Clay Travis's Question About Tim Tebow's Sexual Experience Was Inappropriate

by Richard Pittman on Jul 23, 2009 8:30 PM CDT in Football Comment 29 comments

A much more successful blogger than myself asked a question of Tim Tebow (while he was at the podium) at SEC Media Days that he had previously bragged that he was going to ask. He asked if Tim Tebow was saving himself for marriage. Tebow's answer, after a little joking around, was "Yes, I am."

Though the Great Tebow was not bothered by the question, a lot of reporters in the audience apparently were. I can really understand why. Before Tebow took the podium, Clay Travis had gone on the WJOX show The Roundtable and announced that he would ask this question. After asking the question, he went on Paul Finebaum's show and explained that it was a legitimate question because Mr. Tebow is very open about his religious beliefs. He cited the Britney Spears example, which he later characterized as "a lie".*

I suppose he thought the topic of Tim Tebow's sex life was a natural extension of the topic of Tim Tebow's religion. I have a problem with this on several levels:

1. Sex is not synonymous with religion. I am far, far from being a Biblical scholar, but I know enough about the subject to know that while the very religious tend to support pre-marital abstinence more than the average person, there really is very little Biblical support for the proposition that sex before marriage is wrong. This article attempts to explain how knowing someone in the Biblical sense without marriage is immoral in the Biblical sense, but to believe that you have to torture 1 Corinthians 7:2, which says, "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." Apparently, all other Biblical references to sexual immorality in the Bible are, by extension of this passage, a condemnation of sex before marriage. And I would submit that if you actually put that section in context, it would become even less clear, and if you read all of 1 Corinthians 7, you might be very surprised at some of the things you find.

2. Sexual ethics are not synonymous with morality. Certain elements of our culture equate a person's morality with his or her sexual ethics (particular "her" sexual ethics). Clay Travis seems to believe that because Tebow is so frequently associated with being an upstanding person and a decent guy, we deserve to know whether or not his sex life is consistent with that image. If Tebow's answer would have been, "No, I sleep with lots of beautiful women all the time," would that mean he is somehow not a charitable person? Not a kind person? Not a giving person? Not an honest person? Those questions are entirely unrelated.

A few years ago, before the world decided that Jessica Simpson was a whore, the world had decided that she was a wonderful person because she waited until marriage to have sex with her then-husband Nick Lachey. This image endured despite the fact that her television show, produced by her own father, showed her to be shallow, selfish, virtually completely uneducated, and vain. Around this time, I happened to pick up a magazine in the grocery store that had the results of a quiz, "Who is better? Jessica Simpson or Lisa Simpson?" Responses talked about how Jessica Simpson was such a great role model. The answer perplexed me, because I personally think Lisa Simpson makes a great role model and Jessica Simpson was a poor role model, until I realized that this was about the sex thing. It struck me how much the question of young people's sex lives seems to be the determining factor in whether or not they are considered to be good people, to the exclusion of things like charity, kindness, honesty, self-improvement and other things I consider to be a lot more important.

This is to say that we don't need to know what Tim Tebow does with his penis to form our own conclusions about whether or not he is a moral person.

3. It's a private matter in a different way than religion is a private matter. Clearly Tebow has no qualms about discussing his religion, but that's an entirely different matter from being open about one's sexuality. Many people, myself included, consider religion to be a private matter. Many people also consider sexuality to be a private matter. Some people consider religion to be something to proclaim publicly. Some people consider sexuality something to proclaim publicly. The problem is that the people who consider religion to be a public matter and the people who consider sexuality to be a public matter are not necessarily the same people. While Tebow was comfortable with the question, it would not necessarily have been that way.

4. The purpose of the question was not to explore religion, but rather to bring attention to Clay Travis. I mean, really. If it was an honest question, why go on radio and brag about how you're going to ask the question? If it was about his religion, the question would have been a little more oblique, i.e., "How have your religious beliefs affected the choices you've made in your private life?" Also, if it was about religion, it would have been asked in a private moment, and not while Tebow was trapped behind a podium in front of a bunch of adult men, men who would be most likely to be made uncomfortable by the topic.

5. While Mr. Travis believes it was OK to talk about it with Tebow because it was OK to talk about it with Britney Spears, but I believe it was not right to talk about it with Britney Spears. First, Clay Travis states unilaterally that Britney Spears lied about her sexual activity, but as I recall the first time she ever discussed that particular topic occurred when she was about 16, and all the Kevin Federline crap happened when she was about 22 or 23, but I'm not about to research it to figure out if that's right. The point is that Britney Spears' sex life at 16 may not have been anything like it was half-a-dozen years later. It seems fundamentally strange to me to say that because everyone knew she wasn't a virgin at 24, she must have been lying about it when she was 16. When the public focused on her sex life, it was sexist and wrong, not to mention more than a little bit creepy and weird. Asking it of Tebow is sexist in a different way, because grown men are supposed to chase the ladies, which was of course the point of the question, but even if you disagree with it being sexist, it was at least creepy, weird, and wrong.

In the end, I suppose, Poseur was wrong. Something interesting happened, but at least it was manufactured news and not real news.

5 recs | Comment 29 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I never heard of Clay Travis until now, but since this is about his getting attention, I hope he gets attention in the form of his walking papers. Maybe he’s an otherwise good sports journalist with a stellar career, in which case a suspension without pay would be reasonable.

Things done behind closed doors are done behind closed doors for a reason. I don’t want to know about Tebow’s sex life. Some asshole decided to put him on the spot to embarrass Tebow and get attention for himself. Tebow would have been totally justified in telling him to go piss up a rope. Tebow handled it better than most people would have.

by uberschuck on Jul 23, 2009 8:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

He's a self-employed blogger.. no walking papers allowed.

Richard Pittman

by Richard Pittman on Jul 23, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Richard - Good Look

One really negative issue here – Travis is a blogger with an interesting subject (SEC cfb), why would he need to drum up attention? Isn’t that how the mainstream sports media lost so much credibility – by starting fake fights, bringing attention to themselves, and generally not covering sports?

The Rivalry, Esq.
Big Ten Football: 3 Yards and a Cloud of Field Turf

by grahamfiller10 on Jul 23, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of us benefit from more exposure. Why does Paul Finebaum try to draw so much attention to himself? To be noticed against the backdrop of the rest of us.

Richard Pittman

by Richard Pittman on Jul 23, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much uncool.

I’ll just add him to my list of blogs that I won’t check (getting to be a long list).

by artiger on Jul 23, 2009 10:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

1 Cor 7

Paul was speaking to Christians in Corinth, being as they were surrounded by sexual temptation. The city had a reputation even among pagans for sexual immorality and religious prostitution. The Corinthians needed special, specific instructions because of their culture’s immoral standards. Sexual temptations are difficult to withstand because they appeal to the normal and natural desires that God has given us. Marriage provides God’s way to satisfy these natural sexual desires and to strengthen the partners against temptation. For more on Pual’s teaching about marriage, see Ephesians 5. For more on Paul’s transformation, see Acts 9.

by 2Cor12:9 on Jul 24, 2009 12:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this post in its entirety.

Something I really never thought I’d say about a post at ATVS (or any other SEC blog, for that matter).

by PeteHoliday on Jul 24, 2009 2:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Amen

Rec’d

All an attempt to grab publicity. Clay Travis is a UT fan though, so……

If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.

by btcoop71 on Jul 24, 2009 8:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m glad Tebow had a better sense of humor about it than you.

mlmintampa
UF C/O 06

by mlmintampa on Jul 24, 2009 8:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

OMIGOD!

Good post, and one that I agree with almost in its entirety. Not only is it none of our business of Tebow is having sex and with whom, I frankly don’t care. "Gotcha" journalism is like "shock art," the very lowest form of the medium. Sure, you can get a reaction by trying to catch a guy making an uncomfortable situation, but it’s certainly not news. It also isn’t really funny.

I mean, if you’re gonna derail a press conference with your own schtick, you could at least be funny like the 1920s reporter guy.

And for the record, I predicted this:

I’m not saying there won’t be a lot of coverage and some manufactured controversy, I’m sure there will be.

I’m thinking I nailed it. This qualifies as manufactured controversy.

by Poseur on Jul 24, 2009 8:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

At least I'll be able to sleep tonight

now that the burning question of who didn’t vote for Tebow has been answered.

by shelby924 on Jul 24, 2009 10:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

SEC Media Day is about FOOTBALL.

It was uncalled for and immature but I’m not surprised by the bloggers comments. I’ll stick with God’s word and what the Holy Spirit speaks to me in my heart.
Sex outside of marriage is sin. Most people don’t like that. Ok. One day we will all give an account for our opinions and God will be the judge of all it. That being said
his question had nothing to do with football and Mr. Tebow handled himself like he has throughout his days at Florida. Like a gentlemen. I’ll be glad when he moves
on to the NFL.

by Totally Spoil on Jul 24, 2009 10:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

One note

Richard,

Great Post. I hope Clay Travis gets ripped up by others for this.

I would first like to say that I do not at think Travis should have asked this question. I agree w/ everyone else here that it was very poor taste for Travis to ask.

However, that being said, I would make a few comments on your quote here:

Sexual ethics are not synonymous with morality. Certain elements of our culture equate a person’s morality with his or her sexual ethics (particular “her” sexual ethics).

They are not synonymous, but they definitely have a strong relationship.

Clay Travis seems to believe that because Tebow is so frequently associated with being an upstanding person and a decent guy, we deserve to know whether or not his sex life is consistent with that image.

I do not think we “deserve” to know anything at a press conference the way it was done. However, if a reporter were to ask an honest question more along the lines of how Tebow’s faith has affected his private life as you noted above, then I think the question would be fair.

For anyone who aspires to be a role model and espouses a certain lifestyle b/c of their faith, they open themselves up to further questions. I mean honest and sincere questions, not “gotcha” questions as Travis’.

If Tebow’s answer would have been, “No, I sleep with lots of beautiful women all the time,” would that mean he is somehow not a charitable person? Not a kind person? Not a giving person? Not an honest person? Those questions are entirely unrelated.

Again, I think you go too far in ignoring the relationship between overall morality and, as you say, sexual ethics. That relationship might be characterized as “integrity” or “honor”, but the label is not really the issue

If your example above were to play out, then it would show Tebow to be somewhat of a hypocrite. I think the views of traditional Christianity are well known and for Tebow to openly contradict those views would surely leave him open to the term hypocrite.

Overall, I appreciate the thoughtful post, it was just that this was one area where I felt your language overstated some things.

by Zandor435 on Jul 24, 2009 12:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is where I completely disagree..

I don’t think there is this strong correlation between between morality and sexual ethics. Where there is a correlation, it has to do more with honesty. Are you being honest with the people you’re sleeping with? It has to do with peacefulness. I.e., are you raping people. If you’re cheating on someone, you aren’t being honest, and that’s a problem. If you’re forcing or pressuring people into behavior they are not comfortable with, that’s a problem. But the problem isn’t you’re having sex. The problem is that you aren’t being honest, or that you are being a bully/intimidator/etc.

A person can be a good, honest, and Christian person and still be sexually active outside of a marital context. I have absolutely no problem with believing or expressing that. If Tebow were to sleep with an average of 10 different women a week, I do not in any way believe that this would make him unchristian or immoral, so long as he was being honest with them and all the other sundry things that go along with it.

Richard Pittman

by Richard Pittman on Jul 24, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whether we think there is a connection or not, Tebow does.

Didn’t he turn down a visit to the playboy mansion. If he though sex was ethically okay then he wouldn’t have turned down that opportunity.

On a side note, there is no way in hell I would turn down a shot at the playboy mansion. What an idiot.

by Bob Barker on Jul 24, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think this is a good point.

See, it doesn’t matter Richard, what you think (and maybe correctly think) how sex outside of marriage is or isn’t biblically grounded, and therefore whether or not sex is synonymous with religion. It matters what the public thinks. And it matters what the public thinks that Tebow thinks, which is what Bob was referring to. I can also tell you that in some and probably most and possibly all catholic and baptist teachings, sex outside of marriage is thought of as a sin. We don’t have to get into whether that is right or wrong, but it is a fact.

Also, I think Zandor and Pitt, you guys are talking past each other because of one small point…And that is that being “sexually active” is not the same thing as being “promiscuous”. I agree with you Richard that a person can be a Christian and still be sexually active outside of marriage, however, I also agree with Zandor that a person who is permiscuous would generally be considered a hipocrite in the Christian community.

by LSU Jonno on Jul 24, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the Bible very much ties sexual purity

and being faithful towards God together. The only sexual activity approved of in the Bible is inside marriage. Hebrews talks about keeping the marriage bed undefiled. Part of that is by staying sexually pure until marriage. Bible speaks against fornication (which is a broad term dealing with premarital sex or cheating), adultery, etc…

Zandor makes a good point. Morality and sexuality are tied together whether you want to admit it or not. Why is it that people look down on Brittany Spears and others like her? It’s not because they aren’t generous people or things like that, at least that’s not what it seems like to me. What people have against her is her sexual lifestyle.

Another thing I find interesting regarding virginity in general is that whenever you go into the public restrooms and see the vending machines for condoms, there’s pretty much always a message on it saying that the only real way to make sure that you don’t get an STD is to have a monogamous relationship for life. I don’t really think that it’s a coincidence that people who sleep around like that are the ones who contract these diseases.

But anyway, I agree that Travis should not have asked that question. There are things that should not be talked about, and someone’s sexual lifestyle is something that should be kept private. There’s no reason for us to have to know things like that.

by jsholt969 on Jul 24, 2009 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

re:I completely disagree.

Sex outside marriage always hurts someone. It hurts God because it shows that we prefer to satisfy our desires our own way instead of according to God’s Word, or to satisfy them now instead of waiting for his timing. It hurts others because it violates the commitment so necessary to a relationship. It hurts us because it often brings disease to our bodies and adversely affects our personalities. Sexual immorality has tremendous power to destroy families, churches, and communities because it destroys the integrity on which these relationships are built. God wants to protect us from hurting ourselves and others; thus we are to have no part in sexual immorality, even if our culture accepts it.

Also see 1 Corinthians 6:13, 19-20, Revelation 2:20 for more on why God forbids sexual sin.

by 2Cor12:9 on Jul 25, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ye are no theologian, stick ye to football

richard you have a great understanding of X’s and O’s. I enjoy reading your analysis and incite into matters pertaining to football. please allow me the same courtesy on christian doctrine matters, since I have three degrees in religion studies, old testament archaeology, and new testament archaeology. let me put it this way… what you have said in this topic about sexually immorality and the bible by your understanding is akin to playing football with the rules of basketball.

your views on sexual immorality, particularly fornication (consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other— webster’s online definition) condone presumptuous sin.

Psalms 19:13: “Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression.”

this is exactly what I feel was wrong with “Christianity” in ancient times and even today. the vast wayward majority seem to have decided that what is right and what is wrong is based on what we feel is right or wrong or even what we reason is right or wrong… (aka philosophy).

Ephesians 4:17-24: “This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.” NKJV

Christ is the measure by which a Christian should understand what is right (holiness) or wrong (sinful). if not, then one should not presume to take on His namesake. what Christ did do is good, what He avoided is bad. also Scripture itself is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus (2 Timothy 3:5). I do not out right call you a non-Christian, but your views are not Scriptural and very dangerous. all you have to do is go to an online concordance like biblegateway.com, go to keyword search, and type in fornication with the king james version of the bible. (I suggest the KJV only because newer versions of the bible often translate fornication as sexual immorality.)

if tim tebow were to sleep with 10 different women a week and still call himself a Christian that would make him a hypocrite and not Christian. there would be no point in repentance, confession of sin, and salvation for that matter if that kind of behavior wasn’t wrong (sinful). any person who lives such a promiscuous lifestyle is lost and in bondage to sexual sin… period, no exceptions. that surely sounds authoritarian, but it is not my opinion… it is the viewpoint revealed in Scripture. no one need accept it if it offend them, but come judgment time I personally want to make sure I have the correct understanding so I can live my life accordingly.

Acts 15:20: “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Acts 15:29: “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Acts 21:25 “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

1 Corinthians 6:13: “…Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.”

1 Corinthians 6:18: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

these verses help put your use of 1 Corinthians 7:2: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” into its context. to say that there is very little Scriptural support to condemn sex before marriage is to actually ignore what Scripture says.

Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:3: “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;”

Colossians 3:5: “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:”

1 Thessalonians 4:3: “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:”

I hate to be the party crasher, but the Thessalonian verse pretty much in no way can be refuted otherwise… it is right there. it is the will of God for someone who wants to be holy that they do not have sex before marriage.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

please mr. pittman do not take my response as a personal attack. it is in no way intended as such. your knowledge of football is your element, and that is why I come here to read and learn. I hope that my knowledge on this Scriptural matter is seen with the same optimism. if you decide to respond or refute the things I say, I only ask that you carefully read what I have already written and not skim or peruse it. that way you better understand my meaning in what I wrote to better reply.

so easy... even an Auburn fan can do it!

by K. brevis on Jul 25, 2009 12:46 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

You are right, I am no theologian

but my understanding is that all of those references to ‘fornication’ are not nearly so clear when you actually look at the original text and the original language. The KJV translators used that word when other, less certain words, would have been more accurate. At least, that is my understanding.

Then again, I am really the last person in the world who should be arguing the true meaning of Christianity.

Richard Pittman

by Richard Pittman on Jul 25, 2009 7:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me append..

My entire point with this exercise was not really to argue about sex and religion, but to point out that Clay Travis’s equation of sex to religion is highly debatable, and he should not have presumed that simply because Tim Tebow is an outspoken christian that he necessarily believes pre-marital sex to be a sin. I also believe it wrong of him to equate sexual ethics to morality in the not-necessarily-religious sense. And furthermore, it was a private matter. We would not presume to ask him about his school grades or about his medical history (except insofar as it deals with public football matters, such as his shoulder surgery) unless he brought it up first, and Tebow never brought this up. Therefore, the question was really out of bounds.

Richard Pittman

by Richard Pittman on Jul 25, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may be a scholar, but you are also a liar

Regarding your quote of:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals…

Neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks used the word homosexual. That word doesn’t appear until the 1950’s!

Please don’t quote the scripture so as to try and justify your own prejudices. The Bible talks about male prostitutes around the temple, but nothing more.I invite people to look at the text themselves and use a Hebrew or Greek dictionary while doing so. You will be very surprised that what some people claim the Bible says, it really does not.

As to Tebow’s claim of “virginity”, well you are all naive because if a young person makes that claim, the next thing you should ask is for them to define virgin.

There are alot of people who believe they can do anything but one particular act and call themselves “virgins”. So don’t make any assumptions that virgin means the same thing to everyone.

Wise up people, if you are gonna have this type of discussion, at least update your definition to encompass contemporary usage.

by true999 on Jul 26, 2009 2:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man you just coming out throwing stones on your 1st comment.

If you’ll notice in verse 10 it contines, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. What Paul is trying to convey to the Corinthians is that no matter your sin, they are all evil and we all fall short of the Glory of God. So your sin of calling k. brevis a liar is the same as anyone of us condemning or judging someone for being homosexual. But in verse 11 Paul tells why you have hope and its because you have were washed, you were sanctified (set apart for special use), you were justified (pronounced not guilty for your sins) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

So think about that true99, God has set YOU apart for special use in His Kingdom and you have been pronounced not guilty for your sins and all you have to do is confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and your sins will be forgiven and you will be made new. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.

Now if you will go back and take a look at Romans 1:26-27 you will see where Paul speaks about homosexuality even more and “the due penalty for their perversion.” Furthermore, Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

I do not know when the term homosexual came into society, you might be right about the 1950’s, but the framework for the term has it roots in the bible and specifically in Lev 18:22.

by 2Cor12:9 on Jul 26, 2009 3:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can all cherry pick verses to prove almost any point...

Look ,Tim Tebow is a sinner because he plays football!!!

Leviticus 11:7-8

“And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.”

by shelby924 on Jul 27, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Excellent post...

Travis’s stunt has bothered me ever since it happened, and honestly I think this could be a “jump the shark” moment for sports blogging. Back when CFB blogs were really starting up, there was a mentality of “yeah, it’s lame that we do this, but we love our teams and this sport and even though we aren’t jocks and didn’t play the game, we are going to write about it from our personal frame of reference and have fun with it.” It was the journalist equivalent of the dorks in the corner of the lunchroom playing magic and making fun of the shallowness and vapidity of the “cool kids,” and it was fun. Now, all the heavies seems to have this need to be as snotty and snarky as possible on EVERY given aspect of the game and have become a bunch of insular, insufferable hipsters. There are plenty of chances for blogs and bloggers to become accepted as legitimate voices by the mainstream media/populace, but stunts like this and Deadspin linking to the Erin Andrews video just confirm what everyone wants to believe about us: We’re nothing but a bunch of renegade dorks who will do and say anything for hits with no accountability whatsoever.

Roll Bama Roll

by Todd on Jul 24, 2009 9:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

excellent work, richard

as fantastic analysis on a troubling incident as this piece proves to be there is just one problem… by addressing the matter, you further publicize the actions of this assclown.

by kleph on Jul 25, 2009 7:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought about that, and decided that I can live with it..

in truth, not all publicity is good publicity, and I don’t really have a big problem with Clay Travis in general. I just think he was way off-base here.

Richard Pittman

by Richard Pittman on Jul 25, 2009 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and i understand that, which is why my comment wasn't criticism

and i agree the inquiry was completely off base. one thing i’ve learned the hard way as a working journalist is that if you have to take the time to defend asking a question… you probably shouldn’t have asked that question.

by kleph on Jul 25, 2009 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs