During the Monday Night Soccer, ESPN finished to call a tight quarter fourth game between the Redskins and the Eagles to allow Joe Tessitore, Jason Witten and McFarland Boog to tackle & # 39; the Redskins signs of Reuben Foster. Foster, who was released by San Francisco 49ers and was accused of a domestic assault for the second time in six months, was claimed on the emigrants from the Redskins last week and felt the try to go with the issue during the broadcast.
The dreadful discussion was quite smooth and unnatural, possibly because the Eagle slipped and the crowd went wild in the background, without breaking any new land. Witten and McFarland said they believed that the Redskins should not have signed Foster and opposed men to beat girls.
It was a great relief.
Because before they came out against men beating girls, I was totally uncertain whether Tessitore, Witten and McFarland opposed men to beat girls.
In particular, Witten said this when Tessitore asked him whether the Redskins should have signed Foster: "100% no. I believe that Washington Redskins uses a horrible ruling in claiming this man and I understand it is a continuous investigation, but domestic violence has affected my family I understand the alarm that it causes. Young players must understand that there is no tolerance to put a wife on you. "
The debate led accusations of hypocrisy against Witten immediately because the former star Dallas Cowboy had played alongside Greg Hardy, and signed by Dallas despite Hardy's own domestic violence problems in the past. This is what Witten then said as a player when the Cowboys came into Hardy:
"I believe more than anything I believe everyone knows (I am) domestic violence," said Witten. "That is unexpected. That's something I was living, my family lived. But that guy is a member of a team, so I'll believe that You have to look at it from that position. As the coach (Jason) Garrett said, our job is to invite those men and create a standard of how we do things. I think he has done work It's not my job to decide who's coming in. I'm pretty tired, but I've been very proud of how she has contacted her and how it's # 39 I'm going to work and what kind of team company has been. The day it was banned, the next day he works there, so I think it's the kind of thinking that it has, which What type of work ethic she has and what she tries to prove in Dallas. " […]
If ESPN knew that Witten says he opposes Redskins signing the Foster – they did 100% of them, this topic can not end without a significant planning and discussion – then the network also had an obligation to ask why his opinion about Foster was different than his opinion on Hardy. That is especially true when the story is linked to the opinion of Witten on Hardy on the ESPN website itself.
I mean that this is only basic, elemental research for a TV program with dozens of production assistants, producers and technical support. Also, look at this video, they deliberately pull out of the game and go straight to the broadcast booth for Witten's opinion.
This was a programmed, produced and planned segment that probably had practiced several times to ensure that there was no difficult social problem in the middle of a game soccer at Witten and McFarland.
So, in my view, ESPN can not lose this confrontation between the Witten opinion of Foster and Hardy. (If they did this is always the most ineligible television broadcast.) You're absolutely positive, you do not want a best NFL analyst to look like a hypocrisy on a matter that is serious.
And yet, no-one on the broadcast has asked Witten anything to play with Hardy. This was unfortunate because if they had been Witten had been able to explain the challenges that a player could play on a team, who could disagree with a team decision, but he has a contractual obligation to continue his job performance even if Disagree with a decision team, with the difference getting opinions after you leave a team.
That is a perfectly natural and sufficient discussion that could have understood the complexities of a matter in this way intelligently.
After all, do you agree with each decision that your manager does at work?
Of course no.
Do you agree with each personal decision that your colleagues have made in their lives away from the work?
Of course no.
An intelligent conversation is worth it.
I believe once ESPN decided to access this topic during the middle of the broadcast game they had an obligation and responsibility to have a full debate on this issue.
Yet they did not.
No one talks about Greg Hardy at all?
Why not? I will reach my theory in a moment.
The next day, Witten referred the difference between Hardy and Foster on Twitter, but by that time the story had ended mainly and Witten had been hanged by his employer. That is unfortunately because Witten has dealt with domestic violence issues in his own life and has been one of the most robust fighters of the issue through his Foundation Score, which you can read and support here.
In fact, Witten, a really good dude, could be the most common advocate against domestic violence in the entire NFL. If anything, ESPN should have given it an opportunity to reveal its foundation and the difference that it is trying to do in its own life.
But they did not do that at all.
This is what Witten said on Twitter yesterday.
Thank you for your opinion, Robert. In private, I will inform my opinion and agreed to disagree. That day after usual, I chose not to be stretching. A test went too far. On Monday with a platform and I'm no longer a member of a team, I spoke my mind. Would you love your support w /
SGORE Foundation https://t.co/0ipiGwX1Hi
– Jason Witten (@JasonWitten) December 5, 2018
Now, we can definitely argue whether the best place to have a magical and thoughtful discussion about the challenges of domestic violence during the fourth quarter of a competitive football game – I think it's a bad fit – but once ESPN decided that Witten spoke on the matter, I had an obligation, I believe, that he meant he was able to speak on the matter in fact and he was not sure that his comments on the air were significantly different than comments made about Hardy a few years ago.
So why did not they do that?
I think it's simple – because ESPN promotes Greg Hardy as part of a new deal with the UFC.
Yep, the same thing is Greg Hardy that the Dallas Cowboys have signed despite his domestic violence issues currently being promoted as a reason for ESPN customers to register for ESPN +.
Hello, it's a top story on ESPN.com at the moment.
The headline in heavy big letters is:
Here's the article.
Having included in that article, which finally discussed the NFL issues in the past in the seventh paragraph, was detailed in why ESPN could not have brought Hardy on their most watched television program on Monday night. "UFC's 19 Fight Night Night will mark the first live event of a five-year bargain between the UFC and the ESPN."
Therefore ESPN does not have any problems whatsoever in blocking Washington Redskins for signing Reuben Foster, a man accused of domestic violence, but the network itself is right with the promotion of Greg Hardy, a man who got found guilty of domestic violence – were the charges paid later when the alleged victim did not appear in court – in a real event where they were fighting on their network? (To be fair, at least this time Hardy is fighting a man).
Is not ESPN behaving in a pretty similar way to the Washington Redskins? They take a man with domestic violence in his past and try to make money off. That's really true because ESPN is giving lots of UFC events on ESPN +, which means that ESPN benefits directly from UFC fans who register over their network over the top digital. The most popular Hardy, and other UFC stars are, the more money ESPN does on ESPN +.
Now let me be clear, I think, if you're not in prison, you should be able to live in sport or any other effort in this country. I believe in a recipient and I believe in forgiveness and I believe in the ability of a man or woman to do it for past mistakes. I do not have a personal problem with what the Redskins, the UFC or ESPN do.
But this is not a hypertension height for ESPN?
On Monday, you will hit Redskins to the high heavens for employing domestic abuse on your most watched program of the week and then on Wednesday ask sports fans to talk to watch anti-domestic NFL abuse – while registering for ESPN + too – fighting on your network?
What's more, this is not just an event, this is the very FIRST event you've ever done with the UFC and your own website uses Hardy's status as former NFL player to highlight that fight and bring more fans to see the event.
And do not think it's very convenient that ESPN had not yet brought Greg Hardy with Jason Witten on their broadcast despite the fact that it was extremely relevant to the debate?
Then, two days later, they're announcing that Hardy is one of the top drawers for the first event that they do with the UFC?
Could not crash, ESPN knew exactly what they did.
They hang Jason Witten out to dry in the hope that no one would notice their own hypocrisy on this issue. They knew they would be torn if they were not going to address Fostering signing by the Redskins, but they also knew that they would be open to criticism if they discussed Greg Hardy and then & # 39 ; n announced that he was highlighting his brand new deal with the UFC a few days later. So they let Witten be the man in the media for being a hypocritic instead of the behavior of their own network.
It's an incredible bait and it's changing, but it's also unfair to Jason Witten.
ESPN is the true hypocrite here, not him.
Unfortunately most will not notice at all.