Good Column by Michael Wilbon - RE: Randy Moss

[Franklinnoble]

I've been a reader of the Washington Post sports page since, well, I was old enough to read. I've always been a fan of the columns by Wilbon and Kornheiser, and while I don't always agree with them, the latest by Wilbon hits it right on the head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Moss, NFL Show An Equally Bad Side

By Michael Wilbon

Tuesday, January 11, 2005; Page D01

I don't need to see Randy Moss pantomiming a mooning. I don't need to see Moss rubbing his butt on the goalpost to stick it to the Green Bay fans after a touchdown. It's moronic.

But it wasn't the worst thing in the world, which is what some folks including the ones at NFL headquarters want you to believe. League officials will be coming at Randy Moss with the big stick; perhaps they will have fined him by the time your morning newspaper hits the driveway. And a fine is probably in order. Don't expect to read in this space any defense of Moss. I wouldn't want him on my team. His self-absorption is always going to undermine his prodigious talent, and ultimately that hurts his team's chance to win.

Having said that, I'm certainly not outraged at Moss's mock mooning in Green Bay. What he did seven days earlier at FedEx Field was worse. Yes, walking off the field while your teammates line up to try to pull off a miracle onside kick was far more disgraceful because Moss turned his back on his team and dishonored the game. At least the mock mooning came after he scored a touchdown.

But this righteous outpouring is sickening in its hypocrisy. The NFL would have you believe it's running something as pure as a Girl Scout bake sale on Sunday afternoons, when in fact the NFL has clothing-challenged cheerleaders giving you an eye-full of rump every second of every game.

Teenage boys (and, okay, grown men) tune in hoping to get the equivalent of a mooning. A few hours before Moss's mock mooning on Sunday, the Indianapolis Colts' cheerleaders trotted out wearing chaps, which are meant to emphasize rear ends that are covered in a lot less than uniform pants.

If the NFC had sanctioned Moss's act and slapped a logo on it or marketed it, things would have been fine. But it didn't, so Moss's behavior will draw a fine and he'll be the sports world's Public Enemy No. 1 at least until Saturday, when the playoffs resume. Tell me, exactly, how a man completely clothed and pantomiming a mooning is more offensive than erectile dysfunction ads coming into your living room about 10 times a game during NFL telecasts?

A very smart man I know who deals with sports sponsorships for a living told me after the NFL lost its mind over the Terrell Owens/"Desperate Housewives" "Monday Night Football" opening, "It was a lot easier to explain to my 7-year-old daughter why [Nicollette Sheridan] dropped her towel and jumped into T.O.'s arms than it was to try to explain what an erection is during a football game -- not to mention why it lasts four hours."

The NFL, judging from the frequency and prominence of these ads, is in the erectile business. This is so palatable? The post-church hour should be spent watching NFL games where between touchdowns some hottie is talking about what her man can do with a little, uh, assistance?

One of the best play-by-play men to ever sit behind a microphone, Joe Buck of Fox, called Moss's behavior "disgusting," and my dear friend James Brown took the verbal equivalent of an electrical cord to Moss's behind. And I know a lot of people side with Buck and J.B.

But for the second time this season the NFL (and its network broadcast partners) just skate on the issue of what's appropriate and what isn't during a football game. It's okay to throw "The Twins" up in your grille at the end of every single game or the end of some ESPN highlight package, but Randy Moss is the devil because he showed his cloth-covered hiney to some fans in one end zone?

By the way, most folks outside the NFC Central, as it used to be called, probably don't know there's a little tradition of Packers fans actually mooning opposing players on the bus ride away from Lambeau after a Packers victory. Tony Dungy, who spent all those years with Tampa Bay when the Bucs were in that division, recalled seven such mass moonings in Green Bay. Not to justify it, but now you know the gesture, foul or not, at least has some context.

I'm supposed to react seriously to the Fox network trying to claim the high ground? The network that is bringing you "Who's Your Daddy," where a woman has to pick out her birth father, with a $100,000 prize, has the moral high ground? The same network that brings you "The Littlest Groom" about a midget -- I'm sorry, a little person -- attempting to find love in a reality show? ESPN can promote "Tilt" with clips of a semi-clothed woman straddling some dude -- but these networks were too squeamish Sunday night to even show a replay of Moss's mock-mooning?

Please.

Moss's misbehaving Sunday didn't merit a mention in my column on the Packers-Vikings game because it was too dumb and too trivial to mention.

I was glad to hear Michael Irvin, the former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver and current ESPN analyst, say on the air yesterday that it was a bigger deal a week ago when Moss walked off the field before the game was over. And Irvin added, "The first thing I thought about when I saw it was, 'Why would he do that?' " Irvin drew a necessary distinction between Moss's behavior and T.O.'s look-at-me end zone celebrations when he said: "T.O. is having fun. What Randy did had bad intentions. . . . He's wrong, just flat-out wrong."

But this "oh-my-gosh-cover-the-children's-eyes" level of outrage is wearing me out, especially when it comes from a sports league. Where would Enzyte, Cialis, Viagra and Levitra (the Official Erectile Aid of the NFL) be without sports leagues? On NFL.com there is a "Levitra Play of the Year" which I presume has something to do with football -- but maybe not. The NFL's position seems to be Randy Moss brought shame to himself and the league with his antics Sunday. Perhaps Moss and the hypocritical league deserve each other.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Icy]

Clap Clap Clap, as i'm not from the USA i find hard to underestand the double moral there sometimes and why for example a woman tit is worst for a kid development than a movie where a guy kills docens of other guys. A bit off topic, but why is there as offending the human body? in Spanish beaches you can see at least a 30% of women without the top of their swimming clothes and it's not offending at all and we see it as something usual, probably the more you try to protect a kid from something, the more curious he gets about it. Coming back on topic, Moss should be fined in my opinion as he should show respect for the public that in the end is who pays him, but there are also worst things surrounding sports as the article says and anyway he just faked the act, not did it for real.

[SackAttack]

Wilbon's spot on with this one. Regardless of your opinion regarding Moss' action, both the networks and the NFL need to realize that they're sanctioning far more offensive things on a regular basis than a grown man wiggling his "cloth-covered butt" at a group of fans.

Moss was an idiot. The NFL and networks are hypocrites.

Who gets the moral high ground on this one?

[JAG]

Good article, thanks for sharing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Wilbon is the man. I totally agree. Buck's reaction was ridiculous, as is not showing it. It was classless, but at the end of the day utterly harmless. Like I mentioned earlier, I can't completely blame Randy. I've been to Lions games were there have been thousands of cheese-heads about. They're f*cking annoying.

[WSUCougar]

Uh, waiter? Yes, I'd like the "eye-full of rump" please. With a baked potato. And don't skimp on portions.

[cuervo72]

A very smart man I know who deals with sports sponsorships for a living told me after the NFL lost its mind over the Terrell Owens/"Desperate Housewives" "Monday Night Football" opening, "It was a lot easier to explain to my 7-year-old daughter why [Nicollette Sheridan] dropped her towel and jumped into T.O.'s arms than it was to try to explain what an erection is during a football game -- not to mention why it lasts four hours."

I've thought this myself...there's one commercial now with a woman who is doing everything just short of panting and unzipping her man's pants on camera...

[QuikSand]

I generally agree about the overall hypocrisy involved by the league and networks.

But, is it necessary to discuss advertisements for erectile dysfunction treatments as "offensive?" It's a medical treatment, actually. Perhaps there is a sophomoric streak among many of us that gives it a high giggle factor -- but this is a life-changing treatment for any number or people in the football demographic (I have to assume so, because the sales are very robust, and the advertisements must be for a reason). Yes, I suppose the advertisements are laden with innuendo (and if that's the root of all the criticism, which is not obvious to me here, then I'm okay with it) -- but at its core, I don't have any problem with this sort of medication being promoted. It's not offensive on its surface simply because it deals generally with a sexual or excretory function... but that certainly sounds like the criticism being leveled (here and elsewhere).

[KWhit]

Well said, QS. I was going to post something similar about the ads for cialis, etc.

I also think that much of the outrage about the fake mooning isn't that it was "offensive" from a technical standpoint, but that it was degrading to the fans and mean spirited. Also that it was Randy Moss - someone who has a history of being a "bad guy." Another player would have perhaps gotten away with it (or it would have at least been a much lesser deal).

[Radii]

excellent article.

[Crapshoot]

Thanks Franklin- that was a great article.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Icy

A bit off topic, but why is there as offending the human body? in Spanish beaches you can see at least a 30% of women without the top of their swimming clothes and it's not offending at all and we see it as something usual, probably the more you try to protect a kid from something, the more curious he gets about it.

We have our heads up our asses (pardon the pun) when it comes to sexual matters. Someone with a background in American history could fill you in more, but I have always been taught that it has to do with our Puritan heritage.

On a related note, some libraries in Mississippi have banned America: The Book because it contains a picture with naked Supreme Court justices. As Jon Stewart responded last night--there is a heck of a lot more offensive stuff in the book than naked pictures--if only those who banned the book took the time to read it. But the knee jerk response to nudity is an easy one to pull off in this country.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I generally agree about the overall hypocrisy involved by the league and networks.

But, is it necessary to discuss advertisements for erectile dysfunction treatments as "offensive?" It's a medical treatment, actually. Perhaps there is a sophomoric streak among many of us that gives it a high giggle factor -- but this is a life-changing treatment for any number or people in the football demographic (I have to assume so, because the sales are very robust, and the advertisements must be for a reason). Yes, I suppose the advertisements are laden with innuendo (and if that's the root of all the criticism, which is not obvious to me here, then I'm okay with it) -- but at its core, I don't have any problem with this sort of medication being promoted. It's not offensive on its surface simply because it deals generally with a sexual or excretory function... but that certainly sounds like the criticism being leveled (here and elsewhere).

I wholeheartedly agree with you that erectile dysfunction and its treatment are legitimate and serious concerns. The issue is the hypocrisy: the league and the pundits wail against the whole "how am I going to explain this to my precious innocent children" when it comes to Nicolette Sheridan, TO, and Moss, yet the league finds no problem with the ED ads, when (for better or worse) sex and sexual issues are something that many Americans find difficult to discuss with their children--I am sure many Americans with kids don't appreciate the NFL inducing the "birds and the bees discussion" before the parents want it to happen.

[Crapshoot]

Its another issue, but America is almost hypocritically puritanical at times- and its hilarious. Some would argue that this "outrage" is a symptom of the cause.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But, is it necessary to discuss advertisements for erectile dysfunction treatments as "offensive?"

...

Yes, I suppose the advertisements are laden with innuendo (and if that's the root of all the criticism, which is not obvious to me here, then I'm okay with it) -- but at its core, I don't have any problem with this sort of medication being promoted. It's not offensive on its surface simply because it deals generally with a sexual or excretory function... but that certainly sounds like the criticism being leveled (here and elsewhere).

I think this is more relevant when discussing the MNF skit with the desparate housewives woman and TO than it is when Moss comes up, but I think the main point is that to many it's hypocritical of the NFL to be so critical of that skit when the NFL profits so heavily from sex so often, whether it be(just pulling things out of Wilbon's article) "the twins", the levitra sponsorship, or the cheerleaders on the field itself.

I also think that the general argument that "I let my kids watch this" is a pretty interesting one. I know my son hears words he doesn't understand and will quite randomly ask "what's ___" which in this case would be "what's an erection?" ... that could get into a much bigger debate about marketing to the 20s single male vs the family but I think "protect the children!" is a common cry amongst those that get outraged by this stuff.

And finally, unrelated to the NFL entirely, you don't see condom ads on network TV on Sunday afternoon. Now I know there's a big difference between Levitra and condoms, but, have you guys seen the "Trojan Man!" ads? The sexual overtones are noticibly greater there than in the Levitra ads, but I think there's a pretty fair comparasion between the two and a discussion about why one should be ok for 1pm on Sunday and the other isn't even ok for Network TV at all, or during the late late hours isn't a totally cut and dried one.


All that said, when Oliegirl and I saw the Moss mooning thing I believe my exact words were "What the hell is he doing?" ... then I figured it out, and, without knowing the green bay mooning context, then thought "what a dope" and that was pretty much it, no harm done.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

On a related note, some libraries in Mississippi have banned America: The Book because it contains a picture with naked Supreme Court justices. As Jon Stewart responded last night--there is a heck of a lot more offensive stuff in the book than naked pictures--if only those who banned the book took the time to read it. But the knee jerk response to nudity is an easy one to pull off in this country.

lol, it must be nice having someone decide whats right and wrong for you.

[Super Ugly]

A very good article. I like Michael Wilbon and Kornheiser on PTI, where I heard the best quote about the Super Bowl Nipple Fiasco, something along the lines of:

Kornheiser: What would you have said to your little boy if he asked you what that was on stage?

Wilbon: Son, that's a breast. And if you're lucky, by the time you're eighteen, you'll have seen a whole lot more of them.

Classic ...