Believe it or not, many conservative radio talk show hosts can be insightful, erudite, analytical and fair. Unfortunately, even the smartest of them have an unfortunate tendency to let their deep-seated ideology lead them to undermine their credibility when an objective analysis might force them to agree that in a particular matter, their most reviled progressive foes are right. The repulsive recent effort by the conservative talkers to paint the NFL and its various woman and/or child-beating players as victims of a political correctness campaign is a vivid example.
This kind of thing is why so many people hate you who have never listened to your show, Rush. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
I’m going to ignore Sean Hannity, who actually took off his belt and smacked it on his desk to show how he was raised to be the virtuous, patriotic, narrow-minded, low-brow pundit he is today. Both Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, however, who are capable of making coherent arguments, cannot similarly plead intellectual dysfunction like Hannity: they are capable of better. Yet they spent time on their programs defending the NFL from the “liberal media smear” that the NFL is “full of criminals … wife beaters, sexual abusers, murderers, rapists.” It’s not true! In fact, studies show that the rate of violent crime in the NFL is less than that of the general population!
Levin shouted (he is always shouting) that “the facts speak for themselves. The NFL is not a hotbed of criminals, wife beaters, child abusers and rapists. Yes, each time one of these incidents happens it’s deplorable. But to single out the NFL and its players as an institution that must be targeted for punitive actions is just plain wrong. I have no special brief for the NFL — I have a special brief for the truth! And just as the radical left has tried to destroy the military, now they’re trying to destroy the NFL!” Limbaugh, citing the same studies and using that funny voice he uses when he wants to mock liberals complained that the league is being told by media scolds and activists that “it’s dirty and filthy and the commissioner is incompetent and has got to get thrown out and these players need to get thrown out and this league needs to straighten up, or we’re going to do something about the NFL!”
Great straw man action, guys! The stats for crimes of violence in the general population are completely irrelevant to the issue, and I strongly suspect Mark and Rush know it, or I have over-estimated their intelligence. The NFL players are millionaires. They are celebrities. They are paid heroes and role models. They are on TV every week, in fact several days a week. Children see their parents wear jerseys with their names on them; the kids put giant photos of these men on their walls. What proportion of the general public has these qualities, responsibilities and advantages? When an anonymous member of the general population beats up his wife or kid, how much publicity or societal impact does that have? In short, who cares that the NFL’s proportion of criminals, rapists, murderers, woman-beaters and child abusers is less than that of the general population? It is still far too high, and there is no excuse for it. It is irresponsibly and unacceptably high, and no professional sports league should be as tolerant of the criminals, accused criminals, alleged criminals and likely criminals among its players as the NFL.
Can you imagine the Catholic Church trying to argue that criticism of its priests for buggering altar boys was overblown because the rate of child sexual abuse in the general public is worse that that of clerics? (Actually, I heard one defender make an argument very close to that.) Would you be impressed by a defense of the U.S. military’s rampant sexual harassment—in a profession that is supposed to be a model of decorum, discipline and honor—consisting of statistics showing that non-military sexual harassment is even worse? The useful statistic for defenders of the NFL to ponder would be the rate of such crimes among other celebrities and those who make over a million dollars a year, who are celebrated and idolized to a similar extent or who have equivalent visibility and exposure . I haven’t seen such statistics and don’t know if they exist, but I doubt that the very strong impression that the NFL players display more than their share of anti-social conduct compared to the rest of this elite group is a delusion. For what it is, what it represents, its societal and cultural influence and popularity, is the NFL a hotbed of wife and child-beaters, and worse?
Yes, it is.
When a member of the general public beats a toddler black and blue, society doesn’t put him on TV and cheer his exploits. When a member of the general public punches a woman in the face, society doesn’t keep calling him a “star.” The NFL, like Levin and Limbaugh, stupidly forgot that their players are not just anybody, and that when they commit violent crimes, it pollutes the culture and minimizes the crime itself for them to continue being promoted and paid as heroes. They cannot be heroes when their conduct off the field reveals them as villains, cultural polluters, and ethics corrupters. That’s why the NFL needs to “straighten up.”
That so many conservative talk show hosts’ biases make them incapable of recognizing (or perhaps admitting) this helps make their judgment less persuasive on every other topic.
______________________________
Pointer and Source: Newsbuster
Source: Red State
Graphic: Christian Post
Ethics Alarms 
I’m reminded of the infamous Charles Barkley statement, “I’m not a role model.” The remark seemed to be a great example of doublespeak, as Barkley showed no problem earning million of dollars not only for playing basketball, but for endorsing product related to basketball ( or more recently, Jenny Craig). Like NFL stars, Barkley should have been able to discern that SOME of the kids lining his pockets would try to emulate him in their old athletic pursuits. Many thanks for pointing out the Elephant in the Room: Celebrity/Hero status has both perks and responsibilities.
Great point. If you aren’t a role model, nobody pays you to endorse stuff, because nobody sets out to emulate or take advice from creeps…or they convince themselves that those they admire aren’t creeps, requiring them to shrug off bad conduct as not really all that bad.
A few points in regards to comments/post. Hero/role models are established by society, so Barkley saying he is not one means he was not seeking to emulate the (current) characteristics of one. By his own actions and deeds he demonstrated this was true but society choose him anyway and endorsements followed. I agree with your position, everyone (full political spectrum) should get behind and push when required but there is a distinction between demanding change and the scorched earth campaigns that are becoming more prevalent. There are plenty of people who would like to utilize this issue to further their own agenda, others who want complete destruction and those who want a check in the social justice box. This leads to nothing more then mob rule, I believe the NFL will correct their issues if the organization isn’t destroyed outright. Those voices who identify this is as a PC attack are not incorrect, yes there is a legitimate issue to be corrected but we are well past what is needed to obtain change, moderation is needed. The manner in which moderation is being offered is debatable but I think the intent is ethical.
Another point is your associations, an actor plays a part, a military member does their job to destroy our enemies, a football player does their job to wins games and a priest serves to further the morality of the church. Only one of these individuals has a direct job as a role model. Despite the compensation and visability differences each of these positions will reflect general societal issues, the goal is to reduce the negative traits and increase the positive, while accomplishing the primary function of the organization. Elimination of any negative act must occur across society. Those public figures can serve as catalyst to educate and further societies goal of elimination but at the end of the day individual organizations are part of the overall society. How the NFL handles these cases in the future will evolve to reflect what the mob now finds acceptable, not what is responsible and prudent, this may have negative results.
I believe decisions should be made on facts; stats and purpose matter, there will always be a percentage of an organization that under perform or are morally deficient, how they are handled matters but individual rights and the primary purpose of the organization matter as well. Video or photo evidence makes the decision easier but what about cases where this evidence isn’t available?
Think about what is being advocated for, mob or tertiary justice, individuals directly affected such Mrs. Rice, those responsible for insuring laws are enforced such as the police and DA all have primary duties to act. The primary duty of the NFL is the management of games and franchises, individual conduct is a consideration but not a primary one and arguably belongs at the franchise level.
The mob isn’t demanding punishment but destruction, no matter what punishment the NFL dished out it wasn’t going to be enough, because what needed to happen was incarceration which the NFL can’t do because it isn’t their job. Removing abusers in the NFL is the correct thing to do but I am skeptical of the current mob model for achieving the result.
“Only one of these individuals has a direct job as a role model”
I disagree. I think every single adult, whether they like it or not, is by nature, a role model. It is an inherent job.
I believe there is good and bad in all areas of life. When it comes to any matter, if someone knows an abuse is occurring it needs to be reported. Facts need to be proven as was / is in both of these cases. But also Mr. Rice’s wife should not be allowed to be dismissed either, it is obvious there is disrespect not only for one another but also more then likely, this is how they conduct themselves in society as a general rule.
I believe that sponsors need to immediately pull their support for the players and if this hurts the team as a whole financially in some manner. Could it possibly be that the teams need to step in / up and correct issues more quickly so as not to spoil it for the team/s’ as a whole and raise the teams moral, ethics and dignity stance?
I believe these players need to receive medical help and also be punished by law instead of the law allowing someone to escape because of their status in society. This also sends a clear message to our youth that if you are famous you can get away with anything when the law just gives them a tongue lashing and slap on the hand.
These players need to be removed from the teams and yes this hurts them financially, but that does not mean that they will be in the poor house. What this does mean is that there are other job opportunists for them. They need to be removed.
If someone conducted themselves with dignity, morals and ethics before they entered into the public eye, their is a even a heavier burden that comes with the job. EVEN MORE SO, ones degree of conducting themselves needs to be raised to highest level that can be achieved by a human. This will also go a long ways with not only helping our youth and how to handle themselves in society, but it will spread to the adults as well.
For whatever the reasons are our society has changed dramatically that these behaviors are to be rewarded, looked up to and accepted.
I also feel ALL areas of news the individuals need to refrain /stop conducting themselves as what Rush did and even Hannity on quite a few occasions. All to often they start to make a good point and then ruin it by their actions, again such as what Rush did.
I am not interested in insulting someone, name calling for I will turn away from whom ever the news reporter is , instead facts and points need to be made.
Well said.
If you’d like a different conservative radio host, who is a bit more logical and deliberate in his discourse, you should look up Mark Davis. I’m not sure if he’s national, but you can stream his show on 660 AM .
I’ve emailed him your articles before, and I can’t tell, but they may have influenced his discussions as I hear some of it in his attitudes the next day.
Obviously, he is wise, perceptive and acute, then.
But make no mistake: Rush is often a hoot, and a consummate radio pro. Levin is a smart guy who stoops beneath himself too often, but has a lot to contribute.
To be clear he’s a constitutional conservative. Very originalist with libertarian sympathies ( less than mine though).
Very federalist. He could care less if lefty states wanna tank themselves. He won’t impose righty solutions on the nation if they are outside the enumerated powers.
Of course like anyone he slips on occasion.
OOPS!
The URL is http://www.660amtheanswer.com/
I left out the “am” part…
Apparently I linked to a Florida affiliate of the same network.