"Correct me if I am wrong, Snopes, you pathetic fools" -EthicsAlarms
Clearly you are citing some high-quality, objective journalism here my friend. Whoever writes for that web site needs medication and therapy. It is legit unhinged.
None of these links are sources. The first two are just editorials, the second one is practically frothing at the mouth.
The Robert Lee ones are pretty interesting, though. I think Snopes did an OK job of covering that particular story, though not ideal in my analysis. They pointed out that Mr. Lee was not actually fired by ESPN (he was not) and that ESPN was trying to avoid potential embarrassment and in the process ended up embarrassing themselves more - which is exactly what happened.
ESPN hired the guy, they clearly weren't offended by his name. They thought they were covering their asses and ended up making asses of themselves. All over an imagined issue that was really a non-issue.
That said, there is more opinion in that Snopes article than I would like. I'm don't think Snopes' best and highest function is to try to explain why ESPN behaved the way they did (unless they have facts to share). That said, their analysis seems sound.
Really, your links are kind of the opposite of sources. All you've proven is that many people do not trust Snopes or any other news source when they don't like what it says. More News at 11 folks.
p.s. - it's garbage in, garbage out. Your brain deserves better input than that.
Clearly you are citing some high-quality, objective journalism here my friend. Whoever writes for that web site needs medication and therapy. It is legit unhinged.
None of these links are sources. The first two are just editorials, the second one is practically frothing at the mouth.
The Robert Lee ones are pretty interesting, though. I think Snopes did an OK job of covering that particular story, though not ideal in my analysis. They pointed out that Mr. Lee was not actually fired by ESPN (he was not) and that ESPN was trying to avoid potential embarrassment and in the process ended up embarrassing themselves more - which is exactly what happened.
ESPN hired the guy, they clearly weren't offended by his name. They thought they were covering their asses and ended up making asses of themselves. All over an imagined issue that was really a non-issue.
That said, there is more opinion in that Snopes article than I would like. I'm don't think Snopes' best and highest function is to try to explain why ESPN behaved the way they did (unless they have facts to share). That said, their analysis seems sound.
Really, your links are kind of the opposite of sources. All you've proven is that many people do not trust Snopes or any other news source when they don't like what it says. More News at 11 folks.
p.s. - it's garbage in, garbage out. Your brain deserves better input than that.