You don't want Roger Goodell's job

The latest black eye for the NFL's reputation has arrived in the form of camera-phone video of an obviously stewed Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones making disparaging remarks about Bill Parcells and Tim Tebow during a conversation in a bar. Many of us have probably been liquored up and said things we regretted the next day. The difference is, what we said didn't end up on ESPN over and over and over again. I understand that times have changed. There's a 24-hour news cycle, and the old rules about what passes for news, even in the sports world, are out the window. But I think it's unseemly that the sports media is taking what was essentially a private conversation and splashing it all over the radio and TV. It's not as if Jones made these remarks at a news conference or some other scheduled public event. Jerry Jones is a pretty easy guy to dislike, and as a public figure, he has to expect to be under the microscope. But I still think he deserves the right to have a conversation with a couple of other people in a bar without some opportunistic slimeball voyeuristically and surreptitiously videotaping him and then selling the video to some Internet site. And ESPN, of course, leaped on this with both feet. I'm a fan of the "Mike and Mike" show on ESPN. I watch and/or listen to the program every weekday. But their defense of ESPN repeatedly showing the Jones video and their spending an inordinate amount of time talking about it sort of fell flat with me. One of their main arguments was that, while the shooting of the video was wrong, they have an obligation to repeatedly show it and to talk about it endlessly because it’s “news.” Let me translate that for you: They won’t do the dirty work themselves, but they’ll perch like vultures and feast on the carrion that is drug into public by people with lesser morals. Their other argument was that if they didn't give the video wall-to-wall coverage, viewers and listeners would turn to other outlets that did. Translation: Journalistic integrity and ethics aren’t as important as ratings and advertising dollars. It's a far cry from the days when reporters looked the other way when Mickey Mantle, Billy Martin and other pro athletes and coaches were drinking, carousing and raising hell. But maybe we've gone too far. It's almost reached the point at which the actual games are taking a back seat to the off-field goings-on. There's a big difference between a star quarterback being accused of sexual assault, which is a legitimate news story, and an NFL owner getting a snootful of booze and talking to some folks at a tavern. One is news. The other is an invasion of privacy.

The weird world of sports

A few non-March Madness thoughts on sports:

– People who know me are well aware that I'd rather have a painful medical procedure than watch figure skating on a regular basis. Now I see that they have created a "reality show" based on pairs figure skating called “Thin Ice.” It sounds really dramatic, but here's what it is: Figure skaters will be skating with other figure skaters who are NOT THEIR REGULAR PARTNERS! Oh ... my ... God. The missus is convinced that this is a major deal and super challenging because they're not used to skating with different people. I think it's a lot like taking major league baseball players and seeing if they can play slow-pitch softball, or taking football running backs and seeing if they can also run fast without their pads on.

– Another sport that I try to avoid like the plague because I find it about as exciting as watching grass grow is soccer. But it's pretty clear that somebody high up in the company at ESPN is a really, really big soccer fan. Because on ESPN News, when they run the crawl across the bottom with scores and sports news, scores from the English Premier League, the Italian Series A league, etc., are part of the regular rotation. I think I can say with great confidence that the overwhelming majority of ESPN's viewers couldn't give less of a $%^# about Italian soccer scores. But one of the big honchos at ESPN or its parent company must really want to see them, so the rest of us are subjected to them.

– The folks at ESPN were also nearly breathless over the weekend about their "exclusive interview" with illustrious golfer and serial adulterer Tiger Woods. Well, one would think it must be a lengthy, in-depth examination of Tiger's travails and his pending return at the Masters. Uh, not so much. ESPN and the Golf Channel got five minutes with Tiger. Yeah, five minutes. It took them more time to fire up the cameras and get people's microphones pinned on that it did for the interview itself. Apparently, the same interview offer was made to CBS, which said it would be delighted to conduct an in-depth, no-restrictions interview with the golfer. When Tiger's handlers told CBS they would get five minutes, the network told Tiger's lackeys to pound salt. Good for CBS. The only thing ESPN and the Golf Channel accomplished was to be used by Tiger. They were the pawns in his game, which will enable him to go to the Masters and claim, "I already did an interview about the other stuff, and I'm only going to talk about golf." The folks from ESPN and the Golf Channel should never, ever be able to claim again that they are professional journalists. They're media whores for Tiger Woods.

What a laugh

I find most television commercials to be either boring or stupid, or both. But I've always gotten a few laughs from the E*Trade ads featuring the talking babies. Actress Lindsay Lohan doesn’t share my opinion. She’s suing E*Trade for $100 million because of the company’s latest ad, which features one baby girl referring to another as “that milkaholic Lindsay.” Lohan, who has a history of substance abuse, claims the character in the ad, who pops onto the screen at the end of the commercial and says “Milk-a-what?," is clearly based on her, and that her right to privacy has been violated. It seems ridiculous to me that someone like Lohan, whose party girl behavior has landed her on tabloid magazine covers and those parasitic syndicated TV shows about the entertainment industry, can claim any right to privacy. But it gets funnier. Lohan alleges in her suit that the character in the ad had to be named after her because she has the same “single-name” public recognition as Oprah and Madonna. Sure, that’s right. Anytime I'm ticking off the world’s biggest female celebrities one might recognize by their first names alone, it's usually Oprah, followed by Madonna and then, of course, Lindsay Lohan. Unless she or one of her family members is getting arrested or going into rehab, does anyone even think of Lindsay Lohan these days? I suppose if you're a fan of the aforementioned TV shows or the trashy tabloids, you might see her every once in a while. But I doubt the average American has given her much of a thought in ages. I mean, for the past five or six years, the woman is more famous for her bouts with substance abuse and photos taken with a camera lens pointed up her skirt or down her blouse than she is for her acting career, such as it is. Does she really want to draw more attention to herself at this point? Never mind. Of course she does.

How sincere

Troops are dying in Afghanistan, tens of millions of Americans are out of work and some nut flew a plane into an IRS building, but the BIG news this week is that Tiger Woods went before a TV camera and apologized for being lower than whale poop. The other night, with all that is going on in the world, ABC News' lead story was that Tiger was going to talk about his well-publicized, self-inflicted problems. Not that he WAS talking, but that he was GOING to talk. That's a sad statement about what passes for news judgment these days. And this wasn't even what one would typically consider to be a news conference. Tiger was going to read from a written statement and was refusing to answer any questions. It was all very self-serving, but most of the news media treated it as if Moses were coming down from the mountain to issue 10 more commandments. On Friday, Woods spoke for about 15 minutes. I can sum it up for you this way: Tiger is "deeply sorry" for his "irresponsible and selfish behavior." He has let us down. His wife didn't hit him with a 5-iron. He's not going to answer any questions about the status of his marriage. He's getting back into his Buddhist faith. He's going for more therapy. And he plans to return to golf someday. No @#$%, Sherlock. Does anybody really think Tiger is going to skip the Masters in April? Really, those were the only noteworthy statements in his entire speech. Only a handful of writers and a single TV camera were invited to this self-serving event. To its credit, the Golf Writers Association of America declined to send any of its members. Certainly, Woods has the right to set whatever ground rules he wants, but reporters don't have to be a part of the charade. The reaction of some media personalities was ridiculous. George Stephanopoulos of ABC said the speech was “one of the most remarkable public apologies ever by a public figure." Go overboard much, George? And golf analyst David Feherty of CBS said, "The vast number of people just want their Tiger Woods back." No, David. The vast majority of people really don't give a damn whether they ever see Tiger Woods again. Their lives just aren't that shallow. But CBS, I'll bet, really wants its Tiger Woods back, because he's the meal ticket for that network's golf coverage. I give credit to Rick Cerrone, the former public relations director of the New York Yankees. He saw through the BS and told CNN, "What I saw was arrogance. It was basically an infomercial." It's early, but I'd give the award for stupidest reaction to Debert Cook, publisher of African American Golfer's Digest, who said, "I think we are entering a whole new era spiritually and emotionally for Tiger Woods." Pardon me while I puke. The Onion gave the speech the gravity that it deserved, putting up a story with the headline, “Tiger Woods Announces Return to Sex." As always with Tiger Woods, it's all about Tiger Woods. And I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who believes that if Tiger hadn't gotten caught, he'd still be hitting the sack with as many cocktail waitresses as he could get his hands on.

Dick Ebersol is aptly named

Nobody can accuse NBC executive Dick Ebersol of not being a company man. If you've been living under a rock, NBC has decided to kill Jay Leno's 10 p.m. weeknight talk show and wants to put Leno back at 11:35, thus pushing back Conan O'Brien’s "Tonight Show." O’Brien, as one might expect, is balking about the move and has been very public in bashing the network's plan. And now Ebersol is trying to shift the blame for the whole mess to O’Brien, calling him an "astounding failure." Ebersol also ripped O’Brien and fellow late-night host David Letterman for their pointed jokes about the situation, saying, "It’s chicken-hearted and gutless to blame a guy (Leno) you couldn’t beat in the ratings. They're just striking out at Jay.” Chicken-hearted? It's not as if O'Brien and Letterman are leaking statements to the National Enquirer. They're making them on national TV in front of millions of viewers. And let's remember that it was NBC who pushed Leno out of the "Tonight Show" seat and replaced him with O'Brien. As for that "astounding failure" remark, I think O'Brien, whose previous show needed time to build an audience, deserves more than seven months to succeed with the "Tonight Show." Ebersol also is taking O'Brien to task for blaming his own so-so ratings on the weak lead-in provided by Leno. Let's face facts, Dick. Leno's ratings at 10 p.m. stink. That's the reason you're killing his show. And O'Brien isn't the only one pointing to the sorry lead-in provided by Leno. NBC affiliates are reportedly hacked, and losing money, because Leno is providing such a weak lead-in to their 11 p.m. news programs. Leno promised something new and different when he moved from 11:35 to 10 p.m., but instead he rolled out the same old, tired gags from his old show. Viewers stayed away in droves. Leno is the real underachiever here. It's really easy to settle this whole mess. If Ebersol is so convinced that O'Brien is an "astounding failure," he and NBC should have no problem releasing O'Brien from his NBC deal and allowing him to immediately take his talk show to another network, where he could compete directly with Leno. Yeah, right.