Is The Left Taking Over Sports Coverage, Too?

That’s the question posed by The Daily Caller’s Matt K. Lewis

Are liberals taking over coverage, too? Increasingly, that’s the way it feels. And it’s not just because Keith Olbermann is back at ESPN.

In just the last year or so, sports has been dominated by stories about NBA player Jason Collins coming out as gay, the Miami Dolphins “bullying” scandal, debates over whether or not “Redskins” is a racial slur (with some outlets refusing to even use the name), and worries over the NFL’s “concussion crisis.” (snip)

The increased politicization of sports was probably the first sign. More and more, it seems, the behind-the-scenes soap opera has overshadowed what’s happening between the lines. (snip)

And if conservatives are upset about this, it may be because this is all they have left. Progressives have long owned Hollywood, and (except maybe for Nashville) most of the popular music industry. Sports were perhaps the bastion for conservative entertainment — the final refuge for the patriotic, beer-guzzling, macho male who just wants to forget about his day job and watch a game — without hearing a lecture. Those days may be over.

It would certainly make sense. The problem for Conservatives is that Progressives have already taken over Hollywood, TV, the Lawyers guild, doctors guild, the education system, the unions, the news media, and government bureaucracies. Sure, not everyone in those industries are lefties, but certainly the leadership, which drives the sectors, are far left people. This was not something that just happened overnight, but a long, sustained campaign. Now they want sports coverage. Next, sports.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Is The Left Taking Over Sports Coverage, Too?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    You far righties have staked out some nice territory. Anti-gay, pro-head trauma, pro-bullying, pro-slur!

    Matt K. Lewis may have written history’s dumbest essay.

    What did he find? Four or five examples from the thousands of sporting events annually. He found a story about a gay basketball player, the Redskins, a bizarre story of NFL bullying and a medical story about the incidence of concussions in the NFL.

    Please explain how these are evidence of a liberal trend. First explain how these incidents are evidence of liberalism.

  2. […] try turning on music with the TV muted and pretend you’re watching in a bar. But even then, as William Teach points out, they might still ruin your Sundays.Now they want sports coverage. Next, sports.Just the other day […]

  3. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    I agree and have felt this way for last decade. When Olbermann and Costas can have such a stage over and over again, you know liberalism has seized sports.

    You think we are pro-head injury J? What we are for are sensible rules. The rule is for top of crown hits. But the rule is being applied to any head to head area hit. The college “targeting” rule is being applied willy nilly, and while most calls are reversed the penalty is not. And yet, the rules are forcing more players to target knees or to put themselves in more danger.

    Also, the NCAA has hardly any head-injury protection scheme in place except for the in-game “targeting” rule. We want NCAA more accountable, colleges more accountable during practice and during the game, not necessarily during a single play.

    As for the bullying? Welcome to the NFL. And from reports from Miami, the “slurs” and hate went both directions. But, there is still more details that need to come out before we can know who is really at fault. I do find it interesting that Martin’s “female partner” is a anti-bullying advocate.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Gumballs,

    But why are concussions considered a liberal or conservative issue?

  5. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    They aren’t. You made it that way with your statement:

    You far righties have staked out some nice territory. Anti-gay, pro-head trauma, pro-bullying, pro-slur!

  6. gitarcarver says:

    The issue isn’t an NBA player being gay. It was a big deal to leftists who want to divide people into groups. Conservatives don’t care legally whether a person is gay or not.

    The issue isn’t the name of the Redskins, but rather that the name that was given as part of a tribute to the fighting spirit of Indians needed to be changed because some people were “offended.”

    The issue with the Dolphins isn’t the interaction between Martin and Incognito, but that instead of standing up for himself or talking to coaches, Martin abandoned his teammates. He did exactly what liberals want – dependence on others rather than self reliance.

    (Also, there is mounting evidence that not standing up or not sticking up for others against a bully but running to someone as leftists want is actually more harmful and leads to more bullying.)

    The issue with concussions isn’t the concussions themselves, but the way the concussion issue was handled. The league wanted to institute new concussion rules, but the NFLPA prevented that. Who would have ever guessed that a union wasn’t looking out for their members, but was more interested in keeping power for themselves. (Also, it should be remembered that there were cries from the media that Congress should step in and make the rules. Once again, only the government can make things better in the eyes of leftists.)

  7. Deserttrek says:

    not anti gay, just tired of having to hear about it all the time. i don’t care who you sleep with, keep it to yourself.

    head trauma, this is from the same libs who think all males have adhd

    pro slur, redskins in=s not a slur .. your existence is a slur

  8. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    OT:
    now that the sex of a preferred partner is now a protection under employment law, how about the sexual preferences of the employee??

    If one practices sadism, hedonism, self-mutilation and one works for a religious organization, should they be protected from firing?? What if they started practicing animal sex and posting it on facebook?

    People can be fired for saying bad things about a boss (apple, hp, and marines), so does this mean that if a sexual deviancy is now protected, does that mean finally the free expression of speech can be?

Bad Behavior has blocked 7702 access attempts in the last 7 days.