Is Rush Right?

I’m not sure I would consider myself a fan of Rush Limbaugh. I think he likes to hear himself talk too much. Which is really okay. After all, if I didn’t like to hear myself talk, I probably wouldn’t have a blog. If I could be syndicated in 650 markets and have a moonlighting gig on ESPN, I’d probably do it too. But I digress.

Four years ago, everyone jumped when someone dared to use the word niggardly. Contrary to popular belief, the word actually means to be mean about spending or granting. Ebenezer Scrooge would be proud. But because of the semblance to a racially sensitive word, all manner of hubbub ensued.

The issue here appears to me to be similar. The actual quote was that “The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.” That’s it. The rest of the comment contained no reference whatsoever to the race of Donovan McNabb. Rush went on to say that McNabb got a lot of credit for things he may not have deserved, and that the defense of the Eagles carried the team.

Where is the controversy? Anyone who reads the media regularly knows that the media portrays different races, and specifically blacks, differently. When a black quarterback or a black placekicker does well, it’s nearly always mentioned that they are indeed black, or that they are the only black player at that position. By comparison, you don’t see anyone talking about the only white guy on the team, or how that white linebacker really rocks.

If the media is indeed applying extra hype, and thereby extra importance, to someone merely because of the color of their skin, why is it wrong for Rush to point it out? Maybe, instead of pointing the finger at Rush, we ought to be looking in the mirror and trying to figure out why we don’t simply say that someone is the best at their position, as opposed to saying that they are the best black (or the only black) at that position.