No Lee, seriously?

[Brad Johnson]

I think at this point everyone, even the people who made the decision, probably recognizes it would have been better for them to leave assignment alone.

The fact that it was even considered an issue at all, potential or otherwise, is just sad. Maybe ESPN will see some lasting backlash, though I doubt it. They will, however, be the New And Improved poster child for just how ridiculously out of hand this whole thing has gotten.

The way to cure the problem is to stop paying attention to the people screaming for it. The moment you put them in the limelight, no matter what the reasoning, they win.

Brad

[T.O.M.]

ESPN had the chance to make a stand here.  Could have said we judge no one by name/race/gender/religion/sexuality/species and let it go.  Then again, it might be a wiser business move these days to offend the sane and not the crazies...seems to me there are more of them

[Frank Castle]

[230RN]

I figured this 43 second clip might be amusing:

https://youtu.be/bjUwSHGsG9o

Hell, at this point, everything is.

I'm waiting for the all the useful idiots out there to start a march against Sara Lee desserts.

Terry

[Perd Hapley]

Believe it or not, a large media organization is going to be worried about public perception. They have no choice but to be worried about those stupid people and what stupid things they will say because many of those people make up their audience. I don't expect the jokes made about Lee calling the game would have hurt ESPN much, if at all, but not having any of those jokes in the first place would still clearly be preferable.

The guy didn't want to be "internet famous" and ESPN didn't want to be the butt of a joke of so they switched assignments and he's calling another game. That's not a problem in the real world. I don't follow college football but I've read he's covering a better game now anyway. The only problem is all this "online goofiness" over the switch.

This would be more believable if ESPN wasn't so notorious for choosing to offend people by siding with Social Madness Warriors at every turn.

[HankB]

To my knowledge, ESPN did not intentionally draw attention to it at all. They made the change quietly with no announcement and someone else made a big deal out of it.

In much the same way that United did not intentionally draw attention to their mistreatment of passengers, their problem was that someone else made a big deal out of it.

In much the same way that Hillary Clinton did not intentionally draw attention to her use of a private server, her problem was that someone else made a big deal out of it.

In much the same way that Donald Trump did not intentionally draw attention to his potty mouth in an old video, his problem was that someone else made a big deal out of it.

Further examples of "someone else" making a big deal out of things abound. It's usually not the idiot who does something stupid who deliberately draws attention to it. (Actual criminals posting crime videos on the internet being an exception.)

[DittoHead]

This would be more believable if ESPN wasn't so notorious for choosing to offend people by siding with Social Madness Warriors at every turn.

I noted right away it might not be true, but I still maintain that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation.

There was never any concern - by anyone, at any level – that Robert Lee’s name would offend anyone watching the Charlottesville game.

Among our Charlotte production staff there was a question as to whether – in these divisive times — Robert’s assignment might create a distraction, or even worse, expose him to social hectoring and trolling. Since Robert was their primary concern, they consulted with him directly. He expressed some personal trepidation about the assignment and, when offered the chance to do the Youngstown State/Pitt game instead, opted for that game — in part because he lives in Albany and would be able to get home to his family on Saturday evening.

[Brad Johnson]

Had they made the change and said nothing, treating it like any other program staffing logistics change, no one would have noticed. They chose to make a blatantly SJW-driven change and then elaborate on their decision, effectively doubling down on the chance that someone would notice.

Personally I think they wanted people to notice only this time the people who noticed first were not their intended audience.

Brad

[Ben]

CNN says this was necessary in "today's America". "Today's America"? Two weeks ago none of this was even on anyone's radar screen. I guess "today" comes pretty fast in the 24/7 news and social media cycles.

[Scout26]

ESPN had the chance to make a stand here.  Could have said we judge no one by name/race/gender/religion/sexuality/species and let it go.  Then again, it might be a wiser business move these days to offend the sane and not the crazies...seems to me there are more of them

How many of the crazies are even watching ESPN or College Football ??   

[BlueStarLizzard]

Had they made the change and said nothing, treating it like any other program staffing logistics change, no one would have noticed. They chose to make a blatantly SJW-driven change and then elaborate on their decision, effectively doubling down on the chance that someone would notice.

Personally I think they wanted people to notice only this time the people who noticed first were not their intended audience.

Brad

Exactly. Nobody would have noticed a nobody sports caster being shifted to a different slot. And when the competitor "leaked" the story, they could have just said "You're stupid. Robert Lee was switched for *insert whatever banal reason here*"

[DittoHead]

Personally I think they wanted people to notice only this time the people who noticed first were not their intended audience.

If ESPN wanted this to be a story, they could have made an announcement or a press release but they didn't. The announcer assignments weren't even public yet. They only responded after the story was already out there & spreading supposedly incorrect information. Do you think they intentionally leaked it to Clay Travis, someone who has apparently made a career out of beating up on ESPN?

when the competitor "leaked" the story, they could have just said "You're stupid. Robert Lee was switched for *insert whatever banal reason here*"

So they should have lied when the story was first breaking? That would have been OK, but trying to explain their actual reasoning wasn't?

[Scout26]

Brit Hume nails it (and ESPN)....

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/08/24/bahaha-brit-hume-wonders-if-anyone-can-read-at-espn-and-cnn-brian-stelter-hardest-hit/

[Unisaw]

Mark Steyn had the best, albeit most non-PC comment:  this is much ado about nothing, because the sportscaster pronounces his name "Lobert Ree."