“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,” Limbaugh said on Sunday’s show. “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.”
This is controversial because it's territory that the media is uncomfortable to be challenged on. Their attacks were a good way to spin a criticism of them into racism. Instead of refuting his comments with arguments that support their objectivity they reject Rush's claims wholesale and then attack him personally. Rush didn't say that blacks couldn't be good quarterbacks, but that the media has given too much praise to a particular quarterback, because it fits their social concerns.
The media attack is a good demonstration that he hit a nerve. A good example of this is the Philadelphia Daily News attack of Rush done without refuting the actual charge he made.
I have to believe that to McNabb and his family, the world always has seemed pretty much the opposite of what Limbaugh outlined. When they moved to mostly white Dolton, Ill., from the South Side of Chicago, for example, and their house was vandalized while they were getting ready to move in, the McNabbs probably didn't see this as one of the benefits of being black.
If this is the best rejoinder that Donovan’s hometown newspaper can conjure? How does this disprove Rush's charges against the media? Is the Daily News equating the actions of vandals to the actions of the media? Here’s another chance.
And Donovan recalled yesterday that he didn't feel terribly privileged when he was looking for a college and kept hearing from Midwestern schools about what a fine running back or defensive back he would make - guess those coaches weren't in step with the master plan of the media and the NFL to boost black QBs.Again, what college programs want has nothing to do with what the media wants. To refute Rush by saying that some people outside the media haven’t been nice to McNabb isn’t a counter argument to Rush’s charge. In fact, if the best defense the paper can make is that Donovan hasn’t had it easy, it sounds like an argument for treating McNabb with kid gloves. Wouldn’t that support Rush’s charge?
An Objective look at McNabb reveals that he is 1-2 this year and his 7-3 last year. 7-3 is a great record, but compare that to 3rd string quarterback A. J. Feeley who started during McNabb’s injury last year. Feeley was 4-1. 2nd string quarterback Koy Detmer was 1-0 during McNabb’s injury before he too was hurt and yielded to Feeley. McNabb 7-3 and the reserves were 5-1. There is at least circumstantial evidence that the Philadelphia system made these quarterbacks look better than their independent ability last year. At the least there is nothing that makes one think that McNabb was essential to the team. There is certainly nothing essential about losing your first two home games of the year like McNabb did this year.
Rush's comments were a repudiation of the media and not blacks, but why let the facts get in the way of a prime opportunity to discredit him. Rush represents real diversity of opinion and the media watchers have been waiting for a statement to misrepresent. They have now created something controversial to ruin him with. The media talks about diversity and respect for differences all the live long day. They go out of their way to respect free speech for pornographers and war protestors, but there is no diversity for the critics of the dominant politically correct media.
UPDATE: Slate Magazine breaks down Donovan McNabb's numbers.
McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.
In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.
The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?
and his conclusions . . .
Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s.
So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.
Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.
UPDATE #2 - Wall Street Journal cites a Duke University Study that supports Rush's NFL/MEDIA claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment