So, not that long ago some on BMG took Martha Coakley to task for condemning the stupid and sexist remarks of a lackey on the Dennis and Callahan radio show. Somehow Coakley commenting on that meant she wasn’t paying attention to pressing important legal matters. She was being opportunistic, grandstanding, only saying this because she a woman candidate . . .whatever. The issue of how a professional woman working in her field and being denigrated because of her sex should not be commented on by a professional woman working in her field. How dare Coakley take public offense at a woman being called a “stupid bitch” because a man (who can’t get a TV job) didn’t like her interview technique.
Well it seems that others share Coakley’s view and are saying so. Keith Olbermann, who comments on more than just sports, was featured a a Boston Globe story:
Olbermann professes not to know who Minihane is, describing him as “a derelict of some kind who appears on a Boston radio car wreck called the Dennis & Callahan morning show, evidently to make hosts Gerry Callahan and John Dennis seem less psychotic.”
http://www.boston.com/sports/other/2014/07/24/keith-olbermann-joins-weei-host-erin-andrews-fun/NqNTZDnsN7PSzdkKCGl4EK/story.html
and then this:
Minihane again caused a stir yesterday when, upon returning to the show from vacation, he apologized for his comments but punctuated the apology by saying that if Andrews were “15 pounds heavier she’d be a waitress at Perkins.”
And today the news that NESN is NOT renewing the TV contract with the D&C show that will expire in September. And NESN issued the following statement:
NESN spokesman Gary Roy said the network’s policy is not to comment on personnel or programming matters. But earlier Thursday, he did provide a statement regarding NESN’s view on Minihane’s comments:
“NESN has absolutely no editorial control of WEEI’s Dennis & Callahan Morning Show, and completely disapproves of Mr. Minihane’s disparaging statements. Furthermore, we feel it’s unfortunate that his comments aired on our network.”There has been backlash elsewhere to the recent controversies. Fox Sports personnel have had internal discussions on the possibility of banning its talent from appearing on WEEI programming, or at the least “Dennis and Callahan.” Respected Fox Sports baseball writer Ken Rosenthal already has said he will no longer appear on D&C.
ESPN’s Keith Law, often a guest on Alex Speier’s excellent “Down on the Farm” weekend show and podcast, said during his chat on ESPN.com Wednesday he will no longer appear on WEEI programming.
“It’s a shame Alex has to work for an outfit that condones this combination of outright misogyny and demeaning personal attacks,’’ wrote Law.
http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2014/07/weeis_dennis_and_callahan_program_will_no_longer_air_on_nesn.html?p1=Topofpage:Carousel_sub_headline
I kinda like Martha Coakley’s priority on this one. And Minihane’s continued stupidity shows that Coakley was right not to leave him unchallenged.
I love the hypocrisy at work here:
Our policy is not to comment, unless we feel like it.
Minihane used some obnoxious language but Erin Andrews is a total hack hired to look good and say stupid things. It’s just a fact. And I can’t stand D & C.
…on BMG, that is.
The adults in the real world think otherwise.
Now we will have an end to income inequality, paid leave, pay equity , an end to homelessness, single layer, and no casinos which disproportionately prey on women…oh wait…none of those things are Martha’s priorities. She saved a hack journalist making six figures from getting called mean things by the shock jocks on Boston talk radio. That’s some Susan B Anthony stuff right there.
It starts with a sexist view of their abilities and worth as workers. Erin Andrews isn’t a poor reporter or an unskilled interviewer, she’s a “gutless bitch” according to Minihane. Pay equality? Coakley’s out there enforcing the wage and labor laws and now she’s shining a spotlight on one big reason women don’t earn the same as men – sexism.
As for “none of these are Martha’s priorities” I offer this from her website:
Martha Coakley stood up for a high profile woman being attacked by a bully. Being a shock jock isn’t a free pass. And by doing so she stood up for any woman whose discriminated or denigrated at work because of her sex, he weight, her looks.
BTW, I didn’t notice any of the other Gov candidates speaking out. Should I take that to mean sexist statements and sexism in the workplace are “priorities” for them?
If she has a strong feeling either way the bully pulpit could make a difference.
http://magov14.com/coakley-release-statement-of-martha-coakley-on-housing-migrant-children/
Unfortunately the media is more content focusing on talk radio than complex issues such as the need to address unaccompanied minors seeking safety. I’d love to see time spent with candidates really talking about this issue.
On a related note, as AG, Coakley’s wage and labor law enforcement division has a policy that any worker filing a complaint and seeking help receives services. Immigrantion status is never questioned. Undocumented workers, who are more likely to be subjected to wage fraud or outright non-payment of wages, are free to seek help with no fear of other legal issues.
So Martha Coakley squashed a sexist boor.
The other candidates were silent because they had the discernment to realize that this “issue” was a “1” or “2” on an importance scale of “10”.
Speaking of women being attacked by bullies, I would have been happier to see Ms. Coakley speak out about the cruel treatment of Tatiana Gruzdeva — “taken into custody and threatened with deportation after she chose to speak with reporters about [Ibrahim] Todashev”.
Then there’s always Annie Dookhan, who tainted thousand of prosecutions during her tenure. Authorities would have us believe that state prosecutors had no idea there was anything unusual going on — even though email complaints and reports from fellow employees had been going on for years. Where was Martha Coakley, “protector of women”, while Annie Dookhan was made the fall-gal for the scandal of an entire laboratory?
Unlike bashing a sexist boor, standing up for Tatiana Gruzdeva or Annie Dookhan required genuine courage — something Martha Coakley has never demonstrated.
By choosing to focus on this easy mark, Ms. Coakley trivialized the very real mistreatment suffered by women every day. It is especially hypocritical after she had so little to say about the bullying of so many women by the FBI and by Massachusetts authorities (Ms. Gruzdeva was not the only victim, and the marathon bombing investigation was not the only excuse).
I never listen to sport talk shows more than a second or two trying to find public radio on the road anyway…
anyway, but whenever I see an especially pretty woman or man or covering sports on local TV and sounding smart and informed I smile. So much more pleasant to watch.
I love the big beefy goofy former guys who do pre game comment too. What a world sports fans live in.
I bet you’re the type that still says you don’t own a television either? Am I the only one who remembers Martha taking a dump on Red Sox nation and losing the male vote by double digits to a stuffed shirt in a truck? Now, Baker’s athleticism is likely limited to picnic outings at Myopia, but this is the kind of symbolic misstep Coakley has made a trademark out of. Something that obscures her record on economic issues that favors corporations over working women and working families, while doing nothing to advance true equality and doing a lot to alienate her from the folks who decide elections.
Especially now that the corporate/guest boycotts of weei have begun, shaming D&C, as well as the network.
She was never going to win the misogynistic and/or D&C crowd anyway. But women + men who don’t like sexism is a pretty broad coalition that can win a race in this state any day of the week.
I know you’re not a big fan of Martha, but this was smart politics and – more importantly – the right thing to do. Public shame is one the best curative agents we have against sexism (and racism and homophobia, etc., as well).
…but I don’t think someone’s comments in a context where we can expect idiot comments rises to the level of gubernatorial race material. The original complainer, SomervilleTom, is concerned about her priorities because in his view she has not commented adequately on more significant issues that really are in her purview as AG and would be as Governor, but instead goes for this feel good moment that she ultimately can’t actually do much about.
She can and did make it an issue. And if you think every woman who has dealt with a sexist co-worker, boss or asshat on the street isn’t giving Coakley a thumbs up you’re missing the boat.
As any good politician does, AG Coakley took the opportunity to raiase an issue that cuts across every economic level. I keep hearing she isn’t a good campaigner, isn’t a good politician. She just iDed and issue and make it her own. Spotlight on sexism in the workplace.
It’s one of those issues where Martha really is passionate. She didn’t plan on making a news story, she just did.
Like Hillary — sorry but the comparison is fair, Bill endorsed Martha before the Senate primary — the issues she cares about most are women’s issues.
It seems that you argue that women don’t care about police brutality, NSA spying, or the relentless militarization of our police. It seems that you assert that women “are really passionate”, and vote from that passion. It seems that you assert that women are far more upset by sexist language from a talk show host than by the FBI office hiring a dishonest ex-cop (full disability?) with a long track record of brutality — and then ducking when that thug kills an unarmed witness with a dozen shots.
“Women’s issues”? Really? Is that really how we view women?
Count me out on that one.
“Is this how we view women?” Not even remotely what I said, and you know it.
Sorry I’m playing straw man for you. I don’t think I have to describe the long struggle for women’s equality, which continues.
You said “the issues she cares about most are women’s issues.”
This is a thread about getting a sexist maroon fired for making sexist comments. You seem to be saying that Ms. Coakley jumped on this because “the issues she cares most about are women’s issues” — ie, this is such an issue.
Is is “completely absurd” that I suggest that a uniformed thug, working for the FBI (after a miraculous recovery from the “disability” that pays him a generous pension from his former employer), who kills an unarmed witness is more important than this tempest in a teapot? Is it completely absurd that the empowered and aware women that I know are more threatened by out-of-control police than boorish talk show hosts?
The long struggle for women’s equality most certainly DOES continue. Outbursts like the one we are discussing here do not advance it. Nor do women candidates who trivialize women’s issues by grandstanding in this way.
So Ms. Coakley hit a batting-practice pitch out of the park. She has yet to take on any serious and contentious issue and show how to lead ALL of Massachusetts to an outcome that improves all of us.
There are women’s issues that are separate and distinct from issues like the NSA, which not enough women care about, just as not enough men care about them. The prevalence of the surveillance state does not eliminate all other issues (though it may, someday).
And frankly I don’t even know enough to say he’s a sexist. He doesn’t like Erin Andrews, clearly. I don’t like Ann Coulter, and in private have probably referred to her as a “b____” just like I’ve referred to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh with another vulgar derogatory term starting with “b” literally labeling them illegitimate children. Does mere usage of this gender-specific derogatory term mark one permanently with the scarlet “S”? Is this word the sexist equivalent of the notorious homophobic and racist epithets?
Using bitch to describe a woman in a derogatory manner , with regard to her professional skills, makes him a sexist in my book. As does taking it a step further and saying “if Erin Andrews were 15lbs heaver she’d be a waitress”. He wasn’t denigrating her about her skills (or lack there of) he was going for the appearance, weight, etc that men use to minimize women in the workplace.
As usually the slur connotes active malice, at least to me. It seemed an odd overreaction to get so angry and vicious with regard to a minor situation related to an interview with a pitcher in the All -Star game. I mean, who gives a shit anyway? But maybe Minihane gets overboard insulting with everyone all the time as part of his ratings-seeking shtick, like Howard Stern or Ann Coulter, so I don’t know. Thanks for the reasoned response, though.
I’ve never argued that the comments from Mr. Minihane were anything but over-the-top and unacceptable sexism. I join you in welcoming the overwhelmingly negative response those comments caused. I’d like to see the entire show (or, for that matter, the entire genre) cancelled because advertisers want nothing to do with such misogyny.
I wish that Ms. Coakley were as passionate about issues — especially women’s issues — that are just as important and that require such leadership from our political leaders (of either gender).
“Bitch” is an unpleasant word with gender overtones. There are such words used generally to describe men. If talking about a man Minihane likely would have used one of them.
In fact the original comments did address “her lack of skills.” The subsequent comments expressed a view on why, despite said lack, she is prominently employed. Who’s the sexist: (1) the network that picked a good-looking but barely competent woman to appeal to audience disproportionately composed of young men, or (2) the guy pointing out that fact and the fact that, for the thousandth time, she said something silly?
every single episode of two series about sports and sports writers. Coach and Everybody Loves Raymond.
According to the NY Daily News — I’m not linking because the site crashed my browser — Fox canceled all advertising on Entercom stations and banned Fox staff from appearing on any Entercom shows. Fox Sports is a distant second to ESPN, but still its closest rival.
That’s a bit creepy. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that Fox — a hotbed of misogyny, at least in its news division — is seriously offended by Minihane. But they saw an opportunity to launch an attack on a business competitor.
The new world of corporate media.
This sorta just in:
http://www.boston.com/sports/other/2014/07/25/fox-pulls-all-ads-from-weei/leljiimrP5MyYhPShFhSOK/story.html?p1=Topofpage:sub_headline_4
And says Fox Sports while pulling ads:
Wow, when a FOX network thinks you’re sexist you really have crossed a line.
Ah but al this has no import. It’s just a national story. Why in gods name should a candidate for Governor speak out on it? I mean really – she should have solved all the Commonwealth’s problems before she tackled sexism in the workplace.
It’s a “national story” because the Andrews happens to work for a national sports network and that national network issues a press release?
I don’t think it’s “sexism in the workplace” when a shock jock says something nasty about a reporter at another media outlet over the radio. And I still think if anyone gives women in broadcasting a bad name, it’s Erin Andrews. From a sports point of view it’s a sad day when Kirk Minihane’s sitting at home and Erin Andrews is still working.
A discussion about whether women like Erin Andrews help or hurt other women has much more value than all this blather about Kirk Minihane. How far removed from Farah Fawcett or Suzanne Somers is Ms. Andrews? In their day, the activist women in my circle of friends outspokenly regarded Ms. Fawcett and Ms. Somers as sellouts, traitors, and betrayers of women.
Speaking of a sad day, in my view it’s at least notable that a sitting Attorney General can make a high-profile and public objection to a perfectly legal broadcast with no outcry from anyone about the obvious First Amendment implications.
If Ms. Coakley does this as AG, what will she do if elected Governor?
and to that end AG Coakley, who spoke out on a topical subject – that you not she – declared her priority, never said Minihane didn’t have the right to say something stupid and sexist. She said he was wrong to do so. The First Amendment gives you the right to speak, it doesn’t offer blanket protections against the consequences of that speech. Minihane remains free to say stupid shit but no one is required to pay him to do so.
Martha Coakley chose to speak out on this issue, and to remain silent on so many other issues. Those are her priorities, not mine — I’m only observing them.
Speech from a sitting AG is different from speech from a private citizen. If she made the same statement about a pro-union broadcast or editorial, I suspect you would be more willing to join me in asking whether it has a chilling effect on public discourse.
where AG Coakley calls the WEEI /Minihane situation a priority. That is your spin not fact or a position a statement by the candidate or her campaign. If Coakley talked about open space to walk her dogs and the media made mention would it be her priority?
Have you no opinion about the role that celebrities like Ms. Andrews play in, for example, encouraging so many young women to view themselves as worth less because they are less “beautiful”, or because they weigh more, or because their interests lie outside professional sports?
Are you aware of what both Farah Fawcett-Majors and Suzanne Somers had to say later in life about their roles?
I apologize for sounding so cynical, but it seems to me that both you and the Coakley campaign are exploiting this “woman’s issue” primarily for its short-term political benefits in the current campaign. I would feel differently about Ms. Coakley if I saw her demonstrating more courage to face more controversial issues — even “women’s issues” if that is her passion.
What I see from Ms. Coakley is a persistent and pervasive pattern of picking and choosing “issues” primarily because of their perceived short-term benefit to her policial agenda. In my view, she objectifies, exploits, and ultimately hurts the women she loudly claims to advocate for because she turns them into pawns on the chessboard of her own political career.
you’ve become completely unhinged re: Martha Coakley. I understand the issues you have with her and they are legitimate, but you have taken this beef you have with her to such lengths that it’s clearly clouding your judgement. It’s come to the point where your posts are literally becoming unglued. I can’t think of any other way to describe your reply here other than deranged.
What you have written here is a defense of what was said on that radio program. Inexcusable.
Then lame “free speech” nonsense when that issue is neither here nor there, since the first amendment says nothing about protecting someone from public backlash for what they say publicly. That kind of lousy argument these days is usually relegated to the domain of homophobes who don’t want to their homophobia these days, a la a certain silly senator from Florida recently.
You can make much better and well reasoned arguments than them. I’ve seen you do it many times before.
No one is saying you have to support Martha, vote for Martha or even like her. But your dislike of her is rising to the level of a blinding hatred that is just unhealthy, with the passion of a thousand burning suns. It is certainly not attracting anyone to your bandwagon.
Breathe deep, my friend.
Is some part of “I completely agree that the comments were offensive. I’m glad the show is off the air” difficult for you to understand?
If you don’t think private and public utterances from the sitting Attorney General have a chilling effect, I invite you to have a conversation with some fellow bloggers who’ve been through the experience.
Unhinged? Funny how quickly supporters of Ms. Coakley insult her skeptics, and quickly those insults become personal. “Unhinged”. “Cynical”. Etc.
My breathing is just fine, thank you. I’ll wager that a day will come that you’ll be more appreciative that some folks were aggressively arguing that “lame ‘free speech’ nonsense”.
waxing wistfully about how in the good old days, it was okay to bash the Erin Andrews of the worlds as ‘traitors’ and that free speech is now under attack because, well… you don’t really make that very clear… then yeah.
It makes your “I completely agree that the comments were offensive” sound a lot like “I’m sorry to those who were offended.”
Where did I ever say I was a supporter of Martha Coakley? Nope, didn’t.
Remember how I did say that your posts were so way-the-frack out there that they weren’t going to get anyone on your anti-Coakley bandwagon, though?
Yeah. That’s speaking from personal experience.
I care about free speech issues as much as you or anyone on BMG. This is not a free speech issue.
I care about 4th Amendment issues as much as you or anyone on BMG. This is not a 4th Amendment issue.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. You may think Martha a stopped clock, but you picked one of the two times in a day you should have left well enough alone. This is not the issue on which to attack her, much less wage a personal jihad.
You should leave your Hattori Hanzo sword at home for this diary, or at least stop swinging it blindly.
How did you get to “it was okay to bash the Erin Andrews of the world” from anything I wrote? I certainly hope you are capable of distinguishing “she’s a bitch” from “I don’t like the role model she presents”. Is that distinction still within your grasp?
Are you (a male) now arguing that there’s nothing wrong with promoting the Barbie-Doll skinny-as-a-rail air-brushed Vogue-Cover standards of “beauty” that are destroying so many young women? Is it hopelessly old-fashioned for me to raise my eyebrows at Fox’s use of male-dominated standards of sex appeal as a flagrant attempt to pander to a mostly-male audience? Is it now passe for me to ask about what responsibility the woman shares in that attempted exploitation?
Many of the posts from EB3 are just as offensive as anything said on that talk show. I’m pretty sure that if any of the editors had been contacted by the AG herself, with a follow-up on her website about how offensive BMG was for publishing them, they would have been concerned about legal repercussions.
To use a metaphor from another thread, when Tony Soprano calls you (a store owner) and says “I’d appreciate it if you stopped selling that item”, a sane person ignores the implied threat at their peril. If you don’t understand the chilling effect of such efforts, then I encourage you to revisit your understanding of “chilling effect”. A call from the current AG is different from a call from a typical unhappy listener.
I don’t think I mentioned the Fourth Amendment at all, at least in this thread.
I think I was clear in my comments about the WEEI tempest-in-a-teapot that I completely agree that the comments were offensive. I’m glad the show is off the air.
Was this most important issue on anybody’s radar? The bully pulpit is a very scarce resource, one that wise politician uses for only the most important issues.
In fact, it has no import. A sexist bozo got fired. BFD.
Speaking out in the immediate aftermath of the Globe story announcing the identity and history of Aaron MacFarlane (the killer who pumped a dozen shots into an unarmed Ibrahim Todashev while the latter was in police custody) would ALSO have garnered national attention. It might also have drawn condemnation of the act from FOX. It might even have gotten Mr. MacFarlane fired.
I think ridding this state of armed thugs like Aaron MacFarlane — men who brutalize and kill others in the uniform of government — is far more important than getting what’s-his-name fired or getting one of many stupid sports shows discontinued from morning drive-time AM radio.
Like I say, Ms. Coakley acted from her priorities. I respond from mine.