The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Only the New York Times could see the dark side of Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow spending time with a brain-injured young man. In an article headlined "Curtain Closes on Tebow's Season, but His Sideshow Goes On," a reporter disparages Tebow for praying with brain-injured Zachary McLeod, 20, after the brutal loss to the Patriots on Saturday night.
After the game, Tebow had told reporters about McLeod and said that overall it hadn't been a bad day, depending on "what lens you look through." That was the first bad thing he did.
When Tebow and family prayed with the McLeod family, apparently the Times reporter tried to intervene and was asked to back off. He didn't take it well. He goes off on Tebow, mocking him for the game (apparently our offense is mostly to blame for our defense letting the Patriots score 45 points). The reporter gets into the mind of John Elway and at one point writes, "While Tebow has made his priorities clear that his faith comes first, Elway’s job demands that Tebow be the analytical secularist and stick to the science of football."
But the kicker is amazing. It pretends like sports teams just hang out together in mass, hugging and crying, for the 6 hours following a losing game. Has this sports reporter ever covered a sporting event before? Check it out:
As he always does, he thanked his teammates for their support and effort immediately after praising God. But one was left to surmise that he, the Broncos’ purported leader, should have been with them late Saturday night instead of in the corridor tending to his personal business, no matter how giving it was.
There are times when duty to team has to come first. Surely one of them is in the wake of lopsided and season-ending defeat.
You can imagine The Onion satirists were angry that this came out in the newspaper of record before they could write it up.
- Comment (58)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
sdb
This is not really fair. Here's the quote from the article:
OK, I may have overshot that one. That I completely distrusted his account of things is not an excuse, either.
Oh spare me! Mollie, why are you backing down? NYT (and MSM generally) flagrantly misrepresent events and comments involving those they ideologically oppose every single day. When conservatives criticize Obama’s policies we’re told it’s really code-speech for hating Blacks. Well, is a prayer circle really a “protective cocoon”? Or is that just secularist code-speech to ridicule those who believe supernatural intervention is possible? Did they really become “huffy” when “observed” praying? Yeah, sure, that’s how Christians usually react when praying … ‘whachya lookin’ at Mister!’ Give me a break!!! Leftists get to misrepresent everything, but we have to have scalpel-like precision and exactitude in everything we say and do. It’s a load of manure and no one should buy into it.
Edited on January 17, 2012 at 2:34amNov '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Were any NYT hacks talking smack about Troy Polamalu after the Steelers' loss? He constantly makes the Sign of the Cross during football games. Oh, right, Troy didn't commit the unforgivable sin of being featured in a Superbowl ad suggesting that abortion isn't wonderful.
Apr '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Araton's first opus:
...Boston is 25% black, it has a reputation as a racist city; also relevant to the premise of the book is the fact that the basketball Celtics, one of professional sports' most successful franchises, have few fans among the city's minority population. The Celtics management has tried for four decades to create the image that it is color-blind: the team signed the first black player, hired the first black coach and the Celtics were the first to play an all-black starting lineup. But the image is not the reality, according to Araton and Bondy in this hard-hitting expose. The Celtics, originally led to greatness by black center Bill Russell, prefer to make a public hero of white forward John Havlicek; for years the management has tried to assemble a roster of six blacks and six whites, although some of the whites are talented enough only to sit on the bench. The authors maintain that racism is endemic in the NBA and that it is especially blatant in Boston. They also argue convincingly that the Boston press has played a shameful role in cloaking that the Celtics team is "still for whites."
Apr '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Araton in 2005:
In this taut, simmering book, the author points his finger at the greed and exploitation that has weakened the American game. And with uncommon journalistic courage, he opens a discussion on the volatile, undiscussed subject that lies at the heart of basketball's crisis: race. It begins, he argues, at the college level, where, too often, undereducated, inner-city talents are expected to perform for the benefit of affluent white crowds and to fill the coffers of their respective schools in what Araton calls a kind of "modern-day minstrel show." It continues at the pro level, where marketers have determined that "gangsta" imagery provides for a livelier entertainment package, never mind the effect it has on the quality of team play. And where, moreover, players themselves, often both street smart and immature, decide to live up to the thuggish stereotypes.
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
HVTs
Oh spare me! Mollie, why are you backing down? NYT (and MSM generally) flagrantly misrepresent events and comments involving those they ideologically oppose every single day. When conservatives criticize Obama’s policies we’re told it’s really code-speech for hating Blacks. Well, is a prayer circle really a “protective cocoon”? Or is that just secularist code-speech to ridicule those who believe supernatural intervention is possible? Did they really become “huffy” when “observed” praying? Yeah, sure, that’s how Christians usually react when praying … ‘whadya ya lookin’ at Mister!’ Give me a break!!! Leftists get to misrepresent everything, but we have to have scalpel-like precision and exactitude in everything we say and do. It’s a load of manure and no one should buy into it. · Jan 16 at 4:28pm
I'm OK with having a higher standard for myself. The thing is that I was taking some literary license but failed to signal that properly for the commenter -- and I take responsibility for that. I should have made it more clear. But I get what you're saying.
Apr '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Now, I ask, has Mr. Araton ever explored or criticized the faith (and public professions of same) delivered by one Brian Dawkins, a character as distinctive and admirable in his own way as young Mr. Tebow? Those of us from the hometown of both these terrific young men come back to this question.
Oct '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I'm OK with having a higher standard for myself. The thing is that I was taking some literary license but failed to signal that properly for the commenter -- and I take responsibility for that. I should have made it more clear. But I get what you're saying.
While admirable in one's personal relationships, when one side in a conflict holds itself to a higher standard it is tantamount to handing the other side a weapon with which to bludgeon it. This was one of Alinsky's important insights that the Obama Left uses successfully every day. The higher standard you hold yourself to is the moral equivalent of a human shield for the NYT and MSM generally to hide behind.
Dec '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Mollie, my favorite Anne Rand concept is called "Moral Inversion". As a society becomes corrupt it starts to see the good as evil and the evil as good. At a climactic point all the laws and institutions of the society try to make evil permitted and good forbidden. This is the point of "Moral Inversion". Once a society hits this point of no return total collapse is imminent.
We aren't at complete Moral Inversion yet, thank Gd. However, the NY Times often makes us feel we are well on our way. Here Tebow, obvious to all, is a representative of good. The shallow grasping non-values of the relentlessly secular world are the representative of evil. Yet in the eyes of the idiot from the NY Times, it's the other way around!
This gives me one more chance to razz Sulzberger.
Here I go again.
KING SULZBERGER, KING OF THE MOABITE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS HIRED THE EVIL PROPHETS KRUGMAN, FRIEDMAN, AND NOW ARATON TO CURSE ISRAEL, AMERICA, AND NOW TIM TEBOW.
DOOMED TO ULTIMATE FAILURE KING SULZBERGER INTENSIFIES HIS EVIL PLAN. WHAT A PUTZ.
Dec '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
tabula rasa
das_motorhead: Whoa! Quadruplicate post. Sorry friends, apparently my little piece of the interwebs just exploded. · Jan 16 at 10:06am
Edited on Jan 16 at 10:11 am
In one of his novels, the great Terry Pratchett wrote: "Windle shook his head sadly. Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind."
"Ricochet members shook their heads sadly. Quadruplicate posts. the sure sign of . . . . ." · Jan 16 at 10:27am
The fact that there is another Pratchett reader on Ricochet, just made me tear up a bit.
Sep '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
I would be annoyed with anyone making such display of piety in his place of employment. Can you imagine a manager bowing like that after a successful staff meeting?
If it matters to you, this is what Jesus said about praying in public:
Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
Oct '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Why would a quiet and brief display of piety "annoy" an atheist, whether done in the workplace or otherwise? If there is no God, shouldn't you just politely pity me? What’s it to you that I cross myself to acknowledge my savior’s grace? How’s that any more vexing then the color of my tie to someone who thinks I’m deluded in the first place?
Could it be that you are not so much a-theist as anti-theist? Why else would you have an emotional reaction to my theism? And that’s a whole different kettle of fish, indeed!
BTW, yes, I can imagine such a response to a "successful staff meeting." Since those three words in that sequence are an oxymoron where I work, it would be worthy of a great big Halleluiah! [:-)
Nov '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Which display of piety? You're annoyed by Tebow taking a knee and praying after a touchdown?
Sep '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
HVTs, I'm not sure his displays are quiet or brief. The point is that he is at work and should focus on that. And, dude, the color of your tie could be very vexing. I wear camouflage to work but I bet those of you who wear ties are careful to keep them appropriate for the situation. By the way, why isn't he following the sabath like famous Jewish and Muslim athletes have done in the past?
I would be thrilled to be silent about my atheism if Tebow would make the same promise.
Greg, he does more than that during the games.
Oct '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Lt Colonel Don: The point is that he is at work and should focus on that. ... why isn't he following the sabath like (other) athletes ...
I would be thrilled to be silent about my atheism if Tebow would make the same promise.
This isn’t about off-topic actions at work; it’s about religious expression that apparently offends you and, therefore, you want it stifled. You have no First Amendment concerns with your desire to limit Tebow’s expression? Because you sort of missed the point … nether you the atheist nor Tebow the Christian must keep silent! The document you voluntarily swore to defend makes that promise.
The point about tie choice is you have to live with it. It's no different if I express my religion and don’t interfere with you. As with tie color, you’ve no argument that my personal expression unduly burdens you and therefore should be suppressed.
Atheism is merely disbelief in God’s existence. You want to suppress religious expression (or dictate Sabbath practices now? You are a bit all over the map on this one), which moves you into a different (or at least an additional) category.
Edited on January 19, 2012 at 3:50amOct '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
HVTs
Lt Colonel Don: The point is that he is at work and should focus on that. ... why isn't he following the sabath like (other) athletes ...
I would be thrilled to be silent about my atheism if Tebow would make the same promise.
This isn’t about off-topic actions at work; it’s about religious expression that apparently offends you and, therefore, you want it stifled. ...
BTW, once you’ve silenced praying at work why stop there? The cross hanging around my neck offends some people too … perhaps even you? Why not ban it in the workplace? Sound ridiculous? It’s happened in the UK. I’d submit it was thinking like yours that motivated the effort.
With respect, you’ve offered no reasoned argument as to why my free expression should have to conform to your prejudices and preferences. Thankfully, the Founders thought this through a bit more carefully than you have. Their predecessors had to leave England to establish something hitherto unheard of: freedom of worship. You might consider relocating to England since, as the link above demonstrates, it’s a more conducive polity in which to exercise your desire to regulate religious expression.
Nov '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Lt Colonel Don: HVTs, I'm not sure his displays are quiet or brief. The point is that he is at work and should focus on that. And, dude, the color of your tie could be very vexing. I wear camouflage to work but I bet those of you who wear ties are careful to keep them appropriate for the situation. By the way, why isn't he following the sabath like famous Jewish and Muslim athletes have done in the past?
I would be thrilled to be silent about my atheism if Tebow would make the same promise.
Greg, he does more than that during the games. · Jan 18 at 11:55am
What exactly does he do that is offensive to you? I don't really know. It's my understanding that he does lots of things that other religious NFL players also do, but the media has decided to make a big deal about it, for whatever reason.
Sep '10
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Wow, I should move to England because I am annoyed with overtly religious displays in the workplace? That follows.
I never said anything about suppressing or dictating. I simply wondered why his overt practices don't include the sabbath and why he doesn't follow Christ's instructions to pray in private. No one said anything about dictating that he couldn't play. And no one said that you couldn't wear an ugly tie at work, only that it might annoy your coworkers. Also, no one said anything about banning prayer at work. People can pray at work (and at school, Mr. Perry),
Nov '11
Re: The New York Times Sees Tebow's Dark Side
Again, can you provide specific examples of Tebow's onfield behavior that offend you? There is a wide range of how Christians keep the Sabbath, and I don't believe it's for us to judge how someone decides to do that. Here is some analysis of Tebow's behavior, in light of the specific passage you mentioned from the Sermon on the Mount.
I always find it amusing when atheists take the Bible more literally than the most fanatical fundamentalists.