Wednesday, February 07, 2007

George Vecsey's NY Times column today shows he didn't want to hear Tony Dungy's words

For days and weeks on end I've been held hostage by every detail leading up to the super bowl, with many outlets emphasizing the ethnic backgrounds of the 2 coaches. The media decide the daily discourse, what you should and shouldn't know.
  • (The NY Times in particular, puts 2 issues above all others from the first to the last page--gender issues and race, and they gave much space over the captive weeks to the race of the coaches).
Although feeling sick, I read the entire article to see if Mr. Vecsey had listened to Tony Dungy at all. He had not. Vecsey ignored Dungy. Vecsey no doubt considers himself very liberal, understanding and OPEN MINDED. But he is the reverse. He is a close minded, prejudiced person and wastes today's column on insulting clap trap about black coaches possibly leading to a black president.
  • NOW THAT THE DAMN GAME IS FINALLY OVER why not report the distinction that Tony Dungy himself made in his modest, low key championship acceptance:
  • He said he did it the 'Lord's way,' that both he and Lovie Smith did it the way the Lord (or God) would've wanted. The coach when prompted about the 'social' significance of the occasion by the post-game tv interviewer agreed and said he was very proud of that. BUT WITHOUT PROMPTING, COACH DUNGY SAID THE DISTINCTION FOR THE 2 COACHES WAS A CONNECTION WITH GOD. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID, MR. VECSEY.
Doesn't the NY Times report the news or sports news? It won't tell you if the coach volunteers that the Lord (one presumes the Christian Lord) was the most important distinction for him. The Times decided to make the article about a cultural or social issue--race. But the greater cultural or social issue according to the winning coach was religion or God. Why did George Vecsey deliberately withhold that?
  • Because he is close-minded, narrow minded, and prejudiced. He has inaccurately portrayed an outstanding social moment, cheating the coach, cheating the readers.
Vecsey says: "Now the question is whether whites and blacks would seek leadership from a black, right up to a vote for president." SAYS WHO? WHO SAYS THAT'S "THE QUESTION?" After all your biased, time-warped super bowl coverage this is supposedly the NEXT BIG QUESTION? Now he moves on to buying the spin-meisters of politics, web sites, people working 24 hours a day cranking out media images and you expect me to think that's what's really happening? YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE THE GREAT ISSUES ANYMORE. YOU'VE PROVEN YOU CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO DO SO. POLITICAL PR IS MOSTLY BS--NOW I'VE GOT A SPORTS COLUMNIST TELLING ME I'M SUPPOSED TO THINK THAT'S REALITY? FORGET IT!
  • Mr. Vecsey, I loved your column last year summing up how the Yankee clubhouse power structure had evolved throughout the season, thought you were dead-on correct. On top of that, I still get laughs when I read that column--it was great.
(I realize you're a citizen of the world, love to remind us our sports aren't much compared with soccer, etc. You may have noticed there's so much violence at soccer games now they're considering having no spectators). Anyway, your article is in the NY Times sports section, 2/7/07, and I read it because I get the Times select for I think $7.95 a month. I canceled my home delivery several years ago due to the perverted editorial view throughout the entire newspaper.
  • To make matters worse, you even dragged in Jackie Robinson's daughter to try and build your case--she tried to get you off your point. Mr. Vecsey, the world has passed you by and your mind is closed like a steel trap.
I'll put the link here, but it will just get the registration page. "

"Racial Gains on the Sidelines, a Message for the Polls"(says the NY Times and George Vecsey, grasping, reaching for something that isn't there).

This is 2007!" From his 2/7/07 NY Post column.

Stumbleupon StumbleUpon


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home