> > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:59:44 PM UTC-6, PGage wrote: >> >> Scott was not one of my favorites at ESPN (and has never been a favorite >> here), but I think some of this is a bit harsh. As noted here on the >> Deadspin page ( >> http://deadspin.com/espns-stuart-scott-dead-at-49-167735753) - which has >> links to the 15 minute tribute that irked Joe, and some other related stuff >> - while Scott was not the first black personality on ESPN, he was one of >> the first, and became the highest profile. He was a pioneer because more >> than most, he brought aspects of black culture to mainstream TV, rather >> than only conforming to the mainstream. I agree with the critique that he >> was too much of a kiss-ass to the super stars of his day, which only >> underlined the fatal flaw of ESPN as a whole, which is that is both covers >> and is a profit participant with big time sports. >> >> But Scott has been dying of cancer for seven years, and he lived those >> last years with courage and class. I think we can spare 15 minutes on the >> day he died for his co-workers to celebrate his life. >> > > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 3:03:51 PM UTC-6, Joe Coughlin wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jason Carpio <[email protected]> wrote: >>> No sarcasm here. But Scott has been described as a pioneer. What was he >>> a pioneer of in his field? >> >> He was someone who was able to bring a more urban flavor, hip hop as it's >> been described by others, to the show. While he may not be your cup of tea, >> it's wrong to say he was not influential. The rise of African-Americans on >> ESPN after Scott as commentators and analysts is testament to this. > > > I *deliberately* did not touch on the African-American perspective of him > because I felt it was not germane to the argument I made (which was > editorial-based). I said on my Facebook post that I'd come back to this, > and I promise I will when time allows. >
Time now allows. First, I have to lay my cards on the table: I’m a white guy. This effectively means I’m going to have a hard time truly seeing thing other people do, and I fear this will cloud my opinion in someway. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that Scott changed the game when it came to *connecting* with an African-American audience. His references, mannerisms: they were fundamentally different than anything else on sports television. He opened that door to be who he is, which allowed other African-Americans entering the field to be more like they were (at least as much as their almost always white bosses would let them: I’m guessing that story Olbermann told in the opening segment in this thread happened far, far more often than it should, with far, far more depressing endings). Fundamentally, those voices still ring out throughout television broadcasting. Here, however, is where the rub lies. Remember in 2005, when Scott, hosting ESPN’s New Year’s Eve show, said this in the final minute of the year? "There's no point in booing these athletes. They've all worked hard. They've all trained hard, and let's see you get out there and do it, all right? If you want to go and have fun and cheer your team, do that, but if your team, if your guy, if your girl doesn't do anything, c'mon, man, don't boo them." It’s nine years later, and I still remember hearing those words after the fact, the pleading in his voice. He was basically running cover for the same athletes he covered. It was comforting the comforted. And fundamentally, he was a good host. Don’t get me wrong: it’s fine to be good at hosting. But I’ve never gotten the sense, even in all the outpouring, of him being a *great* host. Here’s the (imperfect) analogy that came to mind: what if Jackie Robinson was a lifetime .280 hitter, maybe had one or two all-star appearances, was basically a solid player, not a great one? We’d remember him, but I don’t think 42 would be retired throughout the majors if he was. And that’s where I see Scott. His cultural impact is huge. His actual work performance was good. That’s my hesitation on the issue. One other thing: I completely misread how utterly important he was in that world. It's not unlike when Dale Earnhardt died in 2001, and the outpouring of sadness and mourning that surprised a few people. That's what happened to me on this. My bad. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
