I do not really disagree that much with your evaluation here, just with how much weight you are giving it. As I noted initially, I was not a huge Scott fan, and thought his biggest weakness was his tendency to kiss ass of the superstars he covered. This was not a minor flaw, as it exacerbated ESPN's fundamental problem, which is that it purports to cover journalistically the same athletes and sports enterprises that it also markets so furiously as profit partners. But he was a real pioneer, not just for African-Americans, but for anyone who is looking to have their own authentic voice heard in the mainstream media which so often imposes a bland homogeneity. I am not sure if you your use of "host" includes his work as a SportsCenter anchor - taken as a whole, I think the analogy to a .280 hitter is shortchanging him. Wikiepdia lists about 82 anchors in the history of SC (check it here, I may have counted wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SportsCenter_anchors_and_reporters); Scott is no worse than top 10 and arguably top 5 all time, and in his business that is not too shabby. But no, he was not the Jackie Robinson of sports broadcasting - meaning he was not as good in his field as Robinson was in his. OTOH, I guess my original critique of Joe's first post in this thread was that a 15 minute video shown during a bloated NFL pregame show on a day when there were only 2 games anyway on the day he died did not constitute Jackie Robinson-level recognition. And if Jackie Robinson had gone through everything else he did, and had only been a .280 hitter, he probably still would have rated a 15 minute obit on the day he died.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- -- 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.
