Christian Group Demands ESPN Anchor Fired after Off-Air Remark

[Ultimajock]

The only thing that is saving Jacobsen is-

A- ESPN's left-wing stance on all things.

...typical pseudoconservative myopia. Anyone who thinks the Disney Company has a left-leaning thread in its being is a fool...

 

[imhomerjay]

The first thing to keep in mind is that life ain’t fair, and it’s never going to be totally fair. Not everyone is going to get the same treatment for similar actions, and whether you frame it as unfair that person A “got away with” something or person B was “made a scapegoat,” it’s just semantics.

At its core, this is a subjective debate. That said, though, there is a difference between slurring a group of living people and slurring a historical figure. It is probably true that someone slurring Mohammed would be treated differently than someone slurring Jesus. But for all the Christians demanding the “eye for an eye” retribution, I have to ask, is that what you’ve been hearing in your pews every week? It’s not the message I take away. How about taking the higher road, making the point that it was an unappreciated comment but not resorting to a first-grade mindset of “But Billy said a curse word and you didn’t punish him!” Remember the whole ‘turn the other cheek’ lessons? What she said has no bearing on my day-to-day life as a Christian. Moving the debate forward by setting a positive example in keeping with what Jesus taught will do more to improve things than using a perceived offense to raise issues of allegedly unfair treatment.

The comparisons to a comment about Mohammed are more valid in that you are comparing two historical religious figures. However, saying it’s the same as a comment about an entire category of actual people—be it based on race, sexual orientation or whatever you prefer—undermines credibility. They’re different enough from each other as to render a comparison absurd.

It also is a false argument to begin injecting First Amendment rights into these types of debates. When you are a public face of your employer, and you do something that may damage the employer’s credibility or business, they have rights—within the parameters of contractual obligations both parties signed, if any—to do what they think is best for the business. Sometimes that may be firing, sometimes it may not. To those of us on the outside of a situation looking only at certain facts, it may seem unfair or unbalanced, but remember point number one. That’s life, and more to the point, that’s business. By all means, if she should be retained by ESPN and you feel offended by it, boycott. Write to their advertisers and explain that you’ll boycott them too. THAT’S the First Amendment at work.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

OK, then I hope that you feel the same way the next time someone makes an off-color remark about a group other than Christians. If you do, then I will respect this opinion.
I think what we're seeing here is a response to a perceived double-standard where public figures can get away with saying offensive things about Christians or whites (or any other "traditional" thing or value); but people are practically hanged for saying the same things about other "protected" behaviors or groups.
If every "insult" that offends a significant group is treated equally, then I - for one - will be quiet. The trouble is that we all know that's not the case. color]

It is one of the sad things that has become almost a daily part of American life today. The "walking on eggs" to not offend someone. The constant attitude of "off with their heads" everytime a "protected group" gets offended gets very tiring and sure doesn't cause me to have more respect for those groups as they try to force others to like and respect them. However, it would sure make our world a much nicer and better place if everyone, made the effort to not bad mouth others with insulting comments. That's not being politically correct, that's treating each other as Jesus would wish, with respect.

I am a Christian, and the comment made on ESPN does offend me. The day, 2000 years ago, when the Pharasees convinced the Romans to Crucify Jesus on the cross also offends me. However, that same day while hanging on the cross Jesus said, Forgive them, for they know not what they do. We, as followers of Jesus, are not to be judging, that's God's job. It would be better if we prayed for this person rather than hate or demand the lose of their job. Granted, it is frustrating to see someone like that say such a thing and "get away" with it, but in the reality of eternity, if those words are not repented of, that person will face the true judge some day and will not get away with it. It is my hope that they will realize what they said and seek God's forgiveness.

 

[dhett]

The only thing that is saving Jacobsen is-

A- ESPN's left-wing stance on all things.

...typical pseudoconservative myopia. Anyone who thinks the Disney Company has a left-leaning thread in its being is a fool...

Then I guess you think I'm a fool. Thanks for your honesty anyway.

 

[dhett]

At its core, this is a subjective debate. That said, though, there is a difference between slurring a group of living people and slurring a historical figure.

As you said, this is a subjective debate, and on the second sentence, we'll agree to disagree, for I find no difference, nor do I consider Jesus just a historical figure. But even if I accepted your premise, had Jacobsen said "F--- Martin Luther King", clearly a significant historical figure, I believe many would have been offended enough to call for her job.

My point is that there seems to be a double standard in play here, and that is wrong. If people want her fired, I disagree with, but respect their opinion, so long as they also wanted others fired for making insensitive remarks. Likewise, if people want her retained, again, I respect their opinion if they were consistent in favoring retention of others making insensitive remarks.

Jacobsen doesn't offend me; my skin is too thick for that. I feel badly for her, as she has made a public fool of herself and has laid bare her deepest bigotry. I accept her apology and hope that it's sincere, because the bigotry in the heart that came forth has been known to God before she ever uttered a word. He will be her judge; not me.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Limbaugh was right about his comments. As stated before, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder lost his job over off-the-air remarks. Intoxication is no excuse for stupidity. My point from earlier remains: had Jacobsen's comments been against Black people, gays, or other "protected classes", the hue and cry calling for her termination would be deafening. Instead, she only offended "fundies", so that's OK.

Nice double standard.

It's not a double standard at all. Context counts. Dana Jacobsen's comments were in a context and setting that NOBODY would've taken her literally, even at their rawest personal offense. It's a huge stretch to assume that Jacobsen could've or would've made the same comments against minorities, so your declaration is about 'protected classes' is speculative at best.

Limbaugh, Imus, et. al. tried to hide behind the 'context' argument in explaining away their own dumb comments; unfortunately, such a tactic becomes pretty useless when they have a history of making ignorant statements. Jacobsen is saved by the fact that she has no such history. Her situation is not a comparable offense.

 

[Bongwater]

Bongwater, I'm sure you haven't heard "much worse" from others. For a Christian, there IS nothing worse that someone can say then "F--- Jesus". It doesn't get any worse, or any more offensive than that! Do you for a moment think that she wouldn't have been fired if she'd said, "F--- Mohammed" or "F--- black people"? Of course she would've been immediately fired for making such remarks (as she should be). Just as I think she should be fired for these remarks.

And Tibbs2, no one is saying Ms. Jacobson didn't have the right to say what she said. People in this country have the right to say almost anything. But when you say something that inflammatory and offensive, particularly when you are representing your employer, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. There's not a thing wrong with believers pressuring ESPN to take stronger action against Jacobson. Because remember, "free speech" cuts both ways!

First of all that WASN'T heard on the air. Second, I remembered some VERY interesting off-color comments being said in the late '80s/early '90s by supposed "Christian" DJs for a local "Christian" AM/FM combo station in a local tavern that used to congregate at said tavern in my hometown of Lynnwood, WA. I actually sat next to them at the bar and overheard every word. I heard every slanderous, derogatory thing you could ever hear about not just station management, but Jesus Christ Himself. Things that I would not repeat to the devil himself.

I'm not going to mention who, because as the Good Book say, "He without fault cast the first stone" Well, I ain't like that, I'm just illustrating the point that there is MUCH bigger fish to fry in your own damn pond. I got LOTS in mine-including myself, what about YOURS?

Start focusing on that please....

Thank you.

 

[dhett]

It's not a double standard at all. Context counts. Dana Jacobsen's comments were in a context and setting that NOBODY would've taken her literally, even at their rawest personal offense. It's a huge stretch to assume that Jacobsen could've or would've made the same comments against minorities, so your declaration is about 'protected classes' is speculative at best.

Limbaugh, Imus, et. al. tried to hide behind the 'context' argument in explaining away their own dumb comments; unfortunately, such a tactic becomes pretty useless when they have a history of making ignorant statements. Jacobsen is saved by the fact that she has no such history. Her situation is not a comparable offense.

Of course my statement about "protected classes" is speculative - most statements that begin with the word "if" are. And no one has assumed that Jacobsen could have or would have made such comments against minorities. Both of those arguments are red herrings. As for the context and setting that NOBODY would have taken her literally, obviously that's not so, for people have taken her literally. But since they're "fundies", perhaps they don't count. As for history of making offensive comments, that's completely irrelevant. The golfer who made a stupid comment about Tiger Woods - I don't remember his name - didn't have a history. Jimmy the Greek didn't have a history. History didn't matter.

Believe what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a double standard in play.

 

[mjlarochelle]

I am Christian and I find the comment offensive, but I don't see a need to dump him off ESPN. That would be like firing a cashier from McDonald's who said something like that away from work.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Of course my statement about "protected classes" is speculative - most statements that begin with the word "if" are. And no one has assumed that Jacobsen could have or would have made such comments against minorities. Both of those arguments are red herrings. As for the context and setting that NOBODY would have taken her literally, obviously that's not so, for people have taken her literally. But since they're "fundies", perhaps they don't count. As for history of making offensive comments, that's completely irrelevant. The golfer who made a stupid comment about Tiger Woods - I don't remember his name - didn't have a history. Jimmy the Greek didn't have a history. History didn't matter.

Believe what you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a double standard in play.

And you can certainly believe what you want. That won't change my contention that there is NO double standard in play. Maybe when there's a history of legitimate anti-white racism fueled by an entrenched oppression against white males in this country, sparking protests from the white civil rights associations and their associated reformers. Perhaps you'll have a point when those puzzle pieces ever fall into place, but until then, there's not much in the way of making me declaring otherwise.