Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Before commentator Rush Limbaugh’s revelation that he is addicted to painkillers blurs his comments about the media favoring Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, there is an angle on the McNabb comments that might serve a useful purpose. In my view, they illustrate in a high profile way the often subtle reflections of racism that creep into broadcast sports coverage.
Speaking on the ESPN sports network’s “Sunday NFL Countdown” almost three weeks ago, Limbaugh said that McNabb received undue credit for his team’s success because “the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.”
Limbaugh’s comments generated considerable controversy at the time over the presence or absence of racism. The flap led quickly to his resignation from ESPN, even though the network staffers who host the show equivocated on whether the remarks were racist, and Limbaugh denied that race had anything to do with it. On his radio show, he said, “There’s no racism here … no racist intent whatsoever.”
Without rushing to judgment (pun intended), I suggest that the comments are racist by definition because Limbaugh based his assessment of McNabb and the media exclusively on McNabb’s race.
If Limbaugh had said the media exaggerated the abilities of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Steve Young because the media was anxious for a left-handed quarterback to succeed, wouldn’t that be a comment based on Young’s left-handedness? Of course it would.
My original point was that if there is a positive side to the Limbaugh-McNabb incident, it is that the incident might drag more subtle forms of racism in sports broadcasts toward the spotlight of public awareness.
As a former daily journalist and current professor of mass communication, I have perceived for some time that broadcast sports announcers often describe African-American athletes in ways different from their descriptions of athletes of other races.
Early in the current college football season, while watching the text scroll across a football game on a silenced restaurant television, I noticed than an announcer had referred to an African-American athlete as a “physical specimen.”
I was not surprised. I have heard that term used a number of times. What surprised me was the follow-up reference to the same athlete as a “raw stud.”
I thought about keeping track of these references in a systematic way, but it was only when a faculty colleague gave me the term “log” that I had the concept I needed. I began my log the following weekend. While watching and listening to several football games on Saturday and Sunday, September 20-21, I noted these descriptions of African-American athletes.
On ESPN’s “College Game Day” show, a former football coach who is an ESPN announcer described Florida State University’s number 8 as “a great physical specimen.”
During the Georgia versus Louisiana State University football game, the Georgia radio announcer described a Georgia player’s 93-yard touchdown run on a short pass by saying “… he ran like a rabbit on that one.”
On Sunday, when the professionals do battle, a San Francisco 49ers linebacker made an acrobatic pass interception. The announcer said “… he’s … what is the word … supple. He can bend in all directions. (Former all-pro linebacker) Lawrence Taylor was like that. He could bend in all directions like rubber.”
In describing a Caucasian player’s equally impressive pass reception, the announcer said, “He had to stretch for that.” There was no comparison of the player to a rubber band.
Over time, my log may document what I believe I have been hearing for years: comments that describe African-American athletes in more physical terms than their counterparts, including comparisons to animals such as racehorses and jackrabbits.
For example, one of the ESPN announcers covering the West Virginia University versus Miami game described Miami’s number 84 as “big as a bull … strong as an ox.”
If we think these are complimentary references to strength and speed, I suggest we reconsider in terms of Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Donovan McNabb. The common element in all these comments is race.
According to my colleague, who teaches English literature, “The problem with such language is that it reproduces and naturalizes some old assumptions about the fundamental differences between black and white people.”
She drew the bottom line: “Language that animalizes black athletes and emphasizes ‘natural ability’ over intellectual capacity draws on the very assumptions that were used to justify slavery – that white people should occupy a position of political and economic superiority because they were intellectually superior, and black people deserved their position because they were little more than animals.”
Regardless of innocence of intent, the media effect is to suggest to audiences of millions that people of color are somehow more “brutish” than their counterparts of other races – a perception contrary to the discourse and reality of our society. Announcers and listeners alike should be wary of perpetuating such stereotypes.

David W. Johnson is a temporary assistant professor of mass communication at Georgia College & State University. He is the adviser to The Colonnade.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Oct 31 2003. Filed under Letters to the Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry