"If Michael Bennett wants to sit for anthem..."

[Mindsink]

The "black power" sign is symbolic of black supremacy and separatism. It is fundamentally the same thing as a nazi salute, but somehow it's tolerated. Why? Why do we accept this folks? If a player threw up a nazi salute they would be rightfully cut before the end of the game, but we are expected to be completely accepting of Bennett's black power salute as he stands over the white QB he just turfed.

It's tolerated because of the lie that is "white privilege" and "black oppression" that is constantly fed to us by the media. *Some* people see it as an act that is symbolic of liberation and righteous defiance in the face of oppression by the evil white empire that we call America.

If you view the world through those lenses, of course it's tolerated, and even celebrated.

 

[sutz]

I don't know about you guys, but I watch football and other sports to be entertained, not to be propagandized. This shit just isn't ok.

Me, too. That's why I tend to ignore your "non-political" whining about Leftist media. I can tell by how you speak where you get most of your "news."

Carry on. :stirthepot:

 

[hawk45]

Yes, sorry, let's get back to the Bennett topic. In my efforts to try and argue the reason for the protests, it certainly drove into political even though I purposely stated and posted only factual and validated data for this reason.

Smokin': we can go to PM on this reply, but I'm not sure why posting false, or at least wildly deceptive stuff like the Soros connection and citing a news source with extreme bias like Washington TImes is helpful. I'd say the same if someone said the opposite and cited Huffington Post. Thus, why I posted the sources I did that are considered unbiased.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Sorry everyone, carry on.

I was going to pm this, but as you posted it in public, this needs to be said in public.

Your own bias is showing. You call the Washington Times as "extreme bias" yet your site posted in the same paragraph only calls them right-center. That's not extreme. All news sites nowadays have some bias, because that's what it's come to. If we call all sites with some bias as off limits, we could never post.

Yeah if the Washington Times is off-limits to the right then the Washington Post is off-limits to the left. I've already discussed how dishonest the WaPo analysis and reporting was in the study that was cited.

But I dislike dismissal of any source no matter how biased based solely on its reputation. If someone posted a Huffington Post article that would definitely put me in default suspicious mode, but if I couldn't find evidence of falsehoods then the factual statements in the article could stand, although I'd probably end up chucking the analysis in the article.

The Washington Times article is based on an IRS form 990 for the NFLPLA which can be viewed if you click through the links far enough. Unless there is reason to doubt its authenticity, the NFLPA did indeed donate to the Center for Community Change Action and Soros has indeed helped fund it.

Of course based on that same 990 form the NFLPA also contributed to the Wounded Warriors foundation and the Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans Employed. That...doesn't fit the profile IMO of the NFLPA being an organization slavishly devoted to anti-American causes.

The Center for Community Change is funded by a lot of people besides Soros, and it's definitely minority-centric, but that makes sense to me as something the NFLPA would support that would be viewed as community involvement. I also think that when you support liberal causes you may find yourself donating to something that a Soros type supports, not out of willingness to do his bidding but out of simple alignment on a particular issue.

 

[Mindsink]

I don't know about you guys, but I watch football and other sports to be entertained, not to be propagandized. This shit just isn't ok.

Me, too. That's why I tend to ignore your "non-political" whining about Leftist media. I can tell by how you speak where you get most of your "news."

Carry on. :stirthepot:

:snack:

 

[SmokinHawk]

I don't know about you guys, but I watch football and other sports to be entertained, not to be propagandized. This shit just isn't ok.

Me, too. That's why I tend to ignore your "non-political" whining about Leftist media. I can tell by how you speak where you get most of your "news."

Carry on. :stirthepot:

Oh really? So where do I get it? If you say "Breitbart" or "Drudge", you're sorely mistaken. I don't visit either site regularly because even though they may echo my personal world view, I seek facts rather than spin. Breitbart is little more than a spin machine for right wing populists and Drudge is just an aggregator that contributes very little, if anything, to actual journalism.

For my primary sources, I follow a number of investigative reporters on Twitter, and maintain a two-way dialogue with several of them. Some are right wingers, others are left wingers, but what unites them is a universal zeal for the truth, not the narrative bullshit manufactured by Media Matters for America, Shareblue, Center for American Progress, or whatever other Soros funded commie agitprop organizations currently feeding narratives to the majority of MSM outlets. My favorite journo of all is a liberal by the name of Tim Poole, who works independently, covering stories with maximal factuality and minimal subjectivity.

I didn't "whine" about leftist media whatsoever, unless you consider my indicating that the sweeping majority of MSM outlets are of a leftist bias to be "whining". Sorry, but that's just a factual statement, supported by evidence. I still glean good information from the leftist media, I just ignore the narratives as I don't need anyone telling me what conclusion I should draw from the facts.

 

[kidhawk]

Ok guys, I apologize for taking this off track...let's get off the subject of biased media and onto the subject of Bennett sitting for the anthem again.

 

[SmokinHawk]

Ok guys, I apologize for taking this off track...let's get off the subject of biased media and onto the subject of Bennett sitting for the anthem again.

Statistically, there has been a demonstrably significant drop in viewership since this time last year. They have lost some sponsors over it, and one of their biggest sponsors (Budweiser/Anheuser-Busch) is weighing the notion to exit stage right as well. In some markets, teams are having difficulty selling out all the seats. This could begin a disastrous domino effect.

Bennett's actions, along with the actions of the other players actively engaging in this misguided protest, are causing considerable damage to the NFL's viewer base, reputation, image, and brand. It may be past the point of no return.

Agree, or disagree?

 

[sutz]

Ok guys, I apologize for taking this off track...let's get off the subject of biased media and onto the subject of Bennett sitting for the anthem again.

Statistically, there has been a demonstrably significant drop in viewership since this time last year. They have lost some sponsors over it, and one of their biggest sponsors (Budweiser/Anheuser-Busch) is weighing the notion to exit stage right as well. In some markets, teams are having difficulty selling out all the seats. This could begin a disastrous domino effect.

Bennett's actions, along with the actions of the other players actively engaging in this misguided protest, are causing considerable damage to the NFL's viewer base, reputation, image, and brand. It may be past the point of no return.

Agree, or disagree?

Not so fast.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ts/541173/

Some high-profile surveys blamed Colin Kaepernick and other pre-game protesters. And there is no question that many Americans are personally offended by pre-game demonstrations. But this explanation is unsatisfying, for two reasons. First, Kaepernick isn’t on any NFL team in 2017, and Week 1 viewership this year was even lower than 2016, in some windows. What’s more, there is some evidence that the number of people who watched any part of an NFL game increased in 2016, and ratings only dropped because fewer people watched until the end. This suggests that the quality of the gameplay, not the tenor of politics, was the more important culprit.

But each of these explanations are specific to football, which means they ignore the larger, and more important truth: Ratings are down for everything, except for cable news. Out of 78 prime-time broadcast series that aired in both 2016 and 2017, only one—ABC’s The Bachelor—increased viewership among people under 50. Just about every live sport is dealing with the same problem. NASCAR, although praised by Trump for its fealty to the national anthem, opened its most recent playoffs with the lowest ratings ever. Last year, the NBA had some of its lowest-rated games ever, as well.

These facts cry out for a broader, structural explanation. One is that Trump’s nonstop news cycle has become a more entertaining sport than, well, sports. But here is an even more important one: Five years ago, there were hardly a million “cord-cutter” households. Today, there are an estimated 7 million. That’s an exodus from pay television the size of Virginia and New Jersey combined. It’s inconceivable that this would have no effect whatsoever on NFL ratings. Rather, football is the most buoyant cargo aboard a sinking ship.

Emphasis mine. Feel free to attack the source. :34853_doh:

 

[SmokinHawk]

Not so fast.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ts/541173/

Some high-profile surveys blamed Colin Kaepernick and other pre-game protesters. And there is no question that many Americans are personally offended by pre-game demonstrations. But this explanation is unsatisfying, for two reasons. First, Kaepernick isn’t on any NFL team in 2017, and Week 1 viewership this year was even lower than 2016, in some windows. What’s more, there is some evidence that the number of people who watched any part of an NFL game increased in 2016, and ratings only dropped because fewer people watched until the end. This suggests that the quality of the gameplay, not the tenor of politics, was the more important culprit.

But each of these explanations are specific to football, which means they ignore the larger, and more important truth: Ratings are down for everything, except for cable news. Out of 78 prime-time broadcast series that aired in both 2016 and 2017, only one—ABC’s The Bachelor—increased viewership among people under 50. Just about every live sport is dealing with the same problem. NASCAR, although praised by Trump for its fealty to the national anthem, opened its most recent playoffs with the lowest ratings ever. Last year, the NBA had some of its lowest-rated games ever, as well.

These facts cry out for a broader, structural explanation. One is that Trump’s nonstop news cycle has become a more entertaining sport than, well, sports. But here is an even more important one: Five years ago, there were hardly a million “cord-cutter” households. Today, there are an estimated 7 million. That’s an exodus from pay television the size of Virginia and New Jersey combined. It’s inconceivable that this would have no effect whatsoever on NFL ratings. Rather, football is the most buoyant cargo aboard a sinking ship.

Emphasis mine. Feel free to attack the source. :34853_doh:

Ok, I'll bite.

Question: What do all of these sports have in common?
Answer: ESPN and its parent organization, Disney.

Question: Why did ESPN recently fire so many of its high-dollar on-air personalities?
Answer: Lowest ratings in years, can't sell enough advertising.

Question: Why are ratings so low?
Answer: People have lost interest.

Question: Why have people lost interest?
Answer: ESPN/Disney/ABC has spent considerable airtime that would otherwise be spent discussing sports, on discussing political topics, taking sides in a highly polarized debate, and alienating a significant portion of their viewership as a result.

Question: Why would they do something so stupid?
Answer: Disney's president sits on the board for Center for Public Integrity, a George Soros organization.

Isn't it incredible how so much bullshit, so much chaos, so much infighting and strife, can be linked to just one man? He's literally attacking some of our most cherished institutions and using them to sow division and hatred within our country.

 

[hawk45]

These facts cry out for a broader, structural explanation. One is that Trump’s nonstop news cycle has become a more entertaining sport than, well, sports. But here is an even more important one: Five years ago, there were hardly a million “cord-cutter” households. Today, there are an estimated 7 million. That’s an exodus from pay television the size of Virginia and New Jersey combined. It’s inconceivable that this would have no effect whatsoever on NFL ratings. Rather, football is the most buoyant cargo aboard a sinking ship.

The article mentions surveys that support the notion that fans are turning off the NFL due to protests, then discards that data in favor of his own analysis:

Some high-profile surveys blamed Colin Kaepernick and other pre-game protesters. And there is no question that many Americans are personally offended by pre-game demonstrations. But this explanation is unsatisfying, for two reasons. First, Kaepernick isn’t on any NFL team in 2017, and Week 1 viewership this year was even lower than 2016, in some windows. What’s more, there is some evidence that the number of people who watched any part of an NFL game increased in 2016, and ratings only dropped because fewer people watched until the end. This suggests that the quality of the gameplay, not the tenor of politics, was the more important culprit.

Last year the presidential election was proffered as a reason, as well as the cord-cutters and quality of play. All of these can contribute. The crappy Thursday night match-ups last year were definitely less-viewed.

The claim that it can't be the protests because Kaepernick isn't on a roster is breathtakingly specious. The broadcasts have been calling attention to the kneelers, and there have been some high-profile additions to their ranks, Bennett among them.

Also, it just smacks of avoiding the obvious. The fans when surveyed indicate the protests are pissing them off, the NFL has been indestructible for decades until the protests - even the domestic violence and concussions hardly made a dent - and whether you are behind the protests or against them, you are no longer thinking about football purely. This saps some of the fun out of it and is the same reason other entertainment such as movies or music usually doesn't fare well when it becomes politicized.

If we're not going to take the word of NFL fans surveyed I guess it can't be proven.

 

[sutz]

:34853_doh:

These facts cry out for a broader, structural explanation. One is that Trump’s nonstop news cycle has become a more entertaining sport than, well, sports. But here is an even more important one: Five years ago, there were hardly a million “cord-cutter” households. Today, there are an estimated 7 million. That’s an exodus from pay television the size of Virginia and New Jersey combined. It’s inconceivable that this would have no effect whatsoever on NFL ratings. Rather, football is the most buoyant cargo aboard a sinking ship.

The article mentions surveys that support the notion that fans are turning off the NFL due to protests, then discards that data in favor of his own analysis:

Some high-profile surveys blamed Colin Kaepernick and other pre-game protesters. And there is no question that many Americans are personally offended by pre-game demonstrations. But this explanation is unsatisfying, for two reasons. First, Kaepernick isn’t on any NFL team in 2017, and Week 1 viewership this year was even lower than 2016, in some windows. What’s more, there is some evidence that the number of people who watched any part of an NFL game increased in 2016, and ratings only dropped because fewer people watched until the end. This suggests that the quality of the gameplay, not the tenor of politics, was the more important culprit.

Last year the presidential election was proffered as a reason, as well as the cord-cutters and quality of play. All of these can contribute. The crappy Thursday night match-ups last year were definitely less-viewed.

The claim that it can't be the protests because Kaepernick isn't on a roster is breathtakingly specious. The broadcasts have been calling attention to the kneelers, and there have been some high-profile additions to their ranks, Bennett among them.

Also, it just smacks of avoiding the obvious. The fans when surveyed indicate the protests are pissing them off, the NFL has been indestructible for decades until the protests - even the domestic violence and concussions hardly made a dent - and whether you are behind the protests or against them, you are no longer thinking about football purely. This saps some of the fun out of it and is the same reason other entertainment such as movies or music usually doesn't fare well when it becomes politicized.

If we're not going to take the word of NFL fans surveyed I guess it can't be proven.

Nobody said the protests had no effect. It does say that there are other factors that show viewership was declining before the protests, so it is one of several factors. I'm not the one egaging in unitary thinking here.

 

[Rocket]

I don't know about you guys, but I watch football and other sports to be entertained, not to be propagandized. This shit just isn't ok.

Me, too. That's why I tend to ignore your "non-political" whining about Leftist media. I can tell by how you speak where you get most of your "news."

Carry on. :stirthepot:

Assuming facts not in evidence is like a sin or something, or illegal... or just weenie-like.

 

[kidhawk]

Relative to news organizations and or media that is a seriously small sample.

Missing the point I think. The site he linked listed the site he called extremely biased as right center. I listed only some of the main media sites they list as left center which is subjectively equal to the rating they give the site he's denouncing as extreme. I doubt anyone would say it's wrong to post links from any of the sites I listed. BTW that was just a small percentage of the list. I used them to make the point. No need to post every one

I know I was just being a smart aleck.

That's what I get for forgetting to wear my sarcasm goggles again

 

[kidhawk]

Just a friendly reminder for everyone, that there's no need to make anything personal in here. We can debate all sides of the issues without using phrases like "unitary thinking" or "weenie like". Thanks

 

[SixSeahawk]

People are being killed unnecessarily.

Nobody cares if you're comfortable, uncomfortable, offended, not offended, entertained or not entertained.

It doesn't matter what their player "rights" are; minorities didn't have the right to be free at one point in this country so I hope they continue to piss off those of us that have lived comfortable, privileged lives for way too long.

 

[seahawkfreak]

People are being killed unnecessarily.

Nobody cares if you're comfortable, uncomfortable, offended, not offended, entertained or not entertained.

It doesn't matter what their player "rights" are; minorities didn't have the right to be free at one point in this country so I hope they continue to piss off those of us that have lived comfortable, privileged lives for way too long.

There are other venues for it. Media, internet, political groups etc. Take your social ignorance and indignation elsewhere. This is exactly why many who watch the sport are pissed, it doesn't belong there.

If I go into a restaurant, I have no interest in what the servers political views on DACA are. Even if I agreed with them, it is still inappropriate.

This virtue signaling is obnoxious and disgusting.

 

[replicant]

Kirkland sports pub says NFL protests affecting business’ bottom line

Posted 12:07 AM, October 2, 2017, by q13katie and Katie Boer, Updated at 12:09AM, October 2, 2017


KIRKLAND, Wash. — Dub Pub is a sports bar in Kirkland which caters to the college crowd. In the past, they’ve always had large, standing room only crowds on Seahawks game days, but that wasn’t the case on Sunday.

Protests during the national anthem continued into week four of the NFL's regular season. At least a half a dozen customers stood inside the Dub Pub sports bar in Kirkland watching, and to some extent, still supporting the nine players sitting on the Seahawks sideline Sunday.

Dub Pub owners don't mind what stance customer's take on the protests. It's what you don't see that has them worried--more people.

"We've had customers that have decided not to come in," said co-owner Lee Dumas. "It's unfortunate because a lot of us make our livelihood off of these sports."

http://q13fox.com/2017/10/02/kirkland-s ... ttom-line/

 

[Palmegranite]

Go Seahawks!

 

[Mindsink]

People are being killed unnecessarily.

Nobody cares if you're comfortable, uncomfortable, offended, not offended, entertained or not entertained.

It doesn't matter what their player "rights" are; minorities didn't have the right to be free at one point in this country so I hope they continue to piss off those of us that have lived comfortable, privileged lives for way too long.

Ah yes... "white guilt". The belief that you should feel sorry for atrocities you didn't commit, towards people who never experienced those atrocities.

 

[Mindsink]

There are other venues for it. Media, internet, political groups etc. Take your social ignorance and indignation elsewhere. This is exactly why many who watch the sport are pissed, it doesn't belong there.

If I go into a restaurant, I have no interest in what the servers political views on DACA are. Even if I agreed with them, it is still inappropriate.

This virtue signaling is obnoxious and disgusting.

And what's sad is that the NFL could easily put an end to it. If a group of people made such a political statement at my workplace, they would all be fired.