Let her go somewhere else, be a rebel, and they’ll do a 30-for-30 “whatever happened to” on her in 8 years. https://t.co/Rq00puN9jC
— Tom Hoffarth (@tomhoffarth) October 10, 2017
“Those who know, know. Those who don’t, it need not be explained. You’re here, I’m here. Let’s talk some sports.”
That’s now Michael Smith started the Tuesday episode of the 3 p.m. “SC6” SportsCenter on ESPN.
Why the long face again?
So we are digest and believe all the spin from everyone else on this, the suspension was:
a) Completely justifiable, and had nothing to do with race or gender,
b) Unjust because she was just doing her job,
c) Difficult to justify because there should be, in this case, a division of church and state (says the confused public editor/ombudsman)
d) Twitter fodder for jokes against ESPN:
If #ESPN really wanted to punish Jemele Hill, they’d make her watch ESPN for two weeks straight.
— LadyL (@LadyLecondoliak) October 9, 2017
e) A sign that ESPN is afraid of her,
f) Gross, and “the only thing grosser was ESPN’s disingenuous statement about it,” as it became messier and messier for the organization,
g) A business decision, but dripping in politics,
h) Hypocritical, and worth ranting about with a self-serving video,
i) A great move for Hill’s career (if you listen to Dan LeBatard),
j) Incidental, because she’s a bad fit for ESPN in the first place,
k) Something that could be contested through Connecticut labor laws … or maybe not,
l) More twitter fodder for jokes:
m) For no good reason,
n) Proof how little ESPN values Hill,
o) A reason to get Al Sharpton back (and if you’ve got his backing, how could you go wrong?),
p) A reason for Brit McHenry to try to get back onto someone’s radar,
q) A reason for Judge Mathis to try to stay relevant and get all judgy,
r) A reason for Frederick Douglas to take a stand:
We are with Rose. We are with Jemele. We are with Colin.
We will lend our voice to our brothers and sisters. 8/
— Frederick Douglass (@gettinnoticedmo) October 12, 2017
s) A reason for Donald Trump to expose his lack of knowledge between a “mic” and a “mike,”
t) Basically, a paid vacation,
u) The opening for a new discussion about how this is a new social dilemma for journalists (although dilemma really isn’t the right word there … it’s problematic)
v) In no way related to anything Harvey Weinstein did or didn’t do,
w) A strange reason for Hill to make it sound as if she and Michael Smith were married:
I love you @michaelsmith for being my biggest supporter, a great friend, terrific husband & father. I truly don’t deserve you. See you soon.
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) October 10, 2017
x) A reason for Yahoo! Lifestyle to call this a double standard,
y) A reason for Vanity Fair to allow an “ESPN insider” remark: “We’re going through an unprecedented time right now. I don’t know if [ESPN management] is in an impossible situation or not, but it’s just a mess. I don’t know what the answer is.”
z) A reason for Hill to be reduced to the role of ‘angry black woman’
What does it all spell out?
C’mon, be careful using social media. Your bosses may be watching. And if you don’t like working for those bosses, find another job. Stop being naive.
Wouldn’t it be nice if life, like televised sports, had a seven-second delay? Then those journalists who used social media could perhaps stop harming themselves?
Those in the journalism field have their own spell-checks and accuracy balances. Ultimately, they need to be responsible, and authentic, to their audience and to themselves.
To be continued …