Anchor gets suspended for 'racist' Woods comment

I_Like_Swordchucks · 01-10-2008, 12:09 PM

Read the story here.

So apparently the Golf channel's first female anchor suggested that the only way the competition could beat Woods was to lynch him in a back alley.

While Tiger Woods didn't care, more or less laughed it off, as said anchor is one of his good friends, the station itself suspended her for two weeks due to inappropriate comments.

Good old Al Sharpton, on the other hand, is calling for her immediate firing as she was being insulting to blacks everywhere. Now, when I look up lynching in wikipedia, there is a lot connecting it to discrimination, but is it a solely racist comment?

I don't really know one way or the other, so everybody else can speak voice their thoughts. I just know this is oddly reminiscent of Don Imus' deal.

Fifthfiend · 01-10-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

but is it a solely racist comment?

It's not solely a racist comment, but I mean, most things aren't.

It definitely is an act of group-murder, its history in this country predominantly that of its use against one particular racial minority.

So if not solely racist I would say it has to be at least, say, 90% racist? I am pretty okay with saying that is too racist.

I mean at best she is quite ignorant of some pretty basic (and entirely too recent) American history, in which case there's no shortage of people in this country wanting to be on TV, so I see no good reason why the Golf Channel can't find one to anchor their show who knows about golf and is aware that certain terms do carry heavily racist overtones.

... I mean just as for instance, she could have said "Well gosh he's just so good, it would take some kind of Grand Imperial Wizard to manage to burn his house down!" and sure there's whatever degree of possibility that she meant it totally innocently but like... would you want to take that bet?

...I guess I would add that a large part of how a person reacts to this is whether a person believes that someone is only obligated to not actively engage in racism, or whether one is obligated to actively endeavor not to engage in racism. I would advocate for the latter as the morally and ethically proper standpoint.

That said, while her suspension sounds appropriate I would say that demanding her firing is probably excessive? Barring a history of such remarks, I would suggest that more would be gained from engaging in dialogue with this woman and getting her to understand the implications of and history behind her remark / demand some public contrition by way of a commitment to working with victims of racial violence (or similar kind of thing) / use this as an in to make the network address whatever systemic racial issues they may have going on in their hiring and suchlike. But then I suppose Al Sharpton's gonna do what Al Sharpton's gonna do.

Wyndon · 01-10-2008, 12:49 PM

I don't think it was a necessarily racist comment, per se, but pretty out of taste. It's good that Woods just laughed it off, and didn't blow this up into a big scandal such as with the whole Don Imus thing.

Seeing Al Sharpton just evokes this "ugh, here we go again" feeling in me because everytime his name appears, it's always seemingly to instigate a situation even more. Rather than helping his cause, he seems to be hurting it by annoying, at least me, but many other people I know. I can't think of a single person, actually, who supports Al Sharpton. The man just takes everything to heart, blows things out of proportion, and really just wants to find the racism in everything.

Yes, the comment was out of taste. Did she need to be suspended? I don't think so, I imagine a warning and a stern talking-to would've done the trick. But her firing? No, Al!

Telephalsion · 01-10-2008, 01:03 PM

Whenever I hear lynching I just think of old western movies. Or possibly of europe, although Louis XVI was tried before executed.
So no, it wasn't a racist comment, but it's true that some people might just focus on the racist lynchings.

Herr Doktor · 01-10-2008, 01:06 PM

Trying to lynch him an an alley'd only end badly for the prospective lynchers. The man's a god!

42PETUNIAS · 01-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telephalsion

Whenever I hear lynching I just think of old western movies. Or possibly of europe, although Louis XVI was tried before executed.
So no, it wasn't a racist comment, but it's true that some people might just focus on the racist lynchings.

Well, I imagine it wouldn't carry much of the same overtones in Sweden...

I agree that it was clearly an unintentional remark that probably held no intent of racism, but the fact is, she said something that could be interpreted as racism on television, and that's something perfectly okay to discourage, which justifies a suspension, but by no means should a slip like that end someone's career as Al Sharpton seems to be suggesting that it should.

Azisien · 01-10-2008, 01:36 PM

Broadcasting channels should have their standards, and if that includes censoring certain terms to this extent, and Tilghman signed their contract, then I don't see a problem with the current ruling. I find the idea of firing to be entirely excessive. If it were me, I'd probably be glad because I wouldn't want to work for a company that operated like that (actually, I have worked for companies with hair-trigger firing policies, and it can be ridiculous).

Morally, I don't think she did anything wrong. Multiple sources claim there was no ill intent in the comment, she knows Tiger, Tiger knows her, they talked it out apparently. And really, racial overtones included, the comment wasn't that bad. Fact of the matter is, she didn't say the KKK should go burn his house down. Comparing the two statements, I view them in pretty different lights. Maybe that's because I'm not American, that's to be seen.

Not the best choice of words for a broadcaster, but these things happen. I see the reaction and escalation (who is this Sharpton dude, anyway?) as an expression of everyone else's racial insecurities. Putting myself in her situation, if I had done this and I had been suspended... I would feel no guilt whatsoever for what I said, unless I offended Tiger perhaps, but I don't think that's the case. I would feel some petty animalistic guilt because I was suspended, and now I'm losing money. I think that reaction, though, is rather natural.

shiney · 01-10-2008, 02:06 PM

Al Sharpton is the man that continually sets black people back by his actions, referred to himself as fighting for their equality. All his actions do is foment more mistrust and hatred because he will always take an innocuous situation or a situation wherein someone made a minor error and escalate it into a grand conspiracy of oppression towards those of african descent. People become resentful when something inconsequential is escalated into headline news. And that's pretty much his entire operating method.

He is technically a reverend i.e. "The Reverend Al Sharpton" but a civil rights activist he is not. He is a civil rights extremist.

POS Industries · 01-10-2008, 02:07 PM

I don't think the comment itself was really racist to begin with. Poor word choice? Obviously. However, given that the comment was in the context of "the only way this man's competitors are going to be able to defeat him is to inflict bodily harm on a fatal level, as even allowing him to live will ensure their collective failure against him on the golf course", which seems to be more of a compliment toward Woods' apparently superhuman golfing abilities than anything else.

Honestly, I feel it should be noted that racism goes both ways. The idea that only black people ever get lynched is racist. The notion of "a white person doing any negative thing to a person of another skin color is racist" is racist itself. In my opinion, Sharpton's whole agenda at this point is furthering a racist philosophy, looking at every situation for things that can be interpreted as white bigotry even when it's not the case.

Lady Cygnet · 01-10-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

So apparently the Golf channel's first female anchor suggested that the only way the competition could beat Woods was to lynch him in a back alley.

Unlike the Don Imus scandal, one doesn't have to work to cringe at what was said. I think the news station acted appropriately in suspending her, and I am sure that she will choose her wording more carefully in the future. Lynching does bring back some really bad memories, not just about past wrongs done to people of African descent and the people of other ancestry who chose to help them obtain equal rights, but also about the many years that golf was considered a sport exclusively for wealthy white men in the US.

As for Al Sharpton, he needs to be quiet and let people like Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and Tiger Woods continue to prove that success doesn't depend on the color of one's skin, but "the content of one's character." I agree that Sharpton and the people who believe as he does soil the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. had for ALL people, not just those of African descent.

01-10-2008, 01:06 PM	#5
Herr Doktor It's actually eating my thumb. Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 192	Trying to lynch him an an alley'd only end badly for the prospective lynchers. The man's a god! __________________ Herr Doktor has left the NPF. KTHXBAI No, really, I tried, but i don't like this place. 'S been fun, guys.

01-10-2008, 02:06 PM	#8
shiney Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The land of fartz and buttz Posts: 8,266	Al Sharpton is the man that continually sets black people back by his actions, referred to himself as fighting for their equality. All his actions do is foment more mistrust and hatred because he will always take an innocuous situation or a situation wherein someone made a minor error and escalate it into a grand conspiracy of oppression towards those of african descent. People become resentful when something inconsequential is escalated into headline news. And that's pretty much his entire operating method. He is technically a reverend i.e. "The Reverend Al Sharpton" but a civil rights activist he is not. He is a civil rights extremist. __________________ boop

01-10-2008, 02:07 PM	#9
POS Industries Argus Agony Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Gotta go fishing! Posts: 10,483	I don't think the comment itself was really racist to begin with. Poor word choice? Obviously. However, given that the comment was in the context of "the only way this man's competitors are going to be able to defeat him is to inflict bodily harm on a fatal level, as even allowing him to live will ensure their collective failure against him on the golf course", which seems to be more of a compliment toward Woods' apparently superhuman golfing abilities than anything else. Honestly, I feel it should be noted that racism goes both ways. The idea that only black people ever get lynched is racist. The notion of "a white person doing any negative thing to a person of another skin color is racist" is racist itself. In my opinion, Sharpton's whole agenda at this point is furthering a racist philosophy, looking at every situation for things that can be interpreted as white bigotry even when it's not the case. __________________ Either you're dead or my watch has stopped.

01-10-2008, 12:49 PM	#3
Wyndon BUTTPANDA!! Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 554	I don't think it was a necessarily racist comment, per se, but pretty out of taste. It's good that Woods just laughed it off, and didn't blow this up into a big scandal such as with the whole Don Imus thing. Seeing Al Sharpton just evokes this "ugh, here we go again" feeling in me because everytime his name appears, it's always seemingly to instigate a situation even more. Rather than helping his cause, he seems to be hurting it by annoying, at least me, but many other people I know. I can't think of a single person, actually, who supports Al Sharpton. The man just takes everything to heart, blows things out of proportion, and really just wants to find the racism in everything. Yes, the comment was out of taste. Did she need to be suspended? I don't think so, I imagine a warning and a stern talking-to would've done the trick. But her firing? No, Al!

01-10-2008, 01:36 PM	#7
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Broadcasting channels should have their standards, and if that includes censoring certain terms to this extent, and Tilghman signed their contract, then I don't see a problem with the current ruling. I find the idea of firing to be entirely excessive. If it were me, I'd probably be glad because I wouldn't want to work for a company that operated like that (actually, I have worked for companies with hair-trigger firing policies, and it can be ridiculous). Morally, I don't think she did anything wrong. Multiple sources claim there was no ill intent in the comment, she knows Tiger, Tiger knows her, they talked it out apparently. And really, racial overtones included, the comment wasn't that bad. Fact of the matter is, she didn't say the KKK should go burn his house down. Comparing the two statements, I view them in pretty different lights. Maybe that's because I'm not American, that's to be seen. Not the best choice of words for a broadcaster, but these things happen. I see the reaction and escalation (who is this Sharpton dude, anyway?) as an expression of everyone else's racial insecurities. Putting myself in her situation, if I had done this and I had been suspended... I would feel no guilt whatsoever for what I said, unless I offended Tiger perhaps, but I don't think that's the case. I would feel some petty animalistic guilt because I was suspended, and now I'm losing money. I think that reaction, though, is rather natural.