Gay-obsessed Media back at it in the NFL

[Mr. Friscus]

Headlines were once again made about one particular draft pick in this years NFL draft, Michael Sam.

These headlines were filled with negative innuendo, questions of character, and accusations of former coach Tony Dungy, seen as quite possibly the most moral, well-intentioned person in the NFL community.

What makes Tony Dungy an extra plump looking sacrifical lamb is that he happen s to be an outwardly professed Christian. Hell, when his Colts met the Chicago Bears in the 2006 Superbowl, pitting two black head coaches against each other for the first time in NFL history, he IGNORED the media agenda to concentrate on race and instead said it was great that two strong Christian men could lead their teams to the big game.

THAT can certainly ruffle some feathers with big media. Who is this guy? We set the plate for a nice juicy racial story and he ignores it? For CHRISTIANITY of all things?

Anyways, Dungy was asked during an interview amidst many questions on many topics about if he were a coach and Michael Sam being in the draft. Dungy said:

"I wouldn't have taken him, Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth ... things will happen."​

The interview quickly resumed. The interviewer thought nothing of the comments, and no follow up to clarify what Dungy meant.

However, a media firestorm ensued amidst sports/social issues.

Does Tony Dungy hate gay people?
Is Tony Dungy advocating for no gays in the league?
Is the NFL anti-gay?
Tony Dungy is a Christian, and since we can ASSUME Tony Dungy hates gay people, is there room for Christianity in society?

Dungy clarified his comments the next day

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization, I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately, we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."​

The media circus continued. Top story billings on a simple, straight forward topic. Reading between the lines and cries of "systematic unfairness" in the NFL. Dungy being cast as some sort of bigot and danger to a "gay celebration" agenda.

So much so, that Dungy had to release a press release:

"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.

I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not. I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way — by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit. The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.

"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.

"I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field. My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation."​

This is the type of "journalism" we must deal with these days. Not only is any slightest bit of POSSIBLY percieved non-celebration of gayness attacked and questioned in front page news, but attempts are made to tie in the man's faith and depict IT in a negative light.

Meanwhile, as a citizen, I'm not required to celebrate gayness. I can wish them equality of the law in all areas, whatever way that happens to come about, but I don't have to pick up pom poms and get on the rah-rah bandwagon.

It's a very consistant agenda in the mainstream media today. It doesn't surprise me, but it's ridiculous just how much something so obviously simple and a non-issue can get blown out of proportion, seeking a witch in some sort of Salem Non-Gay-Celebrator Trial....

 

[JV-12]

Headlines were once again made about one particular draft pick in this years NFL draft, Michael Sam.

These headlines were filled with negative innuendo, questions of character, and accusations of former coach Tony Dungy, seen as quite possibly the most moral, well-intentioned person in the NFL community.

What makes Tony Dungy an extra plump looking sacrifical lamb is that he happen s to be an outwardly professed Christian. Hell, when his Colts met the Chicago Bears in the 2006 Superbowl, pitting two black head coaches against each other for the first time in NFL history, he IGNORED the media agenda to concentrate on race and instead said it was great that two strong Christian men could lead their teams to the big game.

THAT can certainly ruffle some feathers with big media. Who is this guy? We set the plate for a nice juicy racial story and he ignores it? For CHRISTIANITY of all things?

Anyways, Dungy was asked during an interview amidst many questions on many topics about if he were a coach and Michael Sam being in the draft. Dungy said:

"I wouldn't have taken him, Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth ... things will happen."​

The interview quickly resumed. The interviewer thought nothing of the comments, and no follow up to clarify what Dungy meant.

However, a media firestorm ensued amidst sports/social issues.
Does Tony Dungy hate gay people?
Is Tony Dungy advocating for no gays in the league?
Is the NFL anti-gay?
Tony Dungy is a Christian, and since we can ASSUME Tony Dungy hates gay people, is there room for Christianity in society?

Dungy clarified his comments the next day

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization, I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately, we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."​

The media circus continued. Top story billings on a simple, straight forward topic. Reading between the lines and cries of "systematic unfairness" in the NFL. Dungy being cast as some sort of bigot and danger to a "gay celebration" agenda.

So much so, that Dungy had to release a press release:

"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.

I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not. I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way — by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit. The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.

"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.

"I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field. My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation."​

This is the type of "journalism" we must deal with these days. Not only is any slightest bit of POSSIBLY percieved non-celebration of gayness attacked and questioned in front page news, but attempts are made to tie in the man's faith and depict IT in a negative light.

Meanwhile, as a citizen, I'm not required to celebrate gayness. I can wish them equality of the law in all areas, whatever way that happens to come about, but I don't have to pick up pom poms and get on the rah-rah bandwagon.

It's a very consistant agenda in the mainstream media today. It doesn't surprise me, but it's ridiculous just how much something so obviously simple and a non-issue can get blown out of proportion, seeking a witch in some sort of Salem Non-Gay-Celebrator Trial....

Haven't you noticed? Nobody cares.

Christianity is an irritant to all things that matter to most Americans and to the entertainment and sports media. You have wasted your time.

Being gay is what's hot now. You are a homophobe.

 

[as seen on tv]

i think some gay themed media outlet continually trolls for this kind of stuff with "gotcha questions", asking them endlessly of everyone until they get a "hit".

blacks in california were the deciding factor in the defeat of gay marriage. they voted in excess of 95% against gay marriage. the antipathy of blacks - especially those who attend church regularly - toward gay marriage is well documented.

does this mean dungy was specifically targetted because of his race? probably not.

when gay marriage went down to defeat in california, the gay press targetted the mormon church, even though mormons represent less than 1% of california voters. gay marchers were directed by their "leaders" to vent their rage on mormon houses of worship

 

[Hmmmm]

i think some gay themed media outlet continually trolls for this kind of stuff with "gotcha questions", asking them endlessly of everyone until they get a "hit".

blacks in california were the deciding factor in the defeat of gay marriage. they voted in excess of 95% against gay marriage. the antipathy of blacks - especially those who attend church regularly - toward gay marriage is well documented.

does this mean dungy was specifically targetted because of his race? probably not.

when gay marriage went down to defeat in california, the gay press targetted the mormon church, even though mormons represent less than 1% of california voters. gay marchers were directed by their "leaders" to vent their rage on mormon houses of worship

I am too lazy to do the research but weren't the Mormons significant players behind the campaign to ban gay marriage? While many voted for the ban, the number of people who were activists wasn't nearly so large.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

We already have a next target...

David Tyree, a former WR for the New York Giants, is now firmly in the crosshairs of the intolerant movement of tolerance within culture and the media.

Some info and comments from Tyree:

• Tyree campaigned against marriage equality after he retired from the NFL in 2010.

• Tyree continues his crusade against same-sex marriage, telling the New York Daily News that he’d be inclined to trade one of the greatest plays in Super Bowl history to prevent men from legally marrying other men.“The catch was a gift, it’s not like I’d try to do it. I couldn’t do it again so that was a miracle,” Tyree told Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News. “There’s nothing worth more than [maintaining heterosexual marriage] right here for me.” So we he trade the catch for, um, a block? “Honestly, I probably would.” Tyree then elaborated on his point. “Nothing means more to me than that my God would be honored,” Tyree said. “Being the fact that I firmly believe that God created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that that’s something that should be fought for at all costs.

• Tyree said that he doesn’t oppose marriage-style benefits for gay couples. He just doesn’t want the “M” word to be used.

• Tyree also expanded on his belief that same-sex marriage would represent the first step toward anarchy. “[O]nce you allow something like same-sex marriage, it opens up the door for a continual softening to the backbone of our society, which will eventually, for generations to come, open up the door for who knows, polygamy, and all other [things],” Tyree said.

• “I’ll never be a former black,” Tyree said on Twitter in 2011. “I have met former homosexuals.”

• Nowhere does Tyree say he dislikes homosexuals or wishes to deny rights.

Now, mind you, that the contents of the opinions are a whole different beast, which I'll gladly discuss.

However, at the core of this issue is the Media making this a page one story, incorrectly blasting Tyree as overall "anti-gay" and blasting the Giants for hiring him.

And like the Dungy story, Tyree is an outspoken Christian, thus, the connection is again made that Christianity causes bigotry...

These are considered in today's culture very edgy opinions (most are being horrendously manipulated as to the meaning and message), but they are opinions one is supposedly allowed to have here in America. However, It appears the tactic of costing a person their job if you don't agree with the LGBT agenda is again at play here. It's the new way to silence those who might disagree with the Celebrate-Gayness movement.

This group that preaches "tolerance" is quite possibly the most intolerant movement in America.

 

[EatTheRich]

blacks in california were the deciding factor in the defeat of gay marriage. they voted in excess of 95% against gay marriage.

Actually, fully 30% of Black voters voted against Proposition 8.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-leon-roker/stop-blaming-californias_b_142018.html

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Actually, fully 30% of Black voters voted against Proposition 8.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-leon-roker/stop-blaming-californias_b_142018.html

Either way, that's 70% for it.

I wonder what would happen if there were EVER a discussion about the black community's NON-support of gay marriage.

Of course, the media would never oblige for political reasons, but it'd be quite entertaining...

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Sams pick at round seven means he's not that good rated with other NFL players. Now what does he being pick mean? political correctness.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Sams pick at round seven means he's not that good rated with other NFL players. Now what does he being pick mean? political correctness.

He was being projected in earlier rounds before he came out in a media release and said he was gay.

.. and then planned a reality TV show centered around it.

Take the word "gay" out and replace it with "x".. and it's the same for anything.

Nearly all NFL teams don't want distractions away from the team, so if a player's "x" is going to be a distraction, that could possibly have negative effects on his career.

X could be sex life, religion, party habits, political views...

The media is simply creating their own storyline and saying that Michael Sam is being overlooked because and ONLY because he is gay.

Nice and juicy, but It's laughable journalism.

 

[BobbyT]

Headlines were once again made about one particular draft pick in this years NFL draft, Michael Sam.

These headlines were filled with negative innuendo, questions of character, and accusations of former coach Tony Dungy, seen as quite possibly the most moral, well-intentioned person in the NFL community.

What makes Tony Dungy an extra plump looking sacrifical lamb is that he happen s to be an outwardly professed Christian. Hell, when his Colts met the Chicago Bears in the 2006 Superbowl, pitting two black head coaches against each other for the first time in NFL history, he IGNORED the media agenda to concentrate on race and instead said it was great that two strong Christian men could lead their teams to the big game.

THAT can certainly ruffle some feathers with big media. Who is this guy? We set the plate for a nice juicy racial story and he ignores it? For CHRISTIANITY of all things?

Anyways, Dungy was asked during an interview amidst many questions on many topics about if he were a coach and Michael Sam being in the draft. Dungy said:

"I wouldn't have taken him, Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth ... things will happen."​

The interview quickly resumed. The interviewer thought nothing of the comments, and no follow up to clarify what Dungy meant.

However, a media firestorm ensued amidst sports/social issues.
Does Tony Dungy hate gay people?
Is Tony Dungy advocating for no gays in the league?
Is the NFL anti-gay?
Tony Dungy is a Christian, and since we can ASSUME Tony Dungy hates gay people, is there room for Christianity in society?

Dungy clarified his comments the next day

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization, I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately, we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."​

The media circus continued. Top story billings on a simple, straight forward topic. Reading between the lines and cries of "systematic unfairness" in the NFL. Dungy being cast as some sort of bigot and danger to a "gay celebration" agenda.

So much so, that Dungy had to release a press release:

"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.

I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not. I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way — by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit. The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.

"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.

"I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field. My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation."​

This is the type of "journalism" we must deal with these days. Not only is any slightest bit of POSSIBLY percieved non-celebration of gayness attacked and questioned in front page news, but attempts are made to tie in the man's faith and depict IT in a negative light.

Meanwhile, as a citizen, I'm not required to celebrate gayness. I can wish them equality of the law in all areas, whatever way that happens to come about, but I don't have to pick up pom poms and get on the rah-rah bandwagon.

It's a very consistant agenda in the mainstream media today. It doesn't surprise me, but it's ridiculous just how much something so obviously simple and a non-issue can get blown out of proportion, seeking a witch in some sort of Salem Non-Gay-Celebrator Trial....

You are the reason that media reports on these issues - you click on their click-bait stories. The types of stories that will be reported on most often are the stories that generate clicks. Congratulations for helping to keep a subject that clearly interests you greatly on the front page.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

You are the reason that media reports on these issues - you click on their click-bait stories. The types of stories that will be reported on most often are the stories that generate clicks. Congratulations for helping to keep a subject that clearly interests you greatly on the front page.

Well, Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, and the like get massive ratings too..

It doesn't mean what they speak has much legitimacy.

So your solution is that if there is a major political push within the media, one should not say anything and hope it goes away? I expect you to never complain about media again.. right?

However, much of what I know about the story is not due to internet sources, so again, your argument doesn't much hold up, IF you're looking to debate the topic.

 

[BobbyT]

Well, Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, and the like get massive ratings too..

It doesn't mean what they speak has much legitimacy.

So your solution is that if there is a major political push within the media, one should not say anything and hope it goes away? I expect you to never complain about media again.. right?

However, much of what I know about the story is not due to internet sources, so again, your argument doesn't much hold up, IF you're looking to debate the topic.

I don't complain about media. They report on what makes money and on what their corporate sponsors want them to report on. Your "major political push within the media" is so much bunk - media doesn't care about politics, it cares about $$.

You can speak out all you want, I don't care. I was just pointing out that such articles are click-bait. They track which articles are clicked on and which are ignored. By clicking on the articles (independent upon whether you comment on them) you are telling the site that the article is on a subject for which you have interest - and they will keep presenting you the content you 'request' via your clicks. Do what you want, but them's the facts. Ditto anywhere else you get your information - TV stations, paper newspapers, etc. If you don't like the information they present, let them know by not watching/purchasing.

WRT debating the topic, what did you want to debate? The legitimacy of public figures being critiqued for the views they present publicly? Your persecution complex WRT all things Christian? African-American opinions on gay marriage? Media reporting on things that bring them clicks/viewers/subscribers?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I don't complain about media. They report on what makes money and on what their corporate sponsors want them to report on. Your "major political push within the media" is so much bunk - media doesn't care about politics, it cares about $$.

Interesting.

So if there was some EXTREMELY overwhelming Republican movement in the media... you'd say "there's no major political push within the media, media doesn't care about politics, it cares about $$."

I BET you'd say that

Let's drop the pretending and admit that political cultures can exist in large organizations. Shall we?

You can speak out all you want, I don't care. I was just pointing out that such articles are click-bait. They track which articles are clicked on and which are ignored. By clicking on the articles (independent upon whether you comment on them) you are telling the site that the article is on a subject for which you have interest - and they will keep presenting you the content you 'request' via your clicks. Do what you want, but them's the facts. Ditto anywhere else you get your information - TV stations, paper newspapers, etc. If you don't like the information they present, let them know by not watching/purchasing.

I know you're saying how it works, but you're also supporting the notion that there should be no standards or integrity in journalism and media.

To each their own I suppose...

WRT debating the topic, what did you want to debate? The legitimacy of public figures being critiqued for the views they present publicly? Your persecution complex WRT all things Christian? African-American opinions on gay marriage? Media reporting on things that bring them clicks/viewers/subscribers?

If you click on a thread, read the thread, and then have to ask what I want to talk about.. I guess there's nothing I can do to help you.

 

[BobbyT]

Interesting.

So if there was some EXTREMELY overwhelming Republican movement in the media... you'd say "there's no major political push within the media, media doesn't care about politics, it cares about $$."

I BET you'd say that

Let's drop the pretending and admit that political cultures can exist in large organizations. Shall we?


I know you're saying how it works, but you're also supporting the notion that there should be no standards or integrity in journalism and media.

To each their own I suppose...



If you click on a thread, read the thread, and then have to ask what I want to talk about.. I guess there's nothing I can do to help you.

There is the fox network, which is a arm of the republican party, but you're confusing me with someone else if you think I complain about it. fox network gets its $$ from where it does, and that influences what it says. So what? All media follows the money.

If you think there are standards and integrity in media, you're fooling yourself. Should there be? Yes. But when the fairness doctrine went away, so did the standards and integrity. It's not a "to each their own," although you do sound oh so principled when you say that, it's an acknowledgment of the truth. You can play their game, and click on their click-bait and then whine about their content, or you can stop playing their game, or you can play their game and recognize it for what it is. Whatever, I don't care what you choose. But I will continue to point out your participation in their game when you do choose to play it and then complain.

You brought up a number of complaints in your thread, how am I to know which of those you want to debate? If you can't answer the simple question of what specifically you wanted to debate about, how do expect anyone else to? If you don't want to discuss any of the four topics I suggested, then did you have another? Those are the four I pulled out of your top post whine, but it certainly is possible I missed some overarching point - if you had one.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

There is the fox network, which is a arm of the republican party, but you're confusing me with someone else if you think I complain about it. fox network gets its $$ from where it does, and that influences what it says. So what? All media follows the money.

If you think there are standards and integrity in media, you're fooling yourself. Should there be? Yes. But when the fairness doctrine went away, so did the standards and integrity. It's not a "to each their own," although you do sound oh so principled when you say that, it's an acknowledgment of the truth. You can play their game, and click on their click-bait and then whine about their content, or you can stop playing their game, or you can play their game and recognize it for what it is. Whatever, I don't care what you choose. But I will continue to point out your participation in their game when you do choose to play it and then complain.

That's fine, but you're not addressing the point I'm making.

Unfortunately, to address the point, you have to "partake"... with the mighty influence of a "click".

So again, I'll ask, are you suggesting the submissive approach?

Are you denying that a political culture can occur within institutions?

Are you saying CNBC, FOX, New York Times, and Howard Stern are all on the same level?

You brought up a number of complaints in your thread, how am I to know which of those you want to debate? If you can't answer the simple question of what specifically you wanted to debate about, how do expect anyone else to? If you don't want to discuss any of the four topics I suggested, then did you have another? Those are the four I pulled out of your top post whine, but it certainly is possible I missed some overarching point - if you had one.

If you saw the topics I presented, why did you ask if I wanted to discuss them? Seems like a pointless step.

 

[BobbyT]

That's fine, but you're not addressing the point I'm making.

Unfortunately, to address the point, you have to "partake"... with the mighty influence of a "click".

So again, I'll ask, are you suggesting the submissive approach?

Are you denying that a political culture can occur within institutions?

Are you saying CNBC, FOX, New York Times, and Howard Stern are all on the same level?



If you saw the topics I presented, why did you ask if I wanted to discuss them? Seems like a pointless step.

Do whatever you want, I don't care. Click on any article you want to, protest in the comments section all you want. The more you click, the more they will present articles of the same topic - participate in that or don't, it doesn't matter to me.

Yes, I am absolutely denying that a political culture can occur within for-profit institutions. Those that are privately held, OTOH, the political culture is that which is dictated by the private owners (see Hobby Lobby).

I never said that CNBC, FOX, New York Ties, and Howard Stern are on the same level, whatever you mean by "level." I am saying, though, that they will go where the profits are.

RE: submissive approach: ummmm, yes. You have control over what you do in your life. You probably have some limited control over what your spouse and children do. Beyond that, unless someone is breaking the law, you have no control. Take a deep breath and realize that how others live their lives is not a reflection on you. If God wants to 'take out them sinners,' let him do it and you stay the eff out; it's not your business and it's not your problem.

 

[EatTheRich]

Either way, that's 70% for it.

I wonder what would happen if there were EVER a discussion about the black community's NON-support of gay marriage.

Of course, the media would never oblige for political reasons, but it'd be quite entertaining...

To put it in perspective, 49% of white voters and 53% of Latino voters also voted for it. Also, this was in 2008, ages ago in terms of public opinion about gay rights.

I do think that's an interesting discussion; my speculation is that a lot of it has to do with racism within the gay community (segregation of gay bars, white domination of most gay rights organizations). Another important factor is the religiosity of many Black voters and the social conservatism of the churches they attend. It's interesting that Black women (75%) were 20% more likely to vote for Proposition 8 than Black men (62%). I think Black women, who also tend to be more religious, see the Black family as under attack by white society, and see the gay rights movement as part of that attack. This in turn leads to great pressure for Black gays to remain closeted, reinforcing the perception that homosexuality is a white thing.

 

[Arkady]

Headlines were once again made about one particular draft pick in this years NFL draft, Michael Sam.

These headlines were filled with negative innuendo, questions of character, and accusations of former coach Tony Dungy, seen as quite possibly the most moral, well-intentioned person in the NFL community.

What makes Tony Dungy an extra plump looking sacrifical lamb is that he happen s to be an outwardly professed Christian. Hell, when his Colts met the Chicago Bears in the 2006 Superbowl, pitting two black head coaches against each other for the first time in NFL history, he IGNORED the media agenda to concentrate on race and instead said it was great that two strong Christian men could lead their teams to the big game.

THAT can certainly ruffle some feathers with big media. Who is this guy? We set the plate for a nice juicy racial story and he ignores it? For CHRISTIANITY of all things?

Anyways, Dungy was asked during an interview amidst many questions on many topics about if he were a coach and Michael Sam being in the draft. Dungy said:

"I wouldn't have taken him, Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth ... things will happen."​

The interview quickly resumed. The interviewer thought nothing of the comments, and no follow up to clarify what Dungy meant.

However, a media firestorm ensued amidst sports/social issues.
Does Tony Dungy hate gay people?
Is Tony Dungy advocating for no gays in the league?
Is the NFL anti-gay?
Tony Dungy is a Christian, and since we can ASSUME Tony Dungy hates gay people, is there room for Christianity in society?

Dungy clarified his comments the next day

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization, I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately, we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."​

The media circus continued. Top story billings on a simple, straight forward topic. Reading between the lines and cries of "systematic unfairness" in the NFL. Dungy being cast as some sort of bigot and danger to a "gay celebration" agenda.

So much so, that Dungy had to release a press release:

"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.

I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not. I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.

"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way — by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit. The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.

"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.

"I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field. My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation."​

This is the type of "journalism" we must deal with these days. Not only is any slightest bit of POSSIBLY percieved non-celebration of gayness attacked and questioned in front page news, but attempts are made to tie in the man's faith and depict IT in a negative light.

Meanwhile, as a citizen, I'm not required to celebrate gayness. I can wish them equality of the law in all areas, whatever way that happens to come about, but I don't have to pick up pom poms and get on the rah-rah bandwagon.

It's a very consistant agenda in the mainstream media today. It doesn't surprise me, but it's ridiculous just how much something so obviously simple and a non-issue can get blown out of proportion, seeking a witch in some sort of Salem Non-Gay-Celebrator Trial....

The idea that Dungy was identified as a "sacrificial lamb" because he's an "outwardly professed Christian" is just plain goofy. There are dozens of coaches, owners, and players who are "outwardly professed Christians" -- probably the majority. Being a vocal Muslim or atheist might get you attention in the NFL, but a vocal Christian will blend right in with the crowd.

As for Dungy's comments, I commend him for his honesty. I prefer someone admitting honestly that he passed over Sam because of his homosexuality, rather than trashing Sam's play or athletic skills as a way to excuse not even risking a late-round draft pick on the best defender in the best conference in college football. I can't even blame Dungy. Sam's presence will, in fact, be a distraction, because of the extra press. However, that's true for any highly celebrated college player, and for any player who achieved fame or infamy off the field (Tim Tebow, Maurice Clarett, Michael Vick, Keyshawn Johnson, and so on.) What, I think, people found suspect about Dungy's comments was that he was the most vocal proponent of Michael Vick, coming out of jail, even though he would clearly be a huge distraction. That suggested to some people that what was really on Dungy's mind wasn't the media circus, but rather the homosexuality itself.

 

[MrMike]

Yet Tony is 100% correct. I support his view

 

[Arkady]

i think some gay themed media outlet continually trolls for this kind of stuff with "gotcha questions", asking them endlessly of everyone until they get a "hit".

blacks in california were the deciding factor in the defeat of gay marriage. they voted in excess of 95% against gay marriage. the antipathy of blacks - especially those who attend church regularly - toward gay marriage is well documented.

does this mean dungy was specifically targetted because of his race? probably not.

when gay marriage went down to defeat in california, the gay press targetted the mormon church, even though mormons represent less than 1% of california voters. gay marchers were directed by their "leaders" to vent their rage on mormon houses of worship

It wasn't some "gay themed media outlet." It was a Tampa Tribune sports reporter. He was asking a range of questions about relevant topics in the NFL. There was no "gotcha" question here. Dungy volunteered the fact that he judged Sam, at least in part, not on his skills as a player, or character, but on how he thought Sam's homosexuality would be a distraction for the team. It would be similar to someone, in the days of Jackie Robinson, saying that he wouldn't have wanted Robinson on his team because of the inevitable media circus. One could regard that as a defensible position or not, but clearly it is a legitimate point of debate and there'd be nothing wrong with asking about it.