Amy Olson 2023 LPGA season

[heffray]

It is a cool story and an interesting one. Surely most of us must applaud her competitiveness. However when the tale veered off into religious and political views then the editors clearly made the decision that the story no longer fit in their coverage space. This is their right. One wonders if instead she had expressed pro-choice or pro-islamic views would the editors have made a similar decision? I'm guessing yes. It seems that, much like the moderators of this very platform prefer that the topics remain focused on all things NDSU and closely related, the editors of Golf whatever prefer (nee demand) that their content remain squarely golf focused.

It's not a first amendment issue. The notion of a free press means they have the right to publish and/or not publish whatever they choose without interference or censor (short of slander, defamation, libel, etc.) If this writer feels so strongly that the story is not complete without being presented as written then he is totally free to publish it on his own.

This is well said.

It seems like both sides like to play the 1st Amendment card when it fits their narrative and this is no different.

Good for the editors for attempting to keep politics out of sports.

[heffray]

What really sucks about this is that it will likely make some people who would otherwise cheer for Amy kind of lose interest or start rooting against her. Same exact thing happened when Trey went to some of the George Floyd demonstrations.

The tricky part for Amy is that comment from the article on her belief in “comprehensive Christianity,” and how it’s obvious to me that she feels obligated to voice these opinions publicly to spread the gospel or impact the world in a way she views as positive.

I know exactly how she feels, fwiw… and I have a lot of compassion for this viewpoint. Bottom line, whether you agree with Amy’s views or not, you shouldn’t doubt her sincerity, which is more than can be said about most politicians.

[Gully]

This is well said.

It seems like both sides like to play the 1st Amendment card when it fits their narrative and this is no different.

Good for the editors for attempting to keep politics out of sports.

I would completely agree with this point, if that's how it played out. But it's not, sports are filled with left wing narratives.

I'd rather not hear about anyone's political views in the sporting world, regardless of whether or not I agree with their views. There are plenty of other spaces for that. But the way it is now, you mostly hear one side.

[heffray]

I would completely agree with this point, if that's how it played out. But it's not, sports are filled with left wing narratives.

I'd rather not hear about anyone's political views in the sporting world, regardless of whether or not I agree with their views. There are plenty of other spaces for that. But the way it is now, you mostly hear one side.

I guess it would depend on what specific issue you’re talking about, and before I ask this, I guess I’m not even sure this is question anyone can answer (or perhaps better put, a position that can be falsified), but regardless…

Can you back up the assertion that sports coverage is “one sided” politically? I promise I’m not bating you, I’m sincerely asking because if it is indeed the case, I’ve missed it…

[TAILG8R]

I'm sure everyone will agree with the message in this article

[Gully]

I guess it would depend on what specific issue you’re talking about, and before I ask this, I guess I’m not even sure this is question anyone can answer (or perhaps better put, a position that can be falsified), but regardless…

Can you back up the assertion that sports coverage is “one sided” politically? I promise I’m not bating you, I’m sincerely asking because if it is indeed the case, I’ve missed it…

Well no, I don't have any data that supports that. I'm not sure how you could ever prove that one way or another. That's clearly the impression I get, however. ESPN has turned into MSNBC.

[heffray]

Well no, I don't have any data that supports that. I'm not sure how you could ever prove that one way or another. That's clearly the impression I get, however. ESPN has turned into MSNBC.

Fair. Not sure if it needs to be said but I do not get the impression that it is biased toward one side or the other. Seems to be mostly about sports or human interest in general which can blur lines.

Do you have an example or two of an ESPN story that was clearly pushing a political agenda?

Again, I’m genuinely curious here, but happy to shelf this conversation if you’d rather not go any further.

[Gully]

Fair. Not sure if it needs to be said but I do not get the impression that it is biased toward one side or the other. Seems to be mostly about sports or human interest in general which can blur lines.

Do you have an example or two of an ESPN story that was clearly pushing a political agenda?

Again, I’m genuinely curious here, but happy to shelf this conversation if you’d rather not go any further.

Um, did you ever listen to Jemele Hill? I haven't watched ESPN for a long time other than live sports so I don't remember specific examples, but it's precisely why I stopped watching. I used to watch ESPN for hours on an average week.

You don't have to agree with me, that's fine.

[heffray]

Um, did you ever listen to Jemele Hill? I haven't watched ESPN for a long time other than live sports so I don't remember specific examples, but it's precisely why I stopped watching. I used to watch ESPN for hours on an average week.

You don't have to agree with me, that's fine.

I never heard of her but I looked her up. Yeah, agree to disagree. Have a good one though.

[GreenfieldBison]

Unfortunately it needs to be said these days so I am going to say it. Shout out to @Gully and @heffray for a respectful adult conversation about something controversial that shouldn't be. Kudos to you both gentlemen. The rest of us should aspire to this.