Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This argument would work if not for all the ESPN employees supporting the NFL, NBA, and NHL lockouts in the last decades.
the majority sided with the players which was the ultimate boycott.
Lockout isn't even remotely the same thing as an advertiser boycott. It targets a completely different section of the corporate "food chain".
In the former, the NFL and the players are hurt....but not advertisers and thus not ESPN.
In the latter, the call for boycott would hurt the advertisers which are arguably the sole source of ESPN revenue (or close to it) who would then reflect on gee...wasn't it an ESPN employee that told people not to buy our products?
I miss the good old days when MTV played music videos and ESPN showed games and scores. The days when a person got their opinions from Meet The Press, not late night talk shows.
Thats not true. It happened while the lockout was going on
The first paragraph in that article said that ESPN decided not to match the offer. AKA, outbid. It actually occurred after the lockout if that article is acurate.
Quote:
because support by former players to keep the lockouts going hurt the bottom line.
Like who? Ex-players saying they understand why current players haven't signed the proposed CBA is not the same as advocating for the lockout to continue or a boycott to ensue . You need to show at least one person that did this.
Quote:
But now that promo work is worthless for how they were going to use it.
What?
Quote:
Im so sorry that I cant remember who specifically out of 300 on air personality supported what side in a dispute that happened 5+ years ago.
I like sports, but im not such a big fan that a dedicate memory to that subject.
Then your argument is invalid because your premise doesn't exist.
ESPN is a private entity and can and does set their HR policies according to their own interests and rationales. If Hill ran afoul of those policies, then so be it. She doesn't have an inherent right to a job with ESPN, and I am sure the policies in effect at ESPN adequately cover them from reprisal should she seek it.
If an employee of any company not connected with the media went on social media and did something that gave that company negative PR, they'd be reprimanded, suspended and/or fired. That's life in the world of social media. Jamelle Hill pushes an envelope that others already have, and she is only getting cover because of the current cultural narrative. They have let more than person go, be suspended or reprimanded for comments made on social or other media. Linda Cohn, Britt McHenry, Colin Cowherd, Curt Schilling, jason Whitlock, Tony Kornheiser, etc. Hill is nothing special, she is just getting cultural narrative cover because she is a black female whose controversial statements bash Trump, white people, etc which is apparently considered culturally acceptable.
I miss the good old days when MTV played music videos and ESPN showed games and scores. The days when a person got their opinions from Meet The Press, not late night talk shows.
Today's American left is determined to ruin everything anyone enjoys. These people can't even understand which bathroom to use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
<Sigh> 
