Dak Prescott media controversy a case study in our 2020 stupid media culture
Never read him. Never watched him. Never heard him.
The problem is I am in the minority, and by now you know of whom I write without mentioning the name.
This week, a former DFW sports columnist who now has a talk show on Fox Sports 1 said something offensive about Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott, and those dealing with depression.
Don’t bother with the rest of the specifics. They’re not worth hearing for the first time, or rehashing for a second or third.
The comments were not stupid. They were unbelievable.
I debated whether to even opine on this, because all it does is to serve as another link to a “story” that should not exist.
We’re not talking about a game. We’re not even talkin’ ‘bout practice.
We’re talking about what a sports commentator accused a football player of lacking. That passes for content in 2020, but it’s consistent with our current media culture.
The names are different but they are one: Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, Clay Travis, Jason Whitlock, Don Lemon, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and a few others.
They long ago stopped being journalists and instead are the story. They all now make so much money they simply no longer care about anything other than sustaining their quality of life, and signing a new three-year contract.
Theirs is not a good living. It’s a 2 percent living.
These people are talented in their own respective ways, and are essentially actors masquerading as journalists; they exist because people cannot turn away even as they revile what comes out of their mouths.
Their mission is simple: Create enough content to get to the commercial break on time, and to be talked about. It’s harder than it sounds.
Playing the role of the villain in electronic media, if you can get there and then stomach consequences, can be six to seven-figure lucrative.
If you turned them off, so would their respective employers, and or advertisers. Those companies have no incentive to remove these voices.
Maybe if enough advertisers stop buying air time during these shows the network in charge will change course, but that seldom happens. What typically happens is the person in charge can no longer stand the person’s behavior off the camera, and then they’re done, off to another platform.
As I scrolled social media on Thursday, there were thousands of angry posts directed at the mouth in question. All expressing offense, outrage and disdain.
The next morning, there was the host, offering a non-apology that only served to do what he needs, which is to create more content and a reason for you to pay attention to the show, himself, and the network.
He no more meant the apology than he did the original accusation.
The more you pay attention, the more relevant the person is, and the more they are worth on their next contract.
Relevance is currency. Accuracy and decency are for suckers and losers.
The consumer can’t tell the difference. They only know what is on TV; if it’s on TV, the consumer will believe anything.
You may have noticed that the employer issued a statement condemning the remarks made by their well-paid host, but mentioned no punishment.
There is only one punishment: Cash.
Take away the money, and the behavior alters.
The network only cares that you watch, and talk, about their network.
You do. In large quantities because, on “stories” like this, we’re just being played for suckers.
