An Open Letter To ESPN, SportsNation, & Michelle Beadle

Dear ESPN, SportsNation, & Michelle Beadle:

Today I found myself involved in a war of words on Twitter. The topic at hand; my utter frustration with ESPN anchor, Michelle Beadle regarding her tweets/comments about Michael Vick. Beadle has made it perfectly clear that, under no circumstances, will she ever find herself rooting for Vick again because of his involvement in the dog-fighting ring. As an owner of three cats I can appreciate someone's genuine abhorrence for this type of behavior. My problem is not with her hatred for these types of activities but, rather, the inconsistency with which she applies this hatred.

I made the following comment on Twitter pertaining to the aforementioned paragraph:

I really wish that @ESPN_Michelle spent as much time complaining about Stallworth, who killed a MAN and is still playing, as she does Vick.

This comment was circulated around Twitter and I eventually found myself replying to an assortment of responses regarding the comment. Some were positive while other were negative. Not that I am shocked by this in the slightest, however.

For those who are unaware of what my comment meant, I shall explain. Donte Stallworth drove drunk one night, hit a man, and killed him. As his punishment, Stallworth was convicted of DUI Manslaughter and sentenced to 30 days in jail, 2 years of house arrest, 1,000 hours of community service, and 8 years probation. Michael Vick, on the other hand, was convicted of running a dog-fighting ring, hanging, drowning, and electrocuting dogs, and received 23 months in federal prison.

I'm not here to debate the sentencing of either individual. My malcontent lies with the on-air and twitter comments of Michelle Beadle. She has consistently found a way to remind the general public of what Vick did in the past. Despite the fact that Vick has, otherwise, turned his life around and become a reformed citizen, Beadle continuously displays her dislike for Vick every time his name is mentioned.

In response to my tweet, Beadle replied with the following gem:

ESPN_Michelle

Lemme know when Donte is a relevant topic today! Vick is everywhere...this is how tv works

I guess that Donte needs to be front-page and center for people to be reminded that he killed a man. He's allowed to play in the league, attention free of his crimes, as long as he's not one of the best players on the field. Beadle will post pictures of the mangled dogs from Vick's estate to remind people of what he did, but she will make no mention of the man that Stallworth ran down while drunk.

Ben Roethlisberger is presently the starting quarterback for the 10-3 Pittsburgh Steelers. He's leading the pack for one of the premier teams in the NFL, yet his multiple rape accusations are barely mentioned 1/8th as much as Vick's dog-fighting history.

Beadle apparently believes that if you're not front and center in the sports world, then your actions don't deserved to mentioned in the same breath as famous athletes. After trying to point this out to her over and over, I was finally blocked. I guess she was unable to handle someone, intelligently, pointing out to her that her agenda-based reporting was getting real old. From what I understand, she blocked the majority of people who disagreed with her stance on Stallworth being mentioned or Vick being able to own a dog.

Here are a couple of DM's that Michelle Beadle sent to people during the course of yesterday's campaign against her.

"I am an animal lover. Dogs tend to be better people than a lot of folks."

"Ha! Lemme know how you and your 132 followers do! Meanwhile I can send you the 1000's of emails and messages I have in support."

Congratulations ESPN, you've hired an anchor who tells people via the internet that she believes that animals are better people than a lot of people out there, and whose best response in an intelligent debate is "I have more followers than you." If this is the kind of intelligence you're hiring I, for one, do not feel bad about limiting the amount of ESPN programming I will be watching in the future.

Perhaps it would be wise to encourage your employees to not own a Twitter account if they cannot handle the criticism that they're going to receive for the open comments they make on the internet. More to the point, what is the point of sending secret messages to people who disagree with you, Michelle, if you're just going to block them? Do you realize how childish that is? It's like the petulant teenager that has to have the last word over the phone, so he says something snarky and hangs up.

Michelle Beadle is what is wrong with sports journalism today. She offers too much of her opinion on subjects and not enough objective bias. Regarding America's opinion regarding Michael Vick should be able to own another dog, Beadle said she was "embarrassed."

Michelle, we don't need you to be embarrassed for us. The majority of us are grown adults who have made mistakes in life and recognize the value of being forgiven, as well as, forgiving others. It is our right to say that we think Vick should be given a second chance at animal ownership. More importantly, Michelle, your political-based agenda has forgotten something in all of this; it is Vick's children that wish to own a dog. What would you have his children do, live their entire childhood without the ability to own a dog because of his crimes? I wasn't aware that we, as Americans, were still in the business of punishing our children for the sins of the father.

I am not the only one who feels this way. The CEO of the Humane Society believes that Vick should be able to own another dog in the future. He does not believe that he should own one until his probation is complete, but even he believes that Vick should be afforded another chance at owning a pet. Here is a link of his statement regarding Vick and future pet ownership:

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/12/michael-vick-pet.html

I'm led to believe that the CEO of the Humane Society is in a better position to make an assertion as to Vick's ability to care for a pet than an anchor for SportsNation. If the CEO of the Humane Society and 70% of America believe that Vick should be afforded another opportunity then who are you, Michelle Beadle, to feel "embarrassed?"

The only embarrassing thing I can find in this entire situation is the number of Twitter users that you blocked because they disagreed with your opinion. You mentioned that you couldn't handle the "disrespectful" users; well please, Michelle, point out once instance my disrespect for you prior to you blocking me. If you wish to take my comment of "the people who agree with me are Ph.D.'s, J.D.'s and other academics. You know, people who can think for themselves," as disrespectful, then I suggest you find a new line of work. My comments were leaps and bounds more respectful and logically structured than others I saw directed at you yesterday.

Maybe it was my comment that you were using Strawman arguments that upset you. Having taken law classes, I am sure you know what a Strawman argument entails. I'll remind you, in case. That's when you take the weakest point of an individual's argument and use it as the crux of your argument. Pointing out that I had fewer followers than you and, therefore, not as many people could POSSIBLY agree with me as your "1000's of followers" is a Strawman argument.

You mention that Stallworth is not relevant and should not, therefore, be discussed. I wasn't aware that an individual's current relevancy dictated how sports media should paint them. Before Vick even had his break-out season, you have been cutting him down and reminding individuals of what he did repeatedly. You've not shared this same enthusiasm for Stallworth's reinstatement, Big Ben's leadership of a 1st place team, or a litany of other athlete-related instances. Why aren't you constantly posting pictures of Tiger's mistresses on Twitter? Where's the pictures of Mario Reyes' family?

America has spoken, Michelle Beadle, they want you to stop your verbal tirades and Twitter campaigns against Vick. If you have thousands of emails of people agreeing with you regarding this subject, that is the forum you should use to address this topic. You should not be using ESPN as a platform to push your political agenda regarding animal rights. We, as viewers, tune in to ESPN to get sporting news. If I wanted to hear a political campaign against Michael Vick, I would attend a PETA rally.

I will never tune in to SportsNation or, for that matter, any show that Michelle Beadle is a part of, again. I encourage ESPN to put an end to the seeming endless tirades of, one, Michelle Beadle against Michael Vick. If they need further evidence that America is tired of her political/personal stance on this issue, they need only ask her to submit her Twitter user name and password to the company. Since she uses ESPN in her username, it is property of the company.

People are tired of it, ESPN, and I encourage you to do something about it. Since I am sure this letter will fall on deaf ears, I am going to circulate it via the internet and let it takes its natural course. I have always been proud of the fact that I could count on ESPN to provide agenda-free sports reporting. That seems to have fallen by the wayside lately. Just because you're the "worldwide leader in sports," does not mean you need to give your employees a platform for them to disseminate personal and political laundry. Michelle Beadle ought to be ashamed of herself for her comments and her petulant responses via Twitter to your loyal viewers. Allow this to continue, ESPN, and I'm sure that you'll find people will stop tuning in all together. Then again, maybe the cancellation of SportsNation which would, thusly, eliminate Beadle's ability to spew her unreasoning discontent toward Vick might not be such a bad idea after all.

Sincerely,

Josh AKA @ASinForHer

Josh vs. The Boston Red Sox

Within the past two day, the Boston Red Sox traded for Adrian Gonzalez and acquired Carl Crawford via free agency. Now, this might not seem like a big deal outside of acquiring two the biggest names available in free agency this off-season, but something very weird did, indeed, take place. The Red Sox, for all of the money they actually have to spend, are notoriously frugal. They, instead, opt to acquire one big name and develop the rest of their talent within their farm system.

There's nothing wrong with this, of course. They have won two World Series titles in the past 6 years using this strategy. It has, however, caused some unrest among fans who know that the money is there, but that it's not being spent. What's the point in having one of the largest payrolls in Major League Baseball if you're not going to utilize the money available? All of this changed during this off-season.

Crawford and Gonzalez will have the distinction of becoming the first two Red Sox players in history to earn more than $20 million dollars annually. Additionally, the Red Sox are known for avoiding long-term deals and, instead, opting to stay around the 5 year mark. I can't recall off the top of my head when, if ever, the Red Sox have offered two 7 year contracts in the same off-season. Nevermind the fact that these were two 7 year deals worth more than $140 million a piece.

Someone in the Red Sox front office hit a wall. They decided it was time to spend. Maybe they figured it was time to assemble an all-star line-up like their arch-rivals the Yankees do. I'm sure that more will come out about their reasons as the off-season progresses. The biggest thing that I can stress about their recent acquisitions is that it doesn't matter why they did it; they had to do it.

Even with the 2 World Series titles in the past decade, Red Sox fans still feel/felt like second-class citizens to Yankees. The Yankees front office has never had a problem issuing blank checks to prized free agents. They do it to beat the Red Sox and to make themselves the odds-on favorites to win the World Series every year. They do it because their fans demand nothing but the best. As a matter of fact, they do it because they, themselves, demand nothing but excellence.

Traditionally, the worst part of our season was watching our beloved Red Sox fall short of, yet another, World Series. I am not going list off the numerous ways that the Red Sox have managed to blow opportunities. In part because there's too many to list, but mostly because a winning tradition has been established in Boston. The Red Sox first World Series title in 86 years came the only way that it could have come; down 0-3 to the Yankees in the ALCS with Rivera warming up to close out the series. They subsequently swept the Cardinals in the World Series and gave us fans what we were dying for; a championship.

A mere three years later the Red Sox, once again, secured another championship. This time the Colorado Rockies fell victim to the Boys from Beantown. The Red Sox faced a 3-1 deficit against the Cleveland Indians in the ALCS before rattling off 3 straight wins to win the AL pennant. Once again the Red Sox faced adversity and prevailed. Fans had seen their beloved team appear to be down and out two different times in the ALCS and, both times, the Sox triumphed. This was a different machine than fans were used to seeing.

In retrospect, this may have been the worst things the Red Sox could have done. We, as fans, have now become spoiled. We were used to success. We believed that we should win and we KNEW that we could. We had stared down our demons and came out the other side laughing. We were no longer the red-headed stepchild of the AL East.

Then something happened that changed the landscape of being a Red Sox fan. Actually, the worst thing started happening; the Yankees began winning again. The Red Sox failed to acquire Teixeira or Sabathia and they couldn't keep Jason Bay. Red Sox fans began to start to wonder if we were going to start spending the money to beat the Yankees or if we would just have to rest on the laurels of the past while New York resumed their winning ways. Things were not sitting well in Red Sox nation. Injuries and lack of production resulted in a less than stellar 2009 season. It was clear that new talent needed to be added, but would Henry and Epstein go out and spend the money?

The answer to this question came rather quickly. They went out and acquired two All-Star position players and spared no expense doing so. Third place in the AL East was no longer an acceptable result. Seeing the Yankees spend top dollar to acquire the biggest names in baseball while their fans watched aging talent decline, high-paid talent fail to deliver, and acquired talent leave for greener pastures would no longer suffice.

It was time to add the talent that fans were attending sold-out game after sold-out game to see win. It was time to add the talent that would allow them to escape the shadow of their rival. The Yankees are seeking championship number 28 and Boston is seeking number 8. Only two of those titles have come since 1918. The Red Sox needed to answer the bell and they did.

Why? Because winning was the worst and best thing that they could have done as an organization. Once the Red Sox tasted victory they realized that defeat would be met with disdain. Simply competing would no longer do; they have to win. The biggest problem with being a marquee franchise that finally starts winning is that you're expected to keep winning. Boston fans have become spoiled in this regard. 3 Super Bowl championships from the Patriots, an NBA Championship and another appearance from the Celtics, and two World Series Championships from the Red Sox.

The winning way has been established in Boston and the time to spend finally came.