Any day now, the nicest guy in the world, Capital Times emeritus editor Dave Zweifel, will write a paean to a kinder and gentler politics, civil discourse, and the Chicago Cubs. Until then, his newspaper is talking more trash than Donald Trump on a tweet storm.
Their new name for their arch-nemesis is “Crooked Scott Walker.” Tit for tat, you Hillary haters!
In service of the nine or 20 Democrats running to replace Walker (we include “Cross Plains Woman”), The Capital Timesbad mouths the governor’s proposed, one-time $100 tax rebate to parents and his one-week sales tax holiday. Fair enough. The white lab coats at the Policy Werkes happen to agree that tax one-offs are bad policy.
But Dane County’s Progressive Voice is so unhinged that whatever thread of reason finds its way into its editorials gets drowned out by carpet-chewing, partisan bile. The following passage, as one example, goes beyond hyperbole into spittle-flecked hate:
Wisconsin’s governor is never going to do right by working families because he doesn’t serve them; he serves his campaign donors. The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and other out-of-state millionaires have paid for his political viability since he emerged as a statewide political figure. The only flexibility that Walker’s masters permit him is at election time, when the career politician is allowed to tinker with sales taxes in order to try to win a few votes.
“Walker’s masters!” What a hoot! That’s right, Scott Walker is really a Derail the Jail social justice warrior who made a Faustian bargain with the sulfurous Koch boys and is now trapped in their web.
“Never do right by working families?” Hey, working families, how do you like:
University tuition frozen six straight years
Property taxes reduced to the lowest relative level since World War 2
Income taxes on middle class families less than when Jim Doyle left office
3.0% unemployment, the lowest in 18 years
Wage growth the 12th highest in the nation
More funding for K-12 education than ever ($11.5 billion) — up $636 million
Top 10 ratings among the states for high school graduation, quality of health care, and jobs for the disabled
Wisconsin’s bond rating upgraded to Aa1 by Moody’s for the first time since 1973?
Regurgitating Democrat(ic) party talking points
Dane County’s Progressive Voice is a corporation that exercises its right to coordinate, collude and conspire with any politician or political party it favors without fear of pre-dawn visits from the speech police and their battering rams.
Their speech does not have to be truthful, accurate, or fair. That’s its First Amendment right. Whether it hurts or helps its own cause will come out in the wash this November. The best jury consists of the voters, who have elected Scott Walker three times in the last eight years and went for Trump in once-blue Wisconsin. (Ron Johnson over “career-politician” Russ Feingold, priceless.)
The Capital Times has been such a partisan attack dog — and rabid, at that — for so long it has forfeited any credibility. Who do they persuade who isn’t already convinced? In which case, their rants become mere pandering to their base, Segway Boy, Thistle, and Hippie Bongstocking among them.
You are correct, former colleagues, “Sales taxes ARE inherently unfair. They DO place a greater burden on working families than on the rich.” So Walker is trying to give those taxpayers a break. A break that The Capital Times opposes!
Never met a tax hike it didn’t like
Did The Capital Times opposing a sales tax when Democrat Gaylord Nelson instituted one in 1962? No it did not. When Democrat Tony Earl made the 5% state sales tax permanent? No it did not. When Dane County adopted a 0.5% county sales tax? No it did not.
A flat wheel tax could be said to unfairly place a greater burden on working families than the rich, given that the unemployed guy driving a beater pays the same $28 as the Tesla leaving the Madison Club. The Capital Times remained silent as the liberals, progressives, and socialists on the Dane County Board gave their assent last November.
The Progressives can name check the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson all they want but what does that really say? That Wisconsin voters — deplorable fools that they are — three times have been hoodwinked?
In case those voters are as stupid as The Capital Times thinks them, the Progressive Voice advises take them to take the rebate, anyway.
The C(r)apital Times is hypocritical anyway by failing to call for sales taxes on advertising. The C(r)apital Times could also call for sales taxes on single-copy newspaper sales, but that wouldn’t hurt them because the former daily newspaper is now given away once a week.
Right now, Jerry Bader is supposed to go on the air on WTAQ in Green Bay, WSAU in Wausau and WHBL in Sheboygan.
But not today, and not anymore. WTAQ announced on its website:
WTAQ has announced that Jerry Bader will no longer host the Jerry Bader Show, which aired Monday through Friday from 9-11 am.
In addition to WTAQ in the Green Bay/Appleton market, Bader’s show aired on WHBL in Sheboygan and WSAU in Wausau/Stevens Point.
Bader joined parent company Midwest Communications, Inc. when it purchased WHBL in 2000, transferring to WTAQ four years later to become the station’s brand manager and mid-day talk host.
He transitioned to a part-time role in 2016, when he took a full-time position with MediaTrackers.org.
Operations Manager Jason Hillery says “we wish Jerry nothing but continued success with his career at MediaTrackers.org, and we are thankful for his years of service to the Northeast Wisconsin community and others in our state.”
Bader says “I appreciate all of the opportunities that Midwest Communications has given me, and I wish them all the best.”
Conservative radio talk show host Jerry Bader was let go by Midwest Communications on Thursday. Bader said in a email it was because of his coverage of President Donald Trump.
Bader’s show was broadcast on WTAQ-AM from 8:40-11 a.m. daily in Green Bay. The station also carries conservative hosts Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity, none of whom are as critical of Trump as Bader sometimes was.
Bader recently changed the tagline of his program from “Close captioned for the reality impared” to “Truth over tribe.”
“Following my show today, management at Midwest Communications informed me that I was being let go. It was made clear to me that the reason was the manner in which I covered President Trump,” Bader said in his email.
“I have always tried to tell what I believed is the truth and more recently to comport my behavior, on and off the air, with my Christ-following faith, after I was saved in 2016. I’ve always known it was MWC’s microphone that I used each day. I have no regrets on how I’ve handled the show the past two and a half years.” …
Bader also is communications director for MediaTrackers.org, which its website says is “dedicated to media accountability, government transparency, and quality fact-based journalism.” He will continue in that role, which is not related to the radio job.
Charlie Sykes, who hosted a longtime conservative radio show in Milwaukee and who also has been critical of Trump and the far right, tweeted about Bader Thursday.
“Bader was a courageous, principled voice, who refused to join other talkers on Trump train despite threats from management. #Respect,” Sykes wrote.
Bader joined WTAQ in 2004 after Midwest Communications parted ways with Bill LuMaye, who joined the station in 1998. Bader’s show also was broadcast on Midwest Communications-owned stations in Sheboygan and Wausau. He worked in Sheboygan before coming to Green Bay.
Midwest Communications suspended Bader for two weeks in 2009 after an inaccurate report about Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton dropping out of the governor’s race. Bader took responsibility for the mistake and apologized. “One person is responsible for what happened here, and that is me,” he said when he returned to the air.
The WTAQ press release said the search for a replacement is underway.
No, it’s “under way.” And if you’re interested, this may be the position, though Bader’s time slot is not really “morning drive” in the radio world.
Bader and Sykes were two of four conservative talk hosts who committed flagrant acts of journalism by not treating Trump with kid gloves during the 2016 Wisconsin GOP primary. Thanks to those four (including Clear Channel’s Mark Belling and Vicki McKenna), Trump lost to Ted Cruz, though he won the state in November.
I confess to not listening often to Bader largely because when I was living in Northeast Wisconsin I’d listen to Sykes when I was driving somewhere during their shows. I do recall Bader being criticized over his saying something complimentary over the Oneida Tribe of Indians or tribal gaming. (Bader’s predecessor, Bill LuMaye, previously had a rock morning show with his son on a Midwest FM station before the station (regrettably) started carrying Bob and Tom, which I have found funny exactly once.)
The radio industry fires people all the time for reasons that would not be acceptable in the non-media world — you do good work but we’re changing formats so goodbye — but it’s not clear that that’s the case here, though Midwest may plan on replacing Bader with a non-political show, though that would be illogical if they plan on keeping Limbaugh and Hannity.
I did a story on Midwest Communications 22 years ago in my previous life as a business magazine editor. I met CEO Duke Wright, and I’ve known some other people with that company, and it seemed like a good place to work for radio. (Media workplaces rarely make those Best Places to Work For lists.) Midwest also has expanded significantly since I did that story in 1996.
What if Bader was fired for being critical of Trump? That would mean, presumably, that Bader was having a negative effect on WTAQ’s ratings and/or advertising dollars. That is not the same thing as listeners being critical of Bader’s being critical of Trump. If listeners are listening to someone they disagree with, the point of radio is to get advertisers through listeners. If they aren’t listening because of that disagreement, that’s a problem.
Conservative talk radio dominates the talk radio world because it sells better than liberal talk. One might find liberal talk show hosts in specific markets, or a radio station in the case of Resistance Radio in Milwaukee. But consider that Sly lost one station (the late WTDY in Madison) when its owners changed formats, had his liberal talk show replaced with a non-liberal music show (WBGR-FM in Monroe), and now is back in Madison, but doing a non-liberal music show. Madison’s former liberal talk station at 92.1 FM now does oldies. If liberal talk can’t survive in the People’s Republic of Madison, what does that tell you?
One wonders if the conservative divide between Trump zealots and NeverTrumpers cost Bader his job. There is speculation over whether Sykes quit or was going to be fired and allowed his own exit over his anti-Trumpness. Belling and McKenna appear to have taken the position I hold, that Trump should be praised when warranted and criticized when warranted. (Oftentimes in the same day.) If Bader is right about why he was fired, he is another victim of the regrettable national trend of unwillingness to be exposed to viewpoints with which one does not agree.
It is also possible that conservative talk has less interest, paradoxically, when Republicans are in charge. Rush Limbaugh got to beat on Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for eight years each as did Sykes; it’s something else to have to defend your own side, particularly when your own side does something it shouldn’t have done.
One also wonders if a de-politicization of talk radio is under way, or if Midwest plans on, after looking for a replacement for Bader, to insert a national show. The latter would be a negative move, because the best radio is live and local. As for the former, Sykes was succeeded by Jeff Wagner, who previously followed Sykes on the air weekdays, but reportedly in Sykes’ spot now is rather unpolitical. The most recent Milwaukee radio ratings placed WTMJ fifth, which is subpar for a heritage AM station that carries the Packers, Bucks and Brewers. (Even more unbelievably, WTMJ and its FM WKTI, formerly linchpins of the Journal Communications broadcast empire, are for sale.)
Or, as long as we’re discussing theories, one wonders if talk radio is on the way out, given the ability of listeners to access podcasts whenever they want instead of on a radio station’s schedule. (Sly has a website, of course.)
I confess that from time to time this has seemed interesting to do, until I think about how much content one would need to do three or four hours on the air every day. A friend of mine did that (his show was nonpolitical, though I did occasionally make an appearance), and it can’t be easy. For one thing, one probably has to be inundated in the world of pop culture, which I generally deplore. (Do not get me started on NBC’s “This Is Us.”) I don’t even have time to do a podcast, let alone talk on the air for four hours outside of whatever sporting event I’m covering. (Basketball tonight, weather permitting, and wrestling Saturday, by the way.)
The good thing about this blog is that it represents my views, whether readers agree with those views or not. I have never written something I didn’t believe when I wrote it. I have never written or said anything for the sole purpose of generating outrage or clicks. That’s probably why, even though Sykes was correct when he called me a media ho, I wouldn’t do well in full-time radio talk.
For those curious about the British pronunciation of “Prestegard,” my BBC World Service Newshour radio appearances are online — Tuesday recorded Steve and Wednesday live Steve (at 10 and 39 minutes).
(I recorded segments for BBC 4’s The World Tonight, but they didn’t get on the air. Oh, well.) The chaps from the Beeb love Culver’s, by the way.)
Now that I have made my first transatlantic media appearance (except perhaps for the games of a hockey player born in Moscow, and Russia’s not exactly transatlantic, is it?), and because I’m announcing two basketball games Friday night here, it is time for me to make an appearance on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Ideas Network’s The Morning Show Week in Review Friday at 8 a.m. (Central time in the U.S.)
My opponent is Bill Lueders of the Progressive Media Project and the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. Despite our highly fractious joint appearance during Recallarama, we have gotten along after, you know, meeting each other in person. I assume Bill will be in the studio. In an effort to improve the broadcast quality, WPR is going to have me appear via Skype, as opposed to cellphone. The radio stations for which I announce games has similarly improved their sound quality by going from phone to this nifty tech … when it works. If I say it’s worked for great broadcast quality so far, of course it won’t work Friday night, so I’m not going to write that.
Whether I come to listeners via Skype, cellphone, landline or two cans tied together by a string, The Morning Show and all the other Ideas Network programming (including my favorite, Old Time Radio Drama Saturdays and Sundays from 8 to 11 p.m.) can be heard on WHA (970 AM) and W300BM (107.9 FM) in Madison, W215AQ (90.9 FM) in Middleton, WLBL (930 AM) in Auburndale, WHID (88.1 FM) in Green Bay, WHWC (88.3 FM) in Menomonie, WRFW (88.7 FM) in River Falls, WEPS (88.9 FM) in Elgin, Ill., WHAA (89.1 FM) in Adams, WHBM (90.3 FM) in Park Falls, WHLA (90.3 FM) in La Crosse, WRST (90.3 FM) in Oshkosh, WHAD (90.7 FM) in Delafield, W215AQ (90.9 FM) in Middleton, KUWS (91.3 FM) in Superior, WHHI (91.3 FM) in Highland, WSHS (91.7 FM) in Sheboygan, WHDI (91.9 FM) in Sister Bay, WLBL (91.9 FM) in Wausau, W275AF (102.9 FM) in Ashland, and of course online at www.wpr.org.
The biggest thing besides my media appearances, of course, is that Friday is Groundhog Day, in which should a designated rodent (Jimmy the Groundhog in Sun Prairie, presumably despite his biting the mayor last year, and Punxsutawney Phil elsewhere) see his shadow (and sun is in the forecast Friday morning), we will be cursed with six more weeks of winter. Of course, we Wisconsinites are cursed with six to 12 weeks of winter anyway. Nevertheless that reminded me of what I wanted to do back when I had commercial radio ambitions — report that Jimmy had seen his shadow to predict six more weeks of winter, followed by a dramatic live report (in the manner of Les Nessman) that Jimmy had been assassinated.
If Groundhog Day doesn’t impress you, Friday is also Hedgehog Day, Marmot Day, Candlemas, Crêpe Day, Bubble Gum Day, Heavenly Hash Day (for the ice cream, not hash browns or hashish), Tater Tot Day, Sled Dog Day and National Wear Red Day. Saturday is St. Blase Day (and given how much announcing I’m doing the next few weeks maybe I should get a throat blessing), Eat Ice Cream for Breakfast Day, and The Day the Music Died. Sunday is Create a Vacuum Day. I’d mention that Sunday is Super Bowl Sunday, except that Packer fans don’t care.
Ordinarily I have this attitude about grand speeches from politicians such as tonight’s State of the Union address:
However, I have to watch the State of the Union tonight — recorded, at least — because I’m going to be live on the BBC World Service’s Newshour program (or “programme” to the British), scheduled (pronounced “SHED-U-ulled”) Wednesday at 8 a.m. Central time, which I think is 2 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, discussing said State of the Union speech. The catalogue of channels on the satellite radios in the vehicles includes the BBC World Service (which seems to employ many Irish announcers, perhaps ironically) on SiriusXM channel 120.
I also recorded some segments Friday that will probably be on the Newshour page, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsnk. Any way one listens, I imagine someone sitting in an Irish pub spitting out his (lukewarm) beer upon something I say, and in this case it means the entire world will have to learn to pronounce “Prestegard.” Right.
No one from the Beeb has offered to buy me a stereotypical English breakfast …
Would I eat this? You have to ask? Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
… but then again we’re not in Britain, though the downtown here was designed in the manner of a British village in 1835. (Meaning: Narrow streets and no place to park.)
I have determined that the older of the BBC crew is an authentic Brit because he knows what this is …
… and even in our discussion threw this in …
… while the other (from Canada, but we haven’t discussed hockey yet) knows this …
… which is a clever spinoff of this …
… which has nothing to do with these, but I decided to throw them in anyway:
(Since I’ve already included one British spelling here I will endeavour to include other British-spelled words elsewhere in this blog.)
I will watch recorded Donald Trump because I have a basketball game to announce between two former conference girls basketball rivals, Platteville and Cuba City, tonight at 7 here. The two teams have a combined 27–6 record, so it should be a good game. (I wonder if the BBC needs a basketball announcer.)
Newshour picked my corner of Wisconsin because a majority of its voters voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016, and they’ve spent a few days here asking why. Of course, Wisconsinites have a reputation for merrily splitting their tickets. On the one hand, the Democrat won the state’s presidential electoral votes from 1988 to 2012, and this state had two Democratic U.S. senators from 1992 to 2010. During that time, however, there was a Republican governor for all but eight years, Republicans controlled at least one house of the Legislature most of that time (this area has been represented by a Democrat in the State Senate twice since statehood), and for the past seven years (minus a hiccup during Recallarama) have controlled both houses of the Legislature. I’m not sure if that makes Wisconsin the colour purple, as in the political centre, or it’s perhaps layered — blue on top, red below — though the entire state, minus a few legislative and Congressional districts, is pretty red right now.
Trump’s election seems to come down to one of two theories. The first is that while most establishment Republicans held their noses and voted for him, other voters voted for him because he resounded with them by refusing to play by establishment rules. The other, perhaps more simple, theory is that whatever his numerous faults are, Trump wasn’t and isn’t Hillary Clinton.
I’m certain he’ll sound statesmanlike tonight. He apparently did at Davos. It’s in those unplugged moments, when it’s him and his Twitter account, where he goes off the deep end. (Repeatedly.) The longer he’s president, though, the more I wonder if those are calculated outbursts of calculated outrage and calculated offence targeted to his true believers.
Almost a year ago I wrote about a few books, two of which were turned into movies, about fictional sports teams.
One of those was North Dallas Forty, a thinly veiled retelling of the 1960s Dallas Cowboys, which became one of those movies:
It turns out that ESPN.com wrote a more detailed comparison of the, uh, North Dallas Bulls and the Cowboys:
“North Dallas Forty,” the movie version of an autobiographical novel written by former Dallas Cowboy receiver Pete Gent, came to the silver screen in 1979. The book had received much attention because it was excellent and because many thought the unflattering portrait of pro football, Dallas Cowboys-style, was fairly accurate.
The film reached many more people than the book, and was, in many ways, a simplified version of the novel. But did it portray the NFL accurately? In the Sept. 16, 1979, Washington Post, offensive tackle George Starke wrote, “Most of what you see is close to what happens, or at least did happen when Pete Gent played.” Others disagreed. What do you think?
In Reel Life: The movie’s title is “North Dallas Forty,” and the featured team is the North Dallas Bulls. In Real Life: Why North Dallas? Gent, a rookie in 1964, explains in an e-mail interview: “I was shocked that in 1964 America, Dallas could have an NFL franchise and the black players could not live near the practice field in North Dallas — which was one of the reasons I titled the book ‘North Dallas Forty.’ I kept asking why the white players put up with their black teammates being forced to live in segregated south Dallas, a long drive to the practice field. The situation was not changed until Mel Renfro filed a ‘Fair Housing Suit’ in 1969.”
In Reel Life: In the opening scene, Phil Elliott (Nick Nolte) is having trouble breathing after he wakes up; his left shoulder’s in pain. He struggles to the bathtub, in obvious agony.
In Real Life: Jim Boeke, one of Gent’s Cowboy teammates (who also plays Stallings in the film), said this scene rings true. “I can’t say it happens to every player every morning after every game,” he told the Washington Post in 1979, “but the older you get, the more it happens to you.”
In Reel Life: As we see in the film, and as Elliott says near the end, he can’t sleep for more than three hours at a stretch because he’s in so much pain. In Real Life: Elliott is, obviously, a fictional version of Gent. “When I was younger, the pain reached that level during the season and it usually took a couple months for the pain and stiffness to recede,” says Gent. “Usually by February, I was able to sleep a good eight hours. As I got older, the pain took longer and longer to recede after the season.”
In Reel Life: Mac Davis plays Seth Maxwell, the Cowboys QB and Elliott’s close friend. In Real Life: Maxwell is a thinly disguised version of Gent’s close friend, 1960s Cowboys QB Don Meredith. According to Gent, Meredith was offered the role of Seth Maxwell. “Don was at Elaine’s one night talking with Bud Sharke, [Frank] Gifford, and several others, and Don said, ‘I just don’t want others to think that’s me.’ And Gifford said, ‘Well, it is you.’ ”
“Gent would become Meredith’s primary confidant and amateur psychologist as the Cowboys quarterback’s life would become more and more topsy-turvy as the years went on,’ writes Peter Golenbock in the oral history, “Cowboys Have Always Been My Heroes.”
In Reel Life: Throughout the film, there’s a battle of wits going on between Elliott and head coach B.A. Strothers (G.D. Spradlin). In Real Life: B.A. bears some resemblance to Tom Landry, who coached Gent on the Cowboys. “The only way I kept up with Landry, I read a lot of psychology — abnormal psychology,” says Gent in “Heroes.”
Though sometimes confused by Landry, Gent says he admired the man: “Over the course of a high school, college and pro career, an athlete is exposed to all sorts of coaches, (including) great ones who are geniuses breaking new ground in their game. Tom Landry was like that … When you are young, you think you are going to meet men like this your whole life. You think the world is full of genius, and it isn’t until you leave the game that you found out you may have met the greatest men you will ever meet.
In Reel Life: Jo Bob Priddy (Bo Svenson) and O. W. Shaddock (John Matuszak) interrupt Elliott’s relaxing bath, entering the bathroom with rifles blazing. Along with Maxwell, off-a-hunting they go. In Real Life: Former Cowboys Ralph Neely (a tackle) and Larry Cole (defensive end) told Washington Post reporter Jane Leavy that the trip was real. “Football players have only one day off a week and if they go hunting, they’re sure as hell going to shoot something,” Cole said in 1979. “We shot butterflies, field larks …” And, Neely added, a mailbox.
In Reel Life: Everyone’s drinking during the hunting trip, and one series of shots comes dangerously close to Elliott and Maxwell. In Real Life: “In Texas, they all drank when they hunted,” says Gent in “Heroes.” “That story in ‘North Dallas Forty’ of being in a duck blind and getting sprayed by shot was a true story. (Don) Talbert and (Bob) Lilly, or somebody else, started shooting at us from across the lake!” …
In Reel Life: Maxwell says, “Son, you ain’t never gonna get off that bench until you stop fighting them suckers. You got to learn how to fool them. Give ’em what they want. I know. I’ve been fooling them bastards for years.” In Real Life: Meredith never really stopped fighting “those suckers,” meaning, really, Landry. The quarterback suffered through the early years with the Cowboys and Landry, and ended up leading Dallas to within minutes of NFL championships in 1966 and 1967. Still, Landry replaced Meredith with Craig Morton during a 1968 playoff game, and that was, apparently, the last straw. Meredith retired at age 29, hoping that Landry would ask him to continue playing. Landry didn’t, saying. “Don, I think you are making the right decision.” …
In Reel Life: Elliott and Maxwell go to a table far away from the action, and share a joint. A man in a car spies on them. In Real Life: Gent says he was followed throughout the 1967 and 1968 seasons (more about this later): “One time a neighbor told me, ‘Pete, now don’t look, but there is somebody sitting in our parking lot with binoculars,’ ” he says in “Heroes.”
In Reel Life: At the party, and throughout the movie, Maxwell moves easily between teammates and groups of players, and seems to be universally respected. In Real Life: Meredith “was greatly respected by his teammates for his great skills and his nerve on the field during a period of time in the NFL when knocking out the quarterback was a tactic for winning,” says Gent. He “would take awful physical beatings and somehow keep getting up and taking the team to wins … He was one tough SOB.”
In Reel Life: The Cowboys are worshiped. They are, as Maxwell puts it, “genuine heroes.” In Real Life: The Cowboys were small time during the first half of the 1960s, but when they started winning under Landry, everything changed. “In 1964, if you bought an adult ticket, you got five kids in for nothing and a free football,” says Gent in “Heroes.” “The only time we filled the stadium was when Green Bay came. By ’66, we were sold out every game. In just two years, we went from our not being able to get a seat in a restaurant in Dallas to literally being America’s guest.”
In Reel Life: Elliott meets with B.A. The coach sits down in front of a computer, scrolling through screen after screen of information. He stops and points to the monitor. “Now that’s it, that’s it,” he says. “Phil, that’s what it all boils down to, your attitude.” In Real Life: Clint Murchison, Jr., the team’s owner, owned a computer company, and the Cowboys pioneered the use of computers in the NFL, using them as early as 1962. “The Cowboys initially used computers to do self-scouting,” writes Craig Ellenport at NFL.com. “Were they too predictable on third-and-long situations? What was the average gain when they ran that trap play last season? As the Cowboys’ organization learned more about computers, they become a greater factor in the game-plan equation. ‘It was just another weapon that we had to do the job that had to be done,’ said Landry.”
In Reel Life: Elliott, in bed with Joanne Rodney (Savannah Smith), says he’s got the best hands in the league. Elliott’s high regard of his own abilities is a continuing theme throughout the film, and there’s plenty of screen action to back up the assessment. In Real Life: Many of Gent’s teammates have said he wasn’t nearly as good as he portrayed himself in the book and the movie. “If I had known Gent was that good, I would have thrown to him more,” said Meredith, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, after reading the book.
Gent stands by his self-assessment, and says that Landry agreed about his ability to catch the ball. “Tom actually told the press that I had the best hands in the league,” says Gent. “And I did.” Gent, who played basketball in college, adds, “Catching a football was easy compared to catching a basketball.”
Gent, who was often used as a blocker, finished his NFL career with 68 catches for 898 yards and four TDs. In his best season, 1966, he had 27 catches for 484 yards and a touchdown.
In Reel Life: During a meeting, the team watches film of the previous Sunday’s game. In the film, Elliott catches a pass on third down, and everyone cheers. Except B.A., who says, “No, Seth, you should never have thrown to Elliott with that kind of coverage. Look at Delma. He’s wide open. I don’t like this buddy buddy stuff interfering with my judgment.” In Real Life: Landry stressed disciplined play, but sometimes punished players when, even though they followed his precise instructions, a play went awry. For example, Landry benched Meredith during the 1968 NFL divisional playoff game against the Browns. He threw “an interception that should have been credited against Landry’s disciplined system of play,” writes Gary Cartwright, who covered the Cowboys during the 1960s. “According to Landry’s gospel, the Cleveland defensive back who intercepted Meredith’s final pass should have been on the other side of the field. Unfortunately, the Cleveland defensive back was in the wrong place. It wasn’t that Landry was wrong; Cleveland just wasn’t right.”
In Reel Life: The game film shows Stallings going offside. B.A. castigates the player: “There’s no room in this business for uncertainty.” Later, Stallings is cut, his locker unceremoniously emptied. In Real Life: This happened to Boeke, a former Cowboys lineman, who was, in a way, playing himself in the film — Gent has said he was thinking of Boeke when he wrote this scene. “We were playing in the championship game in 1967, and Jim jumped offside, something anyone could do,” Gent told Leavy in 1979. “The NFL Films showed it from six or seven angles. They had it in slo-mo, and in overheads. It literally ended his career.” In fact, Boeke played another season for the Cowboys before being traded, but he agreed that the offside call was the beginning of the end.
In Reel Life: Art Hartman (Marshall Colt) is Maxwell’s backup at QB. He’s a very religious man, a straight arrow who is the object of some scorn. Maxwell refers to Hartman as “a dedicated young Christian stud.” In Real Life: Lots of folks have played the guessing game about who Hartman “really” is, with Roger Staubach being the most frequently mentioned candidate. But Gent denied it after the film came out. “It’s not Staubach,” he told the Washington Post in 1979. “But don’t tell him, it’ll break his heart. That character was based on any number of players who got into all that religious bull.”
For one thing, Meredith and Gent were never teammates of Staubach. Meredith and Gent left the Cowboys after the 1968 season, one year before Staubach’s rookie season.
In Reel Life: Elliott catches a pass, and is tackled hard, falling on his back. Someone breaks open an ampule of amyl nitrate to revive him. Amyl is used in other scenes in the movie. In Real Life: Gent says the drug was so prolific that, “one training camp I was surprised nobody died from using amyl nitrate.”
“In about 1967, amyl nitrite was an over-the-counter drug for people who suffered from angina,” Gent told John Walsh in a Feb. 1984 Playboy interview. “I talked to several doctors who told me it basically didn’t do any damage; it speeded up your heart and pumped a lot of oxygen to your brain, which puts you in another level of consciousness. At camp, I explained that this drug was legal and cheap — it cost about $2 for 12 ampules of it — everybody tried it and went crazy on it.”
In Reel Life: Elliott is constantly in pain, constantly hurt. In Real Life: Lee Roy Jordan told the Dallas Times that Gent never worked out or lifted weights, and that Gent was “soft.” But Gent says Jordan’s comments were not accurate: “I was not particularly strong but I took my beatings to catch the ball,” he says. “That is how you get a broken neck and fractures of the spine, a broken leg and dislocated ankle, and a half-dozen broken noses.” And, he adds, that’s how he “became the guy that always got the call to go across the middle on third down.”
In Reel Life: Elliott wears a T-shirt that says “No Freedom/No Football/NFLPA.” In Real Life: The NFL Players Association adopted this slogan during its 1974 strike.
In Reel Life: Elliott and Maxwell break into the trainer’s medicine cabinet, and take all kinds of stuff, including speed and painkillers. In Real Life: Many players said drug use in the film was exaggerated, or peculiar to Gent. “Pete’s threshold of pain was such that if he had a headache, he would have needed something to kill the pain,” Dan Reeves told the Washington Post in 1979. As for speed pills, Reeves said, “Nobody thought there was anything wrong with them. A lot of guys took those things 15 years ago, just like women took birth control pills before they knew they were bad. It’s not as true a picture as it was 10 to 15 years ago, when it was closer to the truth.”
In Reel Life: At a team meeting, B.A. scolds the team for poor play the previous Sunday. “We played far below our potential. Our punting team gave them 4.5 yards per kick, more than our reasonable goal and 9.9 yards more than outstanding …”
In Real Life: Landry rated players in a similar fashion to what’s depicted in the scene, but the system, in Gent’s opinion, wasn’t as objective as it seemed. “They literally rated you on a three-point system,” writes Gent in “Heroes.” “On any play you got no points for doing your job, you got a minus one if you didn’t do your job, you got a plus one if you did more than your job. And a good score in a game was 17 … And they would read your scores out in front of everybody else. That was another thing. Tom thought that everyone should know who was letting them down. Right away I began to notice that the guys whose scores didn’t seem to jibe with the way they were playing were the guys Tom didn’t like.”
Meredith was one of those players. “He truly did not like Don Meredith, not as a player and not as a person,” writes Golenbock.
In Reel Life: North Dallas is playing Chicago for the conference championship. The owner says, “If we win this game, you’re all invited to spend the weekend at my private island in the Caribbean.” In Real Life: According to Gent, the Murchisons did have a private island, but the team was never invited.
In Reel Life: Phil has already told B.A. that he’ll do whatever it takes to play, and before the game he takes a shot in his knee to kill the pain. In Real Life: Gent, like many pro athletes, would go to extreme lengths to play, even when badly injured. He even expresses some guilt over not playing in the “Ice Bowl,” the 1967 NFL Championship Game which the Cowboys lost in the final seconds, 21-17, to the Packers in Green Bay. The game-time temperature was minus-13. “I would have played the whole game for Bobby Hayes. [Hayes put his hands in his pockets when he wasn’t the intended receiver, a tipoff exploited by the Packers.] His hands had swollen and cracked by the second quarter. I was used to playing in cold weather, but I was in the hospital with a broken leg.
“I have always felt that it [the loss] was partly my fault. Go figure that out.”
In Reel Life: Delma Huddle (former pro Tommy Reamon) watches Elliott take a shot in his knee. He says, “No shots for me, man, I can’t stand needles … All those pills and shots, man, they do terrible things to your body.” Later, though, the peer pressure gets to Huddle, and he takes a shot so he can play with a pulled hamstring. In Real Life: Neely says this sequence rings false. “I cannot remember an instance where a player was made to feel he had to do this where he was put in the position of feeling he might lose his job.”
“Maybe Ralph can’t remember,” Gent responds in his e-mail interview. “Maybe he forgot all those rows of syringes in the training room at the Cotton Bowl. They seldom tell you to take the shot or clean out your locker. They leave you to make the decision, and if you don’t do it, they will remember, and so will your teammates. But worst of all, so will you — what if the team loses and you might have made the difference?”
In Reel Life: After one play, a TV announcer says, “I wonder if the coach called that play on the sideline or if Maxwell called it in the huddle.”
In Real Life: Who called the plays was one of many disputes between Meredith and Landry. “Landry literally could forget the game plan,” says Gent in “Heroes.” “When I would run in plays for him, he would call the wrong plays. Well, in ’66 it didn’t matter because Meredith was calling the plays, even when Landry would send them in. Lots of times Landry would send in a suggestion, and Meredith would send the player back out to publicly show up Landry. The player would start out, and Meredith would wave him back.”
In Reel Life: In the last minute of the game, Delma pulls a muscle and goes down. Elliott goes over to see how he’s doing. B.A. yells, “Elliott, get back in the huddle! The doctor will look after him. Mister, you get back in the huddle right now or off the field.” In Real Life: Landry did not respond emotionally when players were injured during a game. Cartwright contrasted Landry’s style with Lombardi’s: “When a player was down writhing in agony, the contrast was most apparent: Lombardi would be racing like an Italian fishwife, cursing and imploring the gods to get the lad back on his feet for at least one more play; Landry would be giving instructions to the unfortunate player’s substitute.”
In Reel Life: Elliott catches a TD pass with time expired, pulling North Dallas to within one point of Chicago. If they make the extra point, the game is tied and goes into overtime. But Hartman fumbles the snap, and the Bulls lose the game. In Real Life: This is similar to what happened in the 1966 NFL Championship game. The Packers led the Cowboys 34-20 with a little more than five minutes remaining. Meredith led a quick Dallas drive for one TD, and on the last drive of the game the Cowboys got to the Packers’ 2-yard line with 28 seconds left. A TD and extra point would have sent the game into OT. But Meredith’s pass was intercepted in the end zone by Tom Brown, sealing the win for the Packers and a heartbreaking loss for Dallas.
In Reel Life: After the loss, O.W. reams out Coach Johnson: “Every time I call it a game, you say it’s a business. Every time I say it’s a business, you call it a game!”
In Real Life: That speech got Matuszak the part of O.W. “(Director) Ted Kotcheff had Tooz read the speech … and Tooz blew everybody away,” says Gent.
In Reel Life: Elliott has a meeting the day after the game with Conrad Hunter (Steve Forrest). B.A., Emmett Hunter (Dabney Coleman), and “Ray March, of the League’s internal investigation division,” are also there. A league investigator recites what he saw while following Elliott during the week, including evidence that Elliott smoked a “marijuana cigarette.” In Real Life: Gent was investigated by the league. “In the offseason after the ’67 season and all during ’68 they followed me,” he says in “Heroes.” “They had guys on me for one whole season.” The investigation began, says Gent in his e-mail interview, “because I entertained black and white players at my house. I have always suspected Lee Roy (Jordan) as the snitch who informed the Cowboys and the league that I was ‘selling’ drugs (because), as he says so often in the press, ‘Pete Gent was a bad influence on the team.’ ”
In Reel Life: Elliott gives a speech about how management is the “team,” while players are just more pieces of equipment. In Real Life: Gent really grew to despise Cowboys management. “I wanted out of there,” he writes in “Heroes.” “I knew I was only going to play if they needed me, and the minute they didn’t need me, I was gone. And I knew that it didn’t matter how well I did. I could call Tom an ass—- to his face, and he wasn’t going to trade me until he had somebody to play my spot, and the moment he had somebody to play my spot, I was gone. And so from then on, that was my attitude toward Tom Landry, and the rest of the organization going all the way up to Tex Schramm.”
In Reel Life: The film stresses the conflict between Elliott’s view that football players should be treated like individuals and Landry’s cold assessment and treatment of players. In Real Life: “I’ve come to the conclusion that players want to be treated alike,” Landry told Cartwright in 1973. “They may talk about individualism, but I believe they want a single standard … If a player is contributing and performing the way he ought to, he will usually conform … We just can’t get along with a player who doesn’t conform or perform. No way.”
In Reel Life: Elliott quits after he’s told he’s suspended without pay, “pending a league hearing.” In Real Life: This scene was fiction — Gent wasn’t suspended. But the NFL didn’t take kindly to those who participated in the making of “North Dallas Forty.” Hall of Famer Tom Fears, who advised on the movie’s football action, had a scouting contract with three NFL teams — all were canceled after the film opened, reported Leavy and Tony Kornheiser in a Sept. 6, 1979, Washington Post article. And the Raiders severed ties with Fred Biletnikoff, who coached Nolte. “Freddy was not even asked back to camp,” writes Gent. Reamon, who played Delma, was cut by the 49ers after the film came out, and said he had been “blackballed.”
NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle denied any organized blacklist, but told The Post, “I can’t say that some clubs in their own judgment (did not make) decisions based on many factors, including that they did not like the movie.”
The Raiders’ “severed ties” with Biletnikoff are somewhat hard to believe. Biletnikoff retired from the NFL after the 1978 season, his 14th with the Raiders, though he was a player/coach with the Canadian Football League’s Montreal Alouettes in 1980. Nine years after that, he was hired as the Raiders’ receivers coach, which lasted until 2006.
Given the Raiders being the NFL’s rebel franchise under owner Al Davis, the only way the Raiders would have severed ties with Biletnikoff for his role with the movie is if Davis didn’t like it. The NFL’s opinion would have meant little to Davis, who sued the NFL so he could move the Raiders to Los Angeles, moving back to Oakland in 1995.
Every town has a nickname for its local newspaper, not all of them fit for publication in a local newspaper. Most involve puns, creating a cruel irony where wordsmiths are victims of wordplay.
Locals call my paper, the Baraboo News Republic, the Baraboo News or, when prickly, the “Baraboo Snooze.” You see, what they’re doing there is using a rhyme to suggest there’s nothing interesting in the paper. Get it? Har dee har har.
It’s OK; we can take a joke. We who work for newspapers don’t take ourselves too seriously. If we did, we’d stop wearing leisure suits. Besides, being teased thickens our skins. These nicknames help cub reporters learn early on that working in the public eye is hardly Xanadu — or even Rockford — and if they want to be liked, they should choose another line of work.
Truth be told, we employ these sobriquets, too. We relish denigrating competitors with derogatory monikers. It’s the thing we love most, other than showing off our vocabularies.
Some nicknames are more imaginative than others. Any paper with “Journal” in its name is predictably dubbed the “Urinal.” And “The Sun” becomes “The Scum.”
Others are more inventive, such as Phoenix readers who call the Arizona Republic the “Arizona Repugnant” or the “Arizona Repulsive.” In North Carolina, the Raleigh News and Observer is sometimes labeled the “Noise and Disturber.” In Milwaukee, some readers have made the tired “Urinal” nickname flush, calling the Journal Sentinel the “Urine Sample.”
Many nicknames strike at editorial boards’ politics. In England, the Daily Mail is punished for supporting fascists in the 1930s through its nickname, the “Daily Heil.” The Oregon Register-Guard is known to conservative readers as the “Red Guard.” More bluntly, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s oldest student paper, the Daily Cardinal, is dubbed the “Daily Communist.”
College campuses are breeding grounds for memorable newspaper nicknames. At the University of California-Santa Barbara, they call the Daily Nexus the “Noxious.” The University of Chicago Maroon is dubbed the “Moron.” In Austin, you might hear the Daily Texan called the “Daily Toxin.” My personal favorite comes from the University of New Mexico, where the Daily Lobo is also known as the “Daily Lobotomy.”
There are plenty of creative nicknames off campus, too. Some call the San Francisco Chronicle the “Comical.” In England, the Telegraph is labeled the “Tell-a-Lie.” The staff of the Richmond Times-Dispatch is might not like to hear their publication sometimes is called the “Times-Disgrace.” But they probably already know.
Notable negative newspaper nicknames are nothing new. (We enjoy using alliteration almost as much as using big words.) The venerable New York Times has been known for decades as “the Gray Lady” for its front pages covered with long columns of text rather than pictures. Sure, the Times started publishing color photographs years ago, but nicknames can be hard to shake. Your skin may clear up after middle school, but that won’t stop classmates from calling you “Crater Face.”
Enduring a measure of ridicule comes with working in the public eye. When you work for a community institution, familiarity can breed contempt. Some readers don’t care for their local paper’s politics. Some are still upset their name was misspelled 40 years ago in an article about the third-grade spelling bee. Some can’t understand why we stopped publishing Beetle Bailey. So they give us nasty nicknames. It’s the same reason a fiery kindergarten teacher named Ms. Darren gets labeled “Ms. Dragon.”
It’s OK; the nicknames are part of the job. At least we know, because you say them to our faces, what you call us behind our backs. We just might have nicknames for some of you, too. But we’re keeping those off the record.
I have decided I am tired of writing about politics for the rest of the week.
One of the most infamous moments of TV before the “Star Wars Holiday Special” was this, uh, performance from William Shatner …
… during the 1978 Science Fiction Film Awards.
There, is, however, an actual story to this, or so this Facebook post (taken, the writer claims, from Shatner’s autobiography) claims:
Shatner was rehearsing and during a pause he took a cigarette break with some of the crew. He was the center of attention, of course, and they got to talking about Bernie Taupin being at the show, and Shatner grabbed a chair and did what he called “Frank Sinatra doing Elton John,” performing Rocketman. He had the entire crew in stitches and they desperately wanted to get it on film, but eventualy it was suggested that he should do it for the show. It would be a brilliant comedy bit.
Because of the way the stage was situated, Shatner couldn’t tell what the reaction of the crowd was when he performed it. He just assumed everyone had a good laugh and moved on with the show.
He picked the paper up the next morning to see that the media and the audience were raving about his brilliant, artistic, dramatic performance, and how he wowed the crowd with his passion and artistic interpretation… It was supposed to be a joke, and they totally took it seriously.
That’s one story. Cover Me has another interpretation:
William Shatner’s take on the classic Elton John/Bernie Taupin tune “Rocket Man” has an awesome power—people know it without ever having heard it. It seems to exist in our culture purely as a punchline, a go-to gag to illustrate the depth to which Shatner’s career had fallen post-Star Trek. And this is a joke everybody’s in on—sources as diverse as Beck (in his video for “Where It’s At“), Freakazoid, and Family Guy have all taken a few shots at Shatner for this one. But is it really so awful?
At the very least, there’s no denying that Shatner’s “Rocket Man” is very, very weird. The man who was Captain Kirk performed this song as a tribute to Bernie Taupin at the 1978 Saturn Awards ceremony, and audiences have wondered why ever since. …
Truthfully, even if you’re going in academically, it’s hard not to laugh at parts of Shatner’s cover. Whether it’s the overly-serious delivery when he proclaims he just doesn’t understand science at 2:30 or the arrival of Dancing Kirk at 3:18, sections of this song (if not the whole thing) are just hilarious. I can’t imagine a more appropriate first response than confused guffawing.
But, after all, that’s only a first response.
This is not to deny that Shatner’s cover isn’t funny, because it is. But I think it’s more than that. The key to understanding where Bill is coming from here is in how the song is staged—there’s three different Shatners singing, each with a different tone and cadence. Shatner #1 is calm and cool, smoking a cigarette and acting aloof, describing his space-faring job as he might any other profession. Shatner #2 speaks boldly, like he’s channeling the spirit of an adventurer about to conquer the great unknown, but sometimes there’s a crack in his voice or a downturn in his expression that indicates he may be feigning the enthusiasm. Shatner #3 is a dancing fool, totally jubilant about his job—he gets to hang out in outer space! It’s an interesting dissection of the multi-faceted feelings of this song’s narrator, bolstered by the fact that Starfleet Captain James T. Kirk is the one delivering the lines.
What makes Shatner’s “Rocket Man” so funny is its over-earnestness. It takes itself veryseriously. That’s also what makes it charming. In a way, it offers a handy prism through which to view the whole of Shatner’s career. It’s like that scene in Star Trek III where Klingon leader Kruge (played by Christopher Lloyd) murders Kirk’s son in cold blood. Shatner, standing taut on the bridge of his ship, stumbles back, falls into a slumped position on his captain’s chair, and utters (in the standard Shatner cadence) “You Klingon bastard…you killed my son. You Klingon bastard!” If you only look at that scene, it’s kind of funny and ridiculous, but if you’re caught up in the reality of the movie, I think it’s actually some pretty powerful acting. You rarely see a confident leader like Kirk so deflated. My point is that something can be both a little silly and an interesting performance piece, depending on how one wants to look at it.
I think Shatner’s “Rocket Man” is both of those things. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have some fun with it, but if you can get past all that, there is actually something kind of interesting going on. On Has Been, his 2004 collaboration with Ben Folds, Shatner proved that he can make legitimately good music. Maybe that was apparent all along, if only we’d looked.
William Shatner’s “spoken-word” version of Rocket Man made an extraordinary impact; I can only describe it as unforgettable. Initially, Shatner appears sitting on a stool, taking drags from a cigarette. An orchestra plays the melody in the background, while Shatner recites the lyrics.
Shatner over-emphasizes the line “I’m gonna be high as a kite by then,” lest anyone miss the drug allusions in that phrase. Later, using “Chroma Key” video technology, we see three different versions of Shatner. They are intended to represent three different facets of the Rocket Man’s personality. So we get the cynical hipster smoking a cigarette; a second Shatner exhibiting concern and bewilderment; and a third “swinger” persona.
One has to admit, this is one of the great moments on live television. It has been relentlessly spoofed, presumably because of Shatner’s over-the-top reading. I believe this is somewhat unfair. Whether or not one is impressed by the piece, Shatner made a serious attempt to capture the essence of the Elton John-Bernie Taupin tune.
But Shatner’s performance seems to invite parody. Among other efforts, it has been lampooned by The Simpsons and by comedian Chris Elliot on Late Night with David Letterman.
Here we will show Seth McFarlane’s take-off on Shatner’s version of Rocket Man. In an episode of the TV show Family Guy, baby Stewie Griffin reprises this song, with the voice provided by McFarlane himself.
This is virtually a word-for-word re-creation of Shatner’s performance, even including three different incarnations of Stewie.
Although William Shatner became famous for his spoken-word pieces, he also became a laughing-stock. Shatner could have taken this as a slap in the face; however, he took the criticism in stride, and showed an endearing capacity to laugh at himself.
William Shatner has profited handsomely from his willingness to take a joke. He poked fun at his Capt. Kirk role in appearances on Saturday Night Live and subsequent spoofs in movies like Airplane II and National Lampoon’s Loaded Weapon 1.
Shatner’s character Denny Crane on The Practice and later reprised on Boston Legal was sufficiently self-referential that it is sometimes hard to separate the TV character from the Shatner send-up. For several years now Shatner has been starring (and parodying himself) as the spokesman for Priceline.com.
William Shatner has shown that you can make a ton of money if you have the ability to laugh at yourself. Our hope for Mr. Shatner is that he “live long and prosper.”
Well, Shatner has so far; he has outlived all but three other members of the original cast. And, of course …
My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.
First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.
This isn’t meant as a global condemnation of this interviewer’s quality or past work. As with her subject, I haven’t seen enough of it to render any overall judgment—and it is sometimes useful to respond to an evasive subject with an unusually blunt restatement of their views to draw them out or to force them to clarify their ideas.
Perhaps she has used that tactic to good effect elsewhere. (And the online attacks to which she’s been subjected are abhorrent assaults on decency by people who are perpetrating misbehavior orders of magnitude worse than hers.)
But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.
Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”
“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.
“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”
The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”
The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:
Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.
Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.
Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?
Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––
The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.
Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:
Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.
Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.
Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.
Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.
Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.
Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.
Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.
Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.
Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.
Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?
Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.
Newman: And you celebrate that?
Peterson: Of course! Of course!
Another passage on gender equality proceeded thusly:
Newman: Is gender equality a myth?
Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same. And they won’t be the same. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be treated fairly.
Newman: Is gender equality desirable?
Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences––you can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.
Newman: So you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain’t going to happen.
Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.
Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.
Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.
Newman: But still women aren’t going to make it. That’s what you’re really saying.
That is not “what he’s really saying”!
In this next passage Peterson shows more explicit frustration than at any other time in the program with being interviewed by someone who refuses to relay his actual beliefs:
Newman: So you don’t believe in equal pay.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying that at all.
Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you will say, are we going back to the dark ages?
Peterson: That’s because you’re not listening, you’re just projecting.
Newman: I’m listening very carefully, and I’m hearing you basically saying that women need to just accept that they’re never going to make it on equal terms—equal outcomes is how you defined it.
Peterson: No, I didn’t say that.
Newman: If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying, it’s not possible, it’s going to make you miserable.
Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, or anything like that. Because I don’t believe that for a second.
Newman: Striving for the top, but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries. And that’s fine, you’re saying. That’s fine. The patriarchal system is just fine.
Peterson: No! I really think that’s silly! I do, I think that’s silly.
He thinks it is silly because he never said that “the patriarchal system is just fine” or that he planned to put lots of hurdles in the way of women, or that women shouldn’t strive for the top, or that they might as well drop out of school, because achieving their goals or happiness is simply not going to be possible.
The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters. Here’s the excerpt:
Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.
Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
Yes, he proposes that we all live on the sea floor, save some, who shall go to the seafood tanks at restaurants. It’s laughable. But Peterson tries to keep plodding along.
Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Where did she get that extreme “and there’s nothing we can do about it”? Peterson has already said that he’s a clinical psychologist who coaches people to change how they related to institutions and to one another within the constraints of human biology. Of course he believes that there is something that can be done about it.
He brought up the lobsters only in an attempt to argue that “one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.”At this point, we’re near the end of the interview. And given all that preceded it, Newman’s response killed me. Again, she takes an accusatory tack with her guest:
Newman: Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger?
Peterson: Not at all.
Newman: Divisions between men and women. You’re stirring things up.
Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.”
At every turn, she is the one who takes her subject’s words and makes them seem more extreme, or more hostile to women, or more shocking in their implications than Peterson’s remarks themselves support. Almost all of the most inflammatory views that were aired in the interview are ascribed by Newman to Peterson, who then disputes that she has accurately characterized his words.
There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?
To conclude, this is neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of Peterson’s views. It is an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.
For one, those who credulously accept the interviewer’s characterizations will emerge with the impression that a prominent academic holds troubling views that, in fact, he does not actually believe or advocate. Some will feel needlessly troubled. And distorted impressions of what figures like Peterson mean by the words that they speak can only exacerbate overall polarization between their followers and others, and sap their critics of credibility to push back where they are wrong.
Lots of culture-war fights are unavoidable––that is, they are rooted in earnest, strongly felt disagreements over the best values or way forward or method of prioritizing goods. The best we can do is have those fights, with rules against eye-gouging.
But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemic—and addressing it for everyone’s sake is long overdue.
I’m a pretty good arguer myself. But I sure wouldn’t want to be on the other side of a Peterson debate (or maybe I would like it—just to get close, because I admit to a bit of a crush on the guy). But I think that most people are simplifying what happened in the Newman interview. I believe that what Peterson did vis a vis Newman was much more than just win the argument or make his points or embarrass or “crush” or demolish her, or whatever destructive verb you want to use to describe it. …
What Peterson does in that interview isn’t just on the order of what someone like Thomas Sowell (whom I also admire greatly) habitually does in argument, which is to counter the adversary on the cognitive and logical points, and to apply the results of research to the discussion. Peterson certainly does do that, and that’s what most people see when they watch that interview. But he adds certain techniques of the therapist and particularly of the family therapist (although I really don’t know if he’s done any family therapy; Peterson’s a psychologist and used to have a private practice as a therapist, however).
If you’re mostly familiar with the supportive touchy-feely type of therapy, that’s not what I’m talking about here. I can’t give you a crash course in therapeutic techniques or in particular in the way family therapists work, but I can tell you that it’s complicated, thoughtful, and strategic.
At least, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Whether most therapists live up to that description is a very different question, and I suspect the answer is “no.” But we’re talking about an ideal here.
Note that quite early on Peterson says to Newman, “I’m very very very careful with my words.” During training to be a family therapist (or an individual therapist, for that matter), students learn to be ultra-careful with words—so careful that it can lead to a headache every session, which is what I often experienced when I was in training and worked in a clinical program. Every word has meaning and every word can affect clients, because therapists often have a great deal of power over clients whether they (therapists or clients) want it or not.
In the Newman interview, Peterson is highly aware that each word shapes the argument and that a misstep on his part can and will give grist to the mill of his opponents. He’s also interested in communicating clearly so that his thoughts can be more easily understood. So you can feel the intensity of his effort to be 100% careful with his words, and I think he succeeds in that endeavor to an extraordinary extent.
He also listens hyper-intently, another hallmark of a good therapist. His interviewer Newman is not only inferior to him in that regard, she barely listens at all but just barrels ahead with questions that for the most part are hostile (and perhaps prepared in advance rather than made up on the spot). So this ability to listen gives him an enormous advantage—one that the best therapists generally have, as well.
Peterson is highly aware of the problem Newman has with listening. In fact, it would be hard for him not to be aware, because her failure to listen is so blatant. He must correct her again and again and again on her misinterpretation of what he’s said. But another thing he does in response to her is very therapist-like (although it may not sound that way to most people)—he calls her on it by saying at one point, “That’s because you’re actually not listening.” This is a case of going from content to process, another favorite technique of the therapist. And it’s done in an observational manner rather than a purely combative one.
The interview also reveals Peterson’s extreme patience. He must be annoyed with Newman—wouldn’t anyone in his position be? But he remains polite and explains himself to her time and again.
I’m not familiar with Newman’s previous work, but she’s a very experienced journalist, so we’re not talking about a tyro here. My guess is that, until now, Newman has displayed the trappings of being articulate and hard-hitting and relentless despite the fact that she’s approaching the topic (this one, anyway) with an appeal to emotion. That doesn’t mean she’s dumb (even if she may seem so here); it means that the appeal to emotion usually works. It’s probably usually rattled her subjects, if she’s trying to rattle them.
She’s certainly trying to rattle Peterson. But she’s chosen the wrong guy, because Peterson is not a person who gets rattled (in public, anyway, which is all we see of him). He can get firm, assertive, and/or almost angry, but only when he decides for strategic reasons to display those particular emotions. And yet he also seems—and I believe actually is—sincere even in anger. It’s an interesting and unusual juggling act. Like Peterson or hate him (and I like him very much), there’s no mistaking the fact that he comes across as speaking from the heart and the mind combined, and weighing his words about as carefully as words can be weighed.
Peterson has the ability to do two highly unusual things simultaneously: continue mostly unruffled in the face of a verbal onslaught, while intently tracking the conversation and hacking through the weeds of the back-and-forth exchange in order to remember and to clearly restate what he actually said (and what the other person said) rather than what the other person claims either of them said. These two things are exactly what therapists are trained to do, and something good therapists are able to do. Peterson is astoundingly good at both.
But that’s not all. Yes, Peterson is trying to state the factual and cognitive case in a clear manner. Yes, he’s also trying to remain calm and yet show appropriate assertiveness. Yes, he’s trying to track the conversation and not get caught in the interviewer’s misstatements about his statements. But he’s also trying (I believe) to encourage a transformation within his interviewer, and not just a cognitive transformation, either.
Again, that’s what good therapists do. And I believe a lot of people missed that part of it when watching this interview.
Peterson does this in a number of ways, but one of them is by surprising Newman and behaving in a way that runs counter to her expectations, not just about what he’s saying and what he stands for (basically, liberty and responsible adulthood are what he stands for), but about who he is as a human being. Peterson’s sincerity and brilliance are part of this—no ideology-spouting boilerplate demagogue is he—and so is his calmness. But he just might be at his most effective when he disarms Newman with statements such as, “I suspect you’re not very agreeable”—which on paper might look like an angry insult, but in person is said not in hostile criticism but as amiable praise for her assertiveness in her climb to the top and for her tenaciousness in the interview.
These are traits about which Peterson is pretty sure Newman takes pride: her assertiveness and tenaciousness as a reporter and interviewer. These are also traits some of her interviewees (and other people) might have found off-putting, or even unfeminine. So Peterson has accomplished a kind of verbal jujutsu. He has turned what starts out sounding like criticism into praise for qualities in herself that Newman values. And it’s a type of criticism she is likely to have heard before and thinks is a sexist sort of criticism. But here, Peterson (someone she’s thought might be an anti-woman troglodyte) is saying she’s to be praised for it!
That accomplishes two things. The first is that it probably creates a bit of doubt in her mind about the idea that Peterson has a disempowering attitude towards women. The second is that praising her for something she values is an example of something that has a name in the therapy business: it’s called joining. Joining helps to get a previously hostile person on your side, if only for a moment and hopefully even longer.
But the more striking turning point is Peterson’s response when Newman asks him what gives him the right to be offensive to a transgender person (I’m doing this from memory and my original notes on first listening, because the video is so long I haven’t taken the time to listen to it again). He turns the tables on her and observes that she has been offending himduring the interview—but with the goal of getting at the truth. Again we have the same method of saying something that initially sounds like it will be an insult, but then praising and joining her for it. Both exchanges are also examples of something known in therapy as a reframe, in this case reframing “offensive speech” as “truth-seeking speech.”
It’s another powerful moment. Peterson’s observation is completely unexpected and takes Newman by surprise. Newman is so taken aback that she becomes virtually speechless for a while. She now knows (on both the cognitive and the emotional level) several things she didn’t know before—about herself and about liberty and about Peterson. It’s a lot for her to take in. In response, at one point I thought I could see a fleeting little smile of respect and enjoyment on her face.
And then to top it all off, Paterson says “Ha! Gotcha!” in the most playful way. It’s another table-turning moment, because it’s done with good humor and charm rather than nastiness. “Gotcha” can be said in a hostile and nasty tone, but here Peterson’s tone is anything but. This in effect becomes another process observation on Peterson’s part, drawing attention to the game-playing aspect of the entire interview. It’s an element of interviews that’s usually ignored and not talked about during the interview itself, in which both people usually stick to content rather than process.
Peterson’s also correct with that playful “Gotcha!”—he has stumped her, and she knows it. And although she must feel somewhat humiliated, I think Newman also perceives the spirit in which Peterson said it. We’re in this game together, he seems to be saying. We’re sometimes willing to offend and not always be greeable, but we’re truth-seekers, playing for high stakes in the world of ideas but bobbing and weaving in a gamelike fashion as we spar about them.
I don’t know for sure whether that’s what she sees, but that’s what I see happening there.
It’s a tour de force on Peterson’s part. I don’t know whether I’m interpreting Newman’s reaction correctly, and I’m certainly not saying that even if she had that reaction that it would last very long. But man, he’s impressive—as thinker, debater, therapist, and human being. Newman got to experience all four of those things during that interview.
In the 1970s, the Minnesota Vikings were known for getting to Super Bowls (IV, VII, VIII and XI) and losing them.
For the past 20 years, the Vikings are now getting a reputation for losing the worst game to lose of a season, either in excruciating fashion …
… or playing so poorly that people question whether you should have gotten to the NFC title game in the first place.
(By the way: “Skål” is the Norwegian, Swedish and Danish spelling of “Skol,” as in “Skol Vikings.”)
And so we have Sunday’s NFC championship game, reported upon by the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Ben Goessling:
The Vikings marched into Philadelphia as three-point favorites, with the NFL’s top-ranked defense against a backup quarterback who hadn’t thrown for more than 300 yards in a game since 2014. One game away from becoming the first team in NFL history to play a Super Bowl in its home stadium, Minnesota had given its fans reason to believe the payoff was finally here, that Charlie Brown’s right foot would finally meet the pigskin squarely and send it soaring.
But in the end, with a crowd of Eagles fans jeering as they stood witness, Lucy pulled away the ball again.
It’s difficult, so soon after the Vikings’ 38-7 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles, to rank their most recent defeat among their most crushing NFC Championship Game losses. But this one had to sting, both because of the opportunity lost and the manner in which it disappeared, in a game where most of what the Vikings had come to count on evaded them.
“If we would have gone out and they would have beat us at our game, you tip your hat to them and tell them good job,” tight end Kyle Rudolph said. “But we really dug ourselves in a hole, and that’s what’s going to make it most difficult. I felt like our fans deserve to watch us play in the Super Bowl in our stadium, and we let them down.”
A defense that had only allowed one quarterback to throw for more than 300 yards this season was filleted by Nick Foles, the Eagles quarterback who had taken over for the injured Carson Wentz just over a month ago. Foles threw strikes past just about everybody in the Vikings’ decorated secondary: past All-Pro safety Harrison Smith, past venerable corner Terence Newman, past former 11th overall pick Trae Waynes.
“We would love to play a Super Bowl if it was in China, to be honest with you,” Vikings coach Mike Zimmer said. “Some of our strengths, they attacked. They got after us tonight. We weren’t used to those kinds of things.”
Case Keenum, the improbable Vikings starter who’d led them to this point after Sam Bradford’s knee injury in Week 1, had an interception returned for a touchdown for the first time this season. It would be the first of his three turnovers, followed by a fumble that set up Philadelphia’s third touchdown and a late interception after the Eagles had put the game out of reach. …
“There’s a lot of things that went wrong today, obviously,” Keenum said. “Opening up the game, with how electric that crowd was, and going down and scoring, we felt good. The turnover was a mistake that I definitely want back. These ends are so good, this front is so good, I’ve got to step up and get away from the pass rush and be smarter.”
Assuming Keenum ever has the chance again. Keenum was in the running, had the Vikings won, to be a potential answer to the trivia category of Worst Quarterbacks to Play in a Super Bowl, along with Miami’s David Woodley, New England’s Tony Eason, the Giants’ Jeff Hostetler and Kerry Collins, and the Ravens’ Trent Dilfer. My guess is Keenum will resume his role as clipboard-holder next season, whereas Foles now has a good chance to join that list.
After they built a 17-0 lead at halftime last week, the Vikings were outscored 62-19 in their final six quarters of playoff action. They will end the season with the typical round of questions prompted by these kinds of playoff defeats — about what they could have done differently, about what they will do next with Shurmur likely becoming the New York Giants’ next head coach and three quarterbacks set to hit free agency. …
But before the questions start, they will have to contend with the revulsion over what they lost.
There will be no home Super Bowl for the Vikings, in a market that is set to host the game for the first time since 1992 and might not see it again for years. Instead, a heartbroken metropolis will be asked to put on its happy face and dole out Northern hospitality for two boisterous fan bases: Patriots fans coming to watch their team play its eighth Super Bowl in 16 years and Eagles fans who spent much of the second half mocking the Vikings’ “Skol” chant, repurposing it as “Foles.”
Is it better to have won then lost, than never to have won at all? Vikings fans must be wrestling with this notion. Had the Vikings not pulled off the Minneapolis Miracle, a moment that will be seared in sports history and Vikings lore, they never would have made it to the NFC Championship Game in the first place. So, there was sweetness in battle. But did that leave them more bitter after Sunday’s 38-7 loss to the Eagles? Perhaps. But nothing will exasperate the franchise and fanbase more than the cumulative misery of the last six NFC title game exits.
Jan. 21, 2018: They all hurt, but this one is raw, the Vikings falling 38-7 in humiliating fashion to the Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field. Two first-half turnovers put the Vikings behind 24-7 at halftime and from there, it only got worse.
Jan. 24, 2010: Saints 31, Vikings 28 (OT): If having 12 men in the huddle wasn’t enough of a drive-killer, the Vikings’ were undone by Brett Favre’s interception with 19 seconds left. Five of the Vikings’ final seven drives ended with a turnover.
Jan. 14, 2001: Giants 41, Vikings 0: The box score looks like something out of a horror movie: Daunte Culpepper passed for 78 yards, threw three interceptions and was sacked four times. The Vikings drives ended with two fumbles, three picks and six punts. It was over from the moment the coin flipped.
Jan. 17, 1999: Falcons 30, Vikings 27 (OT): Widely regarded as the best Vikings team to have not won the Super Bowl, Minnesota’s hopes were doused when Gary Anderson, who’d not missed a field goal all season, sailed one in wide left to give the Falcons a shot to push the game into overtime. Atlanta took full advantage of that, then put Minnesota away with Morten Andersen’s field goal in the extra period.
Jan. 17, 1988: Redskins 17, Vikings 10: Only six yards separated the Vikings from the Washington end zone and it appeared a fourth-down pass to Darrin Nelson with 1:06 left would be good enough to tie the game and send it into overtime. Quarterback Wade Wilson found Nelson, but Washington cornerback Darrell Green immediately knocked the ball loose, securing the win for the Redskins.
Jan. 1, 1978: Cowboys 23, Vikings 6: NFC Championship Games had been good to the Vikings up until this point. Entering the contest without an injured Fran Tarkenton (broken leg, thumb injury), Minnesota’s offense sputtered with Bob Lee and committed four turnovers. Their only scores came on two first-half field goals.
The ugly truth is that teams that have miracle playoff finishes (the Immaculate Reception, Sea of Hands, the Epic in Miami, The Catch II, Matt Hasselbeck-to-Al-Harris and now the so-called Minneapolis Miracle, which was really execrable pass defense) usually lose the next week.
Sunday night, the Liberty Bell wasn’t the only thing in Philadelphia with a massive crack in it.
There was the Vikings’ defense, too.
The Philadelphia Eagles split it wide open, finding flaws and openings in a unit that carried the Vikings to a 13-3 regular-season record and a renewed hope that this season would be different than so many others.
It wasn’t.
This season ended like so many others. With failure. With hopes, dreams and expectations stomped out.
It was ugly what happened to that defense, which was top-ranked in the league in the regular season and just plain rank in a 38-7 loss to the Eagles in the NFC championship game. …
All NFC championship game losses hurt, but this one had a pain all its own. …
There will be no bringing it home. No making history as the first team to host a Super Bowl in its stadium. None of that fun stuff. Just misery in the playoffs, like always.
Of all the soul-crushing postseason losses the Vikings have suffered, and there have been plenty, this was the soul-crushingest of them all.
Just look at what the Eagles did to that defense, strafing it for 452 yards and making a mockery of the Vikings’ league-best ability to shut down offenses on third down. And on offense, the Vikings had three turnovers and, other than the first few minutes, never were a threat to dent the Eagles’ defense.
“We didn’t play like ourselves,” defensive end Everson Griffen said. “We couldn’t get it going. They were the better team. They put their foot on the gas.”
In the space of one week, the Vikings went from their most impressive playoff win to their worst playoff loss. It was as if the coaches forgot how to coach and the players forgot how to play.
And now this team takes its place along other Viking fails.
The four Super Bowl losses. The end-zone pass to Anthony Carter in ‘87 that didn’t have a chance because Darrin Nelson thought it was for him. The missed field goals against Atlanta in ’98 and two years ago against Seattle. The 41-0 rout by the New York Giants in ’01. The 12 men on the field and the fumbles and Brett Favre’s interception in ’09 in New Orleans.
In none of those games did the Vikings come right out, march down the field with ease for a lead, and collapse like an anvil was dropped on their head.
Yep, soul-crushing.
The Eagles made big play after big play in the first half when they constructed a 24-7 lead. And then there were more big plays in the second half.
“We know we’re better than that,” Rudolph said. “We did exactly what we said we couldn’t do.”
Well, the Vikings did have a 7-0 lead after the opening drive.
Everything flipped on them when Case Keenum got hit under his throwing arm by defensive end Chris Long and his pass fluttered to Patrick Robinson, who returned it 50 yards for a touchdown.
The Eagles didn’t just hijack momentum from the Vikings. It was like they ripped out the Vikings’ heart, aorta and everything else that gave them life this season.
And remember, the Eagles did this without quarterback Carson Wentz, the guy who likely would have been the NFL’s Most Valuable Player if he hadn’t suffered a season-ending knee injury in Week 14.
They did it with a journeyman backup, Nick Foles, who threw for more than 350 yards and three touchdowns and helped set up a Feb. 4 date at U.S. Bank Stadium against Tom Brady and the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LII.
Of course, it helped that the Vikings picked the absolutely worst game to reveal every wart and deficiency they had.
“We were very uncharacteristic tonight,” Rudolph said.
They showed impressive mental toughness in the way they beat the New Orleans Saints in the final second last week. Maybe they used it all up. Maybe they still had a miracle hangover and couldn’t get in the proper mind-set for this game.
Whatever the reason, they did what, ultimately, they always do in the postseason. Fail.
The Pioneer Press’ John Shipley puts it all into perspective:
And so the darkness of another long winter settles over Minnesota. It has taken longer than usual, but now the Vikings are done, and reality has swept in like a bracing slap to the face.
So close, again. As the broken bard of Minnesota once sang, “I can live without your touch, but I’ll die within your reach.”
Such has been the fate of two generations of Vikings fans now, many of whom don’t remember the last time the Vikings were in a Super Bowl. They will always remember losing the rare opportunity to play one in their own stadium. Instead, it will be the Philadelphia Eagles playing the New England Patriots at U.S. Bank Stadium on Feb. 4.
It’s going to be a long couple of weeks.
It is now six times and counting that the Vikings have come within a victory of returning to their first Super Bowl since 1977, now six times and counting that they have failed to rise to the occasion.
Last weekend’s “Minnesota Miracle” proved that good things can, in fact, happen for the Vikings. Sunday’s 38-7 loss to the Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field proved that a divisional-round playoff victory, no matter how memorably stirring — cathartic, even — is only part of what will alter the narrative of the perpetually disappointing Vikings.
If the Vikings were finally on the right side of a miracle in a 29-24 victory over the New Orleans Saints on Jan. 14, they quickly, and somewhat unfathomably, stumbled back into their old roles on Sunday. Like their forebears of 1998 and 2009, this year’s Vikings appeared to be Super Bowl-ready, road favorites against the NFC’s top playoff seed.
But the 15-game winners of Randall Cunningham and Randy Moss in 1998, and the first of two Brett Favre-led squads in 2009, lost tight overtime games, losses traced easily to self-inflicted wounds — Gary Anderson’s missed field goal at the Metrodome, a couple of red zone fumbles and a late interception at the Superdome 11 years later. …
The interminable nature of Sunday’s loss served to blunt the horror. There was no twist ending this time, no shocking mistake to steal defeat from the jaws of victory, just the numb realization that it has happened again.
Many of us thought this team was ready for a Super Bowl; that years of disappointment would be mollified by the unprecedented reward of watching the Vikings play one in their own stadium.
“I felt like our fans deserved to watch us play a Super Bowl in our stadium,” Rudolph said. “We let ’em down.”
A.J. Mansour of the Vikings’ flagship station, KFAN in Minneapolis, employer of the bipolar play-by-play guy who announced the meltdown in New Orleans:
Still riding the high from the Minneapolis Miracle one week ago today, the Minnesota Vikings showed up at Lincoln Financial Field on Sunday and forgot to bring a game plan with them. Or at the very least, the one they had didn’t work…at all. …
The backup quarterback that nobody was afraid of took the opportunity to shred the league’s best defense to utter shreds all night long. Torrey Smith showed up, Alshon Jeffery showed up, Nick Foles showed up and the Minnesota Vikings defense did not.
The Vikings were out of character across the board. The all-pros were making mistakes, the rookies were screwing up, and the game plan on both offense and defense just wasn’t working…not one bit.
It appeared to be a dream too good to be true, a host city welcoming their team to play in the Super Bowl at their home stadium…when the final whistles blew, it was too good to be true.
The fact is that the concept of the Super Bowl host playing in the Super Bowl is somewhat of a canard. Super Bowl teams get 17.5 percent of the tickets each, with the host team getting 6.2 percent, one-third of the tickets going to the other 29 teams, and the NFL getting one-fourth of the seats. Had the Vikings won, they would have gotten more tickets, but not more than the Patriots, the same as Super Bowl XIV in Pasadena with the Rams and Super Bowl XIX at Stanford with the 49ers. Twin Cities-area businesses actually make out better with the Vikings not in the Super Bowl, since Patriots and Eagles fans will be descending on the Twin Cities next week.
Finally, Facebook Friend Mike Maynard blames …
I think it’s the Wisconsin-based Viqueens fans that are keeping them down. The Football Gods look at them and think, “we give them our most glorious and cherished team with the most titles, the Green Bay Packers, but no, they would rather cheer for a team that plays across state lines with no titles? For that, we •curse• the Minnesota Viqueens forever and they shall never win any titles.”
Look, I don’t blame the Viqueens fans for being Viqueens fans if they are actually from Minnesota, but the Wisconsin-based Viqueens fans are disloyal dipshits of Lombardian proportions.