The Danger Of Getting Up On Your High Horse

facebooktwitterreddit

ProFootballTalk is a good site for rumors and ESPN-bashing, and is generally a nice snarky antidote to a lot of the super-serious NFL reporting around. Unfortunately, the folks over there have a tendency to get up on their high horse a lot – and lately they’ve been doing so at the expense of the Vikings, specifically owner Zygi Wilf, whom they’ve characterized as an insensitively crass opportunist, and coach Brad Childress whom they’ve painted as a lying hypocrite.

The first attack came a couple of weeks ago, in the wake of the terrible bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Naturally, Zygi Wilf, being a member of the community, felt the need to make a statement. This is what Zygi said according to PFT’s initial report:

"We all understand that there has to be a focus on the infrastructure, that we have to dedicate ourselves to make transportation a priority for the sake of safety and for the sake of a growing community that needs transportation infrastructure that will move us into the 21st century. That does not exclude the fact that we understand that the Metrodome is also one of the oldest facilities in the league, and we want to make sure that we have a facility that meets the standards of the 21st century."

The above came from an AP article via ESPN. In PFT’s initial posting on it, called “Wilf’s Words Might Have Sealed Vikings Fate”, they suggested that Zygi had said something incredibly insensitive and self-serving – and went on to predict that the Vikings owner would get lambasted in the Minnesota media for using the tragedy as a means of bringing up the stadium issue. When I read this, I was immediately reminded of the Bill Clinton sex scandal – the way the media seemed shocked that the country wasn’t responding with what they thought was sufficient outrage at the fact that their president had received sexual favors in the White House. Who are these PFT folks, I said to myself, to decide for the people of Minnesota how they should or should not react to Wilf’s comments? It seemed rather brazen and self-important of them – just as it was for Tim Russert and others in the press to scold the American public for not reacting in what they thought was an appropriate fashion to Clinton’s transgressions.

But this wasn’t the end of the story. Not long after, PFT was forced to print a kind of retraction – they admitted in a post called “Report On Wilf Words Creates Different Impressions” that the Wilf comment had been taken almost entirely out of context first by AP and then by themselves. They at least had the courtesy to admit that Zygi had, in fact, demonstrated proper prudence and compassion in his remarks about the collapse, citing a Star-Tribune article that gave more than just the AP quotes. PFT had this to say in closing:

"In all, it’s just another example of how those who report the news have the power to shape opinion based on the manner in which the news is reported. The Star Tribune story and the AP story created two sharply different images of Wilf, and we’ll assume going forward that the Star Tribune article captures his reaction to this situation more accurately."

Those who report the news may try to shape opinion – as those self-righteous reporters did during the Clinton mess – but it’s up to news consumers to decide if they agree with those opinions. The fact is that PFT, seeing a chance to play gotcha, grabbed a remark that seemed out-of-line, and used it as an excuse to disperse a lot of righteous hot-air. What they didn’t say in their semi-retraction was that, because their first instinct is to try to nail people, and thereby make themselves look morally upstanding, they have a tendency to ignore journalistic prudence. Had they been acting responsibly, they would’ve realized how silly it would be for a man like Wilf to expose himself to criticism so foolishly, and assumed there had to be more to his remarks – which of course there was. Their eagerness to make Wilf look bad – and themselves good – trumped any news-sense they might possess. In essence, they behaved as opportunistically as they accused Wilf of behaving.

Such is the danger of climbing on your high horse – that you will over-reach in your attempt to create villains you can then publicly slay. PFT did this by trying to paint Wilf as a crass and uncompassionate man (I’ll stop short of crying anti-Semitism, even though the PFT portrait of Wilf does play into certain ancient Jewish stereotypes). And now they’re doing it again – only this time they’re aiming a little lower; they’re only calling Brad Childress a hypocrite and not an evil exploiter of human tragedy.

The latest trumped-up PFT controversy has arisen over the Vikings’ signing of Fred Evans, a back-up DT who was cut this summer by the Dolphins after a pair of run-ins with the law. The PFT folks have decided that, since Brad Childress portrayed himself as a character-first guy in the wake of the Love Boat fiasco, he should be branded a hypocrite for turning around and signing a player who faces legal action in two states not to mention a certain league-imposed suspension. Granted, on the surface it does look bad for Chilly – he did pledge to make character an issue in signing players, and Evans would certainly qualify as a guy whose character is in question. However, PFT has once again made a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to impugn the integrity of a Viking. PFT says the following:

"“It doesn’t mean character’s not important,” Childress said. “It’s very important to me and to this football team. I think we’ve got a good group in the locker room, and I think he’ll benefit from being in this situation.”But couldn’t that same reasoning apply to any player with a history of bad conduct? Under this theory, would the Vikings open their doors to Pacman Jones? Or to Chris Henry? Or Jared Allen? Or Mike Vick?Heck, if the team is willing to ink Evans when he’s facing a near-certain suspension for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy, why not sign Tank Johnson?This development suggests to us that Childress feels the noose tightening on his tenure with the team, and that another poor showing could get him canned. Thus, like Jon Gruden in Tampa, Childress is more willing to take a risk on a guy who might embarrass the franchise after the current head coach becomes the former head coach."

This bit of PFT gotcha-ism is frankly even more embarrassing and silly than the Wilf fiasco. In that case they were guilty of merely being sloppy – this time they’ve put the effort in, but still managed to arrive at a conclusion that defies reason. Here’s the fact they seem to have missed – that Fred Evans will hardly ever play.

The Vikings have a couple of guys at DT, I don’t know if you’ve heard of them – Pat Williams and Kevin Williams? They’re the starters. And their third DT, who will get the bulk of the work behind those two, is a guy named Spencer Johnson who ain’t too shabby. Fred Evans is, at best, being brought in to spell Kevin Williams for a few plays a game – and yet, somehow, the fact that Brad Childress is willing to sign him in spite of his issues shows that Childress is desperately afraid of losing his job. This, my friends, is pure bunk. The Vikings’ signing of Fred Evans is a no-risk venture for them and Childress – because, if Fred does screw up again, all they have to do is cut him. There is no danger whatsoever that Fred is going to mess up the team’s chemistry, or represent some danger to the franchise’s reputation – he’s just not a prominent enough player for that. Besides, Childress makes it pretty clear in his remarks that he’s checked Fred out and feels he’s put his mistakes behind him. Said Childress:

"He’s a guy that made a mistake and is paying for it. … But somewhere you make a decision based on what you say and what you know and people you talk to in this business. I think I’ve talked to as many people about this guy as anybody."

Yes, I know, that’s the usual kind of crap coaches throw out there when they’re trying to justify bringing in a guy who’s had problems. If Fred Evans were a major player, a guy the Vikings were counting on to play a big role on the team, I would be right there with PFT in questioning whether Childress was sacrificing his alleged principles in the name of adding necessary talent to the roster. But come on PFT – you can’t go after Childress for flushing his character-first statements over the signing of a freaking back-up defensive tackle. Again, PFT has blown a situation out of proportion in an effort to make themselves look like a crusading site. It’s unlikely that anyone in Minnesota, except maybe the most ardently anti-Childress people, will make much at all of the Evans signing. They will see it for what it is – a minor move by a team looking to add depth.

Besides, what did Fred Evans really do? He smoked pot and got in a little scuffle with police. Yes, it looks bad that he did the second while on probation for the first, but I give Brad Childress credit for being able to look past the arrest record to the man himself. If PFT had their way, there would be no such thing as probation or parole – anyone who stepped out of line would immediately be flushed into the nearest sewer, never to be heard from again. Thankfully, there are some in the world who think it matters to look at the specific variables of a situation rather than make blanket moral pronouncements. That argument that the signing of Evans means the Vikings should be equally amenable to signing Michael Vick or Pacman Jones (why not just throw Rae Carruth in there too?) holds no water, because obviously, each of those situations is different. The PFT people are apparently more absolutist than that – to them you’re either an immaculately good person or a criminal who deserves to be sent to Gulag. And, if they can’t find anything real against you, they’re perfectly willing to take some remark of yours out of context, or blow some decision you make out of proportion, in an effort to vilify you.

I’m just glad the writers of PFT don’t run the country – cause if they did there’d be a Gestapo agent on every street corner, and jay-walking would probably get you guillotined.