You can hear it here.
Deford's basic point that athletes shouldn't be role models. Which I agree with-- there's no reason to believe that because someone's good at sports their life is something to replicate. This should have been the commentary after Tiger Woods' numerous affairs came out. Those women were all consenting, and, why cheating isn't right, it is nothing unusual for professional athletes. Wilt Chamberlain still claims the record with 5,000 women.
The point here is that the women in the Roethlisberger case doesn't appear to be consenting. There's also other women coming forward with similar stories. Here are the reports on Deadspin. The commentary can't be on Big Ben as a role model-- the commentary should be as him as a menace to society. The summarized story, as I understand it, is where his bodyguards escorted a woman to a bathroom in a bar where she was alone with Ben. She said "No" to his advances, he may or may not have stopped. There's your story.
So while I was thinking about that, Friday came around and Morning Edition followed up with listener comments on the story. Some agreed with me. Others were devastated by the defense of alleged rape and abuse. Some thought that DeFord was being sarcastic. Although listening to again-- I don't hear it. I think "exasperation" in his voice is the usual laughing he does about halfway through his commentaries. I didn't see it as a smartly crafted ironic piece. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, here's the follow up story. And the audio.
And here's my thoughts:
Not All Role Models Need Be Positive
By Frank Deford
April 28, 1010
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger apologized Monday for his behavior last month in a Georgia bar, where he was accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year-old girl.
The apology came after the football star was cleared of all charges in the case, and followed a National Football League suspension taking him out of the first six games next season.
The basics of the story. Although this wasn't the first rape charge and there have been more reported incidents since.
But at a certain point, don't you just stop caring whether our athletes — who for some reason or other are always called "role models" — don't you just stop caring whether they behave?
Um, who actually considers athletes role models? Besides Tim Tebow-- he's just dreamy. And Smiley.
Don't you just want to say, "Let the thugs play"?
OK, if they violate the statute law, fine, put them in the hoosegow. But really, otherwise, why are we expending so much angst worrying about the character of our well-muscled celebrities?
Let the thugs play indeed. However, if they're actually a public safety hazard, that may be a problem.
I mean, it is hopelessly apparent that Roethlisberger is a perfectly dreadful person, prone to reprehensible behavior whenever he is let loose from the sanctioned violence of the gridiron.
This is true...
To what earthly benefit is it to suspend Roethlisberger? Does it teach little, impressionable children a lesson? Is it going to make other football players pause and think about being a role model late at night when they are on the cusp of committing mayhem? I mean, let's give Roethlisberger credit. At least he wasn't packing a firearm like so many of his athletic brethren do when they are out taking the air these evenings.
Well, suspending him is a message to the other players that if you go around committing mayhem, they will be punished. And instead of worrying about of being a role model, they might worry about being suspended 4-6 games and losing millions of dollars. And the firearm comment-- is that sarcasm or does Deford really think firearms are per se worse than sexual assault (different weapon I guess?)
And it also teaches kids that your work might fire (or at least punish) your ass if you're a cretin in public and witnesses know who you work for.
No doubt his enforced vacation will hurt the Pittsburgh Steelers, but then, somebody has to lose, so it will help some other team. The NFL will not be affected a whit, except in the sanctimonious sense that it can pat itself on the back for standing foursquare in support of goodness.
What always confounds me is the premise that Commissioner Roger Goodell cited — as do the other so-called czars of sport — that their players "have to be held to a higher standard."
There's always the opposite: doing nothing and appearing to defend felons and rapists. If I can remember a few things from some old college business classes, that's probably not good for business or your corporate brand. And the "higher standard" is in fact just marketing- but can't we agree that we can ask our athletes not to be repeatedly mentioned in stories involving sexual assault?
But why? Why, pray, of all people, are athletes, pretty much alone in our society, expected to be sweeter than the average angel? It is politicians and clergy and those maestros of finance on Wall Street who ought to be held to a higher standard. Why aren't they ever called "role models?" Why can't some tearful little impressionable tyke sob, "Say it ain't so, Goldman Sachs, say it ain't so" — and thus change the pecking order in our cultural mythology?
Um, I really don't expect them to bet sweeter than an average angel. And I don't understand what Goldman Sachs has to do with it-- unless you want a Congressional panel questioning Big Ben.
And speaking of role models, it's nice to know that Tiger Woods has issued another sincere apology, so bummed out, as he is, that he was surly and graceless and cursed on the course at the 2010 Masters golf tournament, all the little nasties he'd assured us he was going to take care of in prior sincere apologies. Perhaps Roethlisberger can join Tiger in his mystery rehabilitation.
Um, were we speaking of role models? But yes, Tiger issued an apology for being grumpy and sweary on the golf course (although funny: "Tiger Woods... You Suck!" see below). But this is what you should have written the "Role Model" commentary on. Not kind of standing up for a rapist.
So let me close this jeremiad by showing how we can get around this emotional dilemma: We simply acknowledge that not all role models have to be positive. After all, by definition, the term just means modeling a role, exemplifying a position. Dracula, for example — was there ever a better role model for nefarious behavior? No.
So once we understand that and accept that all our athletes are role models, we can stop fretting and get back to the games.
I can agree with that-- just not with your Big Ben example. I accept that there are thugs and imperfect people in sports. That football players might be violent. That basketball players might enjoy pot. That baseball players might enjoy Wrigleyville too much. That a lot of athletes like guns. But don't pick the fight defending Ben Roethlisberger. We can easily hold him to a higher standard than what you're presenting.
I still don't see any irony in this article. I see an odd comparison to gun carrying athletes and to the collapse of Wall Street. I haven't heard the role model talk either. So I'm really lost as to the purpose of his commentary. Can anyone help me figure it out?
No comments:
Post a Comment