (I’ll look it up but any link that you feel would be enlightening would be appreciated). My point was that you offered nothing in the way to substantiate your claims other than comments made by Campbell who would no doubt be pissed off by the whole thing considering his stature in Florida as a self made millionaire and a charitable citizen. So for me to just blindly except your point that Lebatard made his career off the backs of black athletes with nothing else besides comments from Campbell seems foolish.

About Hardaway, your implication that because he is a former NBA player we should cut him some slack for being uninformed about the world going on around him is offensive. Why should we accept that former athletes are not bright and phrase questions towards them in a manner that will make them look the best that they always can? Asking a player if he would accept a gay teammate should be a question that the player knows is loaded no matter what the context.

Does it make a difference if the producer asked the question?

No.

Everyone involved is accountable.

Are you serious?

Firstly, Hardaway might have answered differently because he might have been cool with Amaechi. Secondly, reporters influence answers simply by the words we use. It was a getaway question that obviously had the desired effect.

Why would Dan ask that particular question of Tim Hardaway if he didn’t have ulterior motives?

“Asking questions, raising objections and offering alternative viewpoints are all a part of intelligent dialogue designed to help clarify a person’s perspective. It’s all good. But why show up JUST to play devil’s advocate?”

It’s not just to play devil’s advocate. I don’t agree with many of the points DWil makes, and I try to offer my alternative viewpoints and await his responses. I haven’t been that good at checking back after I post my two quick sentences, but I will stay in the damn pool until I want.

As for context, yes, it’s important. But there are certain topics that should be well-known enough that there is no context needed. If Dan had said, “Tim Hardaway, John Amaechi, a former journeyman center/power forward for the Jazz, Magic and Rockets, recently announced he was homosexual in a book, Man in the Middle, published by ESPN. How would you feel about a gay teammate?” how does that make a difference?

Furthermore, there was an article which I can’t find the link to at the moment that said Dan almost forgot to ask the question, and a producer told him to.

That aside, this is a perfectly logical question to ask. It’s the type of question, given the Brit’s announcement, that any beat writer to high school newspaper should be asking.

As for profit motive, it’s there, but I don’t think it’s a big issue for this topic. If we follow that line of reasoning, ESPN makes most of their money televising athletic events (the NBA included) so should their journalists never be allowed to ask about leagues that make the network money? Of course not.

who asked the question? it doesnt matter!

why did they ask the question? it doesnt matter!

what color is either person? it doesnt matter!

the question itself and the response is what matters. to some dispicable. to others acceptable. whatever you may think, the responder answered a question when probed. unless he was joking this is how he feels. we are left to interpret that. im not sure what else there is here.

But, I don’t think that makes the question disingenuous. It might make Le Batard a profit-hungry, socially irresponsible dickhead, but the question still has potential for goodness. I mean, if Hardaway changes his perspective or young fans start talking in a positive way about LGBTQ issues, then Le Batard’s question worked wonders.

And that’s my problem with the analysis of ESPN’s profit motive. Sure, they cooked up the story and made the news. But the resulting discussion could still benefit queer people. I fear that acknowledging ESPN’s profit motive becomes an end to itself.

I hope that doesn’t sound like cherry picking or semantic gaming.

Here’s what’s wrong with asking that question: actually, you’ve already pointed out the problem while responding to something I said. When there is an unspoken profit motive spurring the guy to ask the question, therein lies the problem. Either you know this, and thus your question is disingenuous, or you don’t know this, in which case, well the Ashanti say it best, I think: “By the time the fool has learned the game, the players have dispersed.”

Here’s the thing about the Le Batard post: I think reporters SHOULD ask difficult, extemporaneous questions. Call an audible every once in a while. If we’re curious about what players think, we should respect reporters who catch them unprepared, unscripted, and without the usual storehouse of cliches. Even if Le Batard is paid by Bristol, I don’t understand why it’s a problem to ask that question.

Anyway, it’s sad to see cats continually coming on here trying to isolate and trivialize certain notions of race with which they have a peculiar problem (worse yet are cats who accuse others of seeing through lenses colored black when what they are really seeing is the blackness of the veil of their own ignorance) when, truth be told, ALL these issues are in play in this case, LGBT, Blacks, heteros, jocks, the media, as well as other issues. None of them can be reduced and folded into the others, but neither are they mutually exclusive, and I haven’t read Mr Wilson or Mr Tillery here as suggesting otherwise. One purpose of this blog is to talk about ALL of these issues and more as they exist in the public sphere, is it not? Asking questions, raising objections and offering alternative viewpoints are all a part of intelligent dialogue designed to help clarify a person’s perspective. It’s all good. But why show up JUST to play devil’s advocate? Some of y’all are clearly getting kicks out of sniping at people. It’s ridiculous. If y’all can’t swim, get the fuck out the pool.

My crooked masking taped glasses are sweaty and my buck teeth are grinding causing my dog to howl incessantly.

There’s nothing creative about that.

Is ESPN at all accountable? That’s the question I would like answered?

Is it the imagery that confounds you or the words associated?

To contextualize the Hardaway comment by taking on Le Batard is to explain, if not to excuse, Hardaway’s bigotry. Would you try to explain John Rocker’s bigotry by challenging the reporter who set him off?

The bigger problem is that your post if full of unsubstantiated speculation and assertions. Yet, a tendency toward speculation seems to be part of your problem with Le Batard.

Again, you’re trying to have it both ways.

He didn’t.

He merely states that LeBatard, being a true ESPN representative, had ulterior motives in the way he posed the question to Hardaway for ESPN’s financial gain.

ESPN is trying to sell a book. They have asked everyone who is anyone to elicit a Hardaway similarity.

Dan was their vehicle.

Regarding his use of my interview with Luke to explain Dan as a snake in the grass journalist, refer to the state of Miami’s program. It’s true that Dan had his opportunistic hand in the U’s top 3 disband.

Sellout.

We all want to break a national story, but if we are sincerely true to the game, we hope that it’s positive.

I know I do. Anyone out there want to give me a story that is going to do some good for sports as well as society, you know where to find me

Luke could have helped some of the players stay out of trouble..and worst..the morgue.

30% of the U’s players come from Luke’s Pop Warner program, so why prohibit his influence?

As far as Hardaway, he said some dumb shit, but being a colleague of Dan’s–since some of you are adamant that he was this serious ESPN employee–I thought Dan was disingenious in using a “getaway” question that was Tyson bolo loaded.

Is ESPN accountable? If not, why?

“Marin- Wow can’t anyone object to ESPN without someone like you thinking I’m talking about race?!!!”

You write:
“It makes ESPN complicit in pressing ethical boundaries to ensure sales of an ESPN-published book. It makes all black people, as extensions of Hardaway’s bias, open to undue questions of prejudice, bigotry, and yes, racism, by a parasitical press and an unthinking public.”

Aren’t you talking about race?