Brent Musburger Does NOT Deserve the Julia Gillard Reproach!

Musburger has offended many people (uncontested by Pro) and should listen to the equivalent of a 15 minute explanation by a respresentative of the aggrieved (the "Julia Gillard reproach").To win this debate, Pro needs to show that Musburger does not deserve to sit quietly for 15 minutes while someone explains why his comments were offensive to so many people.Pro has chosen a difficult position to defend. As a general rule, when offense is given - intentionally or otherwise - the culprit, at the very least, should listen to the point of view of the offended party. In Musburger's case, this is even more true than normal because he is a sportscaster. His words have far greater reach and influence than those of a normal person. Also, he is representative of ESPN and of the sport in general. Whether or not Pro or I personally find Musburger's comments offensive is irrelevant to this debate. The fact that many listeners were offended is enough reason for Musburger to deserve to listen to what they have to say. I will elaborate on this argument below.So far, Pro has not defended the resolution. He has spent his time discussing Musburger's comments, describing them, and saying that he, Pro, is not offended by them. This is all interesting, but irrelevant. He has also mentioned cheerleaders and the sexism of football culture. Irrelevant. I will not pursue these arguments, not because I concede them or agree in any way, but because they are strawmen. Musburger's comments offended peopleHere are the facts of the Musburger case:1.ESPN sportscaster, Brent Musburger, made comments during coverage of the BCS National Championships game about a member of the audience, Katherine Webb.2. Many of the listeners were offended by the comments.3. The next day, the comments were picked up by mainstream newspapers and news broadcasters. They were repeated to a much larger audience (probably tens of millions).4. Many more people heard the comments in the news and were offended.For example, Sue Carter, a professor of journalism at Michigan State said:“It’s extraordinarily inappropriate to focus on an individual’s looks. In this instance, the appearance of the quarterback’s girlfriend had no bearing on the outcome of the game. It’s a major personal violation, and it’s so retrograde that it’s embarrassing. I think there’s a generational issue, but it’s incumbent on people practicing in these eras to keep up and this is not a norm.” [1]And in forums around America, people were posting comments of complaint. Here's an example:"The inappropriateness started long before it was a blowout, though. Earlier in the game (well before halftime) he was exhorting young athletes to go throw a football in the backyard and become a quarterback so they could go to college and get a hot girlfriend like her. Way over the line. I don't dislike Brent Musberger at all, but I have no idea what was going on there." [2]Clearly Musburger's comments were "offensive" to the extent that they offended people.The Julia Gillard reproachTo prove the resolution, Pro needs to show that Musburger doesn't deserve to "be yelled at in a similar fashion". Julia Gillard was not yelling in her speech, of course. She had a firm but calm tone throughout. The key elements of "the Julia Gillard reproach" are therefore:1. Gillard spoke about Abbott's behavior, condemning it, to a third party (the acting speaker).2. She spoke for no more than 15 minutes.3. Protocol required Abbott to sit for the duration of the speech without interrupting.Brent Musburger deserves the Julia Gillard reproachEither Musburger meant to be offensive, or he didn't.If the offense was unintentional, then 15 minutes of listening while the offense is explained to him will be a useful education. Possibly, his bosses have already arranged for a Gillard-style reproach to be delivered behind closed doors. After all, they were obliged to apologize publicly for his comments. They said, "the commentary in this instance went too far and Brent understands that." [3]On the other hand, Musburger - with over 40 years of experience as a sportscaster - might have made the comments to be deliberately provocative. Out of sheer misogyny perhaps, or in order to generate controversy and media coverage. In that case, sitting quietly while being lectured on sexism for 15 minutes does not seem excessive punishment for his behavior.[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://deadspin.com...[3] http://www.businessinsider.com...