Brent Musburger Does NOT Deserve the Julia Gillard Reproach!

on being offendedPro said “… Gillard groping the POTUS and clearly wanting some "sexy time" with our man in office. I'm left wondering if they got a hotel room. What about Michelle? ” My opponent thinks that crassness will help him win this debate. I can think of two reasons why he might be trying this:1. By dragging the tone of the debate down to such a vulgar level, Pro hopes to make Musburger’s comments seem mild in comparison. 2. By bombarding voters’ sensibilities, Pro hopes that, exhausted, they will say, “oh who cares? Can’t we just move on? ” from which point he hopes to lead them to his “let it be” point of view. Of course, if Musburger had made his comments in a social situation, they would go unremarked. A slight pause in the conversation, a covert exchange of glances, perhaps, would have been the only response. But he wasn’t talking privately. He was broadcasting to an audience of several million people [1]. Not only that, but as a sportscaster, he was interpreting the game for the audience. He was, as sports and society expert Ragnar Rahl puts it, letting “people…know when they should be excited. ” [2] By people, read minors. Musburger actually calls on minors specifically during his comments, and lets them know that they can “get” a beautiful woman if they’re good enough at football. What terrible advice. Meanwhile, those boys’ teachers and parents are trying to explain that, actually, it’s best to treat girls as human beings, with respect. “Why not listen to them, and try and be friends with them? ” these legitimate caregivers are probably saying. In vain. Because on TV, a man with experience, a man they look up to, is saying the opposite. Women – particularly beautiful women – are the spoils of sporting success, is the Musburger message. Yes, I am offended by Musburger’s comments. I had hoped that by using Musburger's words in a different context (applied to the POTUS) Pro might be able appreciate how inappropriate they are. After all, objectifying women is so common in our society that people don't always even notice it. However, unfortunately, Pro seemed to respond more to the (very mild) raunchiness of the pictures than the impropriety of the text. Pro said "one can appropriately use the word "beautiful" to describe family members INCLUDING YOUR OWN GRANDDAUGHTER. "This is disingenuous. You may be able to say "beautiful" about your own granddaughter, but it is not appropriate to say "What a beautiful woman! Whoa! " with such grunt. on the wording of the resolutionPro is quite correct in saying that there was a negotiation process relating to the wording of his introduction. It was up to him whether or not he included any of my suggestions and indeed he rejected most of them. Frankly, I am astonished that he is not accepting responsibility for his own introduction. I do not find sexist or crude comments from Pro surprising, because they are consistent with what I know of him. I do not find a certain lack of sympathy and sensitivity for feminist ideals surprising. However, he has always seemed like someone who would stand by his own words and decisions, so this really does astonish me. on the Gillard speechThe Peter Slipper affair was a bad loss for Gillard. The independants may have voted for her in a face-saving deal, but behind the scenes they were arranging for Slipper's resignation. Gillard lost a voting member in a hung parliament. The "Gillard Reproach" was really an empty speech where she got to express her indignation on the opposition leader's behavior. She gained no concessions, no apologies, and no material benefit. Listening to a woman speak her mind is not equivalent to being torturedHow offensive Pro's comparison would be if it weren't utterly ludicrous. Listening to a woman speak is not punishment or torture. Pro is contradicting himself. In round 2, he recommends the Gillard speech, and describe it as "mesmerizing". Now, all of a sudden, on the back foot, he starts comparing it to the rack and the Spanish Inquisition. A weak and desperate argument. Musburger deserves to listen for 15 minutes while someone explains to him how his comments were offensive. As a sportscaster, he regularly speaks to millions of listeners, including children. It won't hurt him to understand the widespread, angry reaction his comments caused. This debate is not about punishing Musburger, labelling him, getting him to apologize, or even to change his ways. This debate is about whether or not he should briefly listen to the people he offended. Pro's only defense has been that Musburger is not in the wrong. That's Pro's opinion. Either way, Musburger should listen. He should take responsibility for his words. Musburger deserves the Gillard reproach. [1] college football game TV audiences range from 4-10 million . http://www.sportsmediawatch.com... [2] . http://www.debate.org...