Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Urlacher and the Media

 Monday, October 29, 2007, 5:32 PM
Yes. I do wish Urlacher would talk to the local Chicago media, but I keep thinking he must have his reasons.


I was listening to Mac, Jurko and Harry this afternoon on AM 1000 ESPN here in Chicago and I was struck by an odd thought. Why would Urlacher want to communicate with a media that is calling him, among other things, immature and childish and telling him to "grow up and be a man".

The same guys who are saying this about him, then proceed to play back his very short, very terse interview and dub the sound of an obviously mentally challenged man saying over and over... "duh... duh... duh..." and then, when the interview is completed, add (and I'm paraphrasing here) "that they never knew until now that Urlachers IQ was less than his uniform number".

Oh lord! Tell me this is what today's media has come to? When things don't go your way you make a personal attack on someone? You make fun and ridicule them like some playground bullies? And not even have the guts to tell him to his face?

Awful, terrible stuff, and those guys justify it because Urlacher doesn't want to answer their questions?

Who the heck is childish and immature now? We try to teach our children how ugly and irreparable taunting others is, how it affects them to be bullied, and here are three grown men acting like the very immature, childish person they claim Urlacher to be.


Unbelievable.

This from Rick Telander (Chicago Sun-Times) - "Good old No. 54, who was a part of the once-proud Bears defense that let the Lions gain 365 net yards Sunday, can hold his breath, pout as long as he wants.
But it solves nothing."

So, Mr. Telander, the NFL requires all ballplayers to talk with the press, but if they don't talk the way YOU want them to, its called "pouting or holding his breath? Is this a terribly infantile ruse to make him angry, stamp his feet and have him whine - "I'll show them!" - while running to the Dias? Do you think this actually works? It didn't when you were twelve and it's not going to work now.
How about Jay Mariotti (Chicago Sun-Times) saying this - "Urlacher could have explained this to the local media. We would have understood. Instead, he issued terse answers -- not just on injury questions, but all questions -- leading me and others to wonder why he was being such a jerk recently. This is why he went to Glazer, his friend, to cry on a national media guy's shoulder."
So, Mr. Mariotti, in just a couple of paragraphs you tell us that if Urlacher had explained his problem to the media, you would all understand? While in those same paragraphs you call him a "jerk" and that he went to his friend to "cry on a national media guy's shoulder."

How about all of you in the media do some actual journalistic stuff and find out why hes interacting with the media the way he does? Or would this be too much like work? God forbid you should actually go and dig out the story.

After all, its much easier to poke fun, humiliate, denigrate and degrade someone, all in the name of reporting, hiding behind your microphone or newspaper.

I'm sure the way you have all comported yourselves will make your children proud. And while you're talking to them, make sure you justify to them how being a bully when you're an adult is soooo much different than when your a child.

No comments:

Post a Comment