The media says the media, meaning themselves, is not covering Brett Favre’s alleged involvement in a Mississippi welfare scheme.
ESPN, Deadspin, the New York Times, and Twitter call it racist. Struggling ESPN analyst and former backup NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III suggested it’s a form of white privilege.
Last week, Griffin compared the story to Celtics coach Ime Udoka, whom the team suspended for making unwanted comments to a female underling.
“If you are more upset about Ime Udoka and the Celtics situation than Brett Favre STEALING MILLIONS IN WELFARE MONEY FROM THE POOREST PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY IN MISSISSIPPI then you are part of the problem,” Griffin tweeted.
Similarly, Joy Reid wannabe Stephen A. Smith said the media is protecting Favre because of his white skin tone.
“None of us have said a word [about Favre ],” Smith began. “If that was a black man that was a former star in the NFL with the relationships and cachet that Brett Favre has, what would have been done to him?”
Now, you might wonder how television hosts and blue-check Twitter users could claim that no one is covering the story as they simultaneously cover it aggressively. But you have to understand their claims are not rooted in reality. Rather, their reaction is manufactured to drum up outrage and to spread racial division.
Luckily for Griffin, Smith, and useful USA Today idiot Mike Freeman — they don’t work alongside colleagues who’d dare challenge their outcry. If they did, they’d have to answer for spreading this fallacy.
This group proclaims the media to be ignoring the scandal. Yet a quick Google search would find quite the opposite. The story is everywhere, from ESPN to FS1 to Barstool, to ABC News to CBS News to NBC News.
The scandal led Jon Stewart’s podcast last week. Stewart, too, questioned why the media isn’t covering a story while showing examples of the media covering the story.
So, ESPN commentators are correct when they say the press isn’t covering the Brett Favre scandal to the same degree as Udoka’s suspension. Except not in the way they purport.
While Udoka receives positive coverage from Stephen A. Smith, Favre’s potential wrongdoings are receiving segments on “ABC World News Tonight.”
Last week, Deadspin published an op-ed, written mostly in passive voice, declaring that media pundits were more outraged over Michael Vick’s dog fighting ring than Favre allegedly funneling welfare money. Of course, Deadspin says the difference is that Favre is white and Vick is black. What other angle could Deadspin produce?
An honest outlet would not have published such a story. Not because of the racial premise but because the thesis makes no sense.
The author complains that pundits opined more profoundly about Vick’s future than Favre’s. Hmm. Perhaps that’s because Vick was a starting quarterback at the time and Favre has been retired for over a decade.
How much of an overreach is this talking point? So much that even Jemele Hill, an online perpetual victim of racism, had to push back:
Been thinking a lot about the criticisms that the media isn’t talking about Brett Favre. You can’t say nobody is talking about it, and then link articles and national news Twitter accounts in the same breath. But let’s examine the criticisms. A thread:
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) September 25, 2022
Both Vick and Udoka were more relevant than Favre because they were active when their issues happened. As was Deshaun Watson, another ACTIVE player. Had Favre still been QB of the Packers, Jets or Vikings —whoo chile. For example: Google Jenn Sterger.
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) September 25, 2022
When Jemele Hill debunks an allegation of white privilege, it’s time to reassess.
The faulty outrage over the purported lack of Favre coverage is what happens when a media industry becomes overly reliant on racial hysteria.
In a recent column, we examined how the demand for racism outstrips the supply, particularly in the press. Therefore, media members must manufacture examples of racism to offset such a shortage.
And they have. A sports story can hardly make the wire without a pundit racializing its subject. The coverage is both predictable and dishonest.
The practice goes as follows:
— Identify a story subject.
— If he’s white, say the reaction would be fiercer if he were black.
— If he’s black, say the reaction would be tamer if he were white.
The same press recently provided soft coverage of nearly 30 women accusing Deshaun Watson, a black football player, of sexual misconduct. During the Watson investigation, news outlets wrestled with whether women or black quarterbacks rank higher on the pyramid of victimhood.
Apparently, they settled on the black quarterback.
Sports pundits feel incentivized to uncover white privilege. It’s the quickest way to secure Twitter followers and gain favor in the elite media bubble.
They saw the Favre saga as an opening, an opportunity. They’ve decried that no one is covering the story despite their own network’s ticker and webpage leading with Brett Favre, 12 years after he retired.
The coverage of Favre is not an example of white privilege but of a desperate need for racial hysteria.