Talk:Brent Musburger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Brent Musburger is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Notre Dame hatred?

I removed the remark about Musburger hating Notre Dame. I've listened to him for a number of years and have never found any evidence of this. There is no citation to back this up (no citations of any kind, for that matter), and I could find nothing anywhere on the Internet. Find some evidence (and link to it here), and you can put it back. Realkyhick 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This has come up several times today and I've had to personally revert the vandalism twice. This node might be a candidate for lockdown if this continues through tomorrow (although I suspect that it won't... this seems to be something brought on by today's broadcast of the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, with fan reaction.) --Maande10 06:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV notice

Please do not remove the NPOV notice until issues on this talk page have been resolved. This page will be submitted for semi-protection if bias claims are added to the page without citation. Cmprince 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This page has been submitted for semi-protection. Cmprince 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Please work out your differences on the talk page. Please remember that any assertions of fact or opinion must be properly attributed and sourced or they may be summarily deleted. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comments

  • It is a fact that in the 4th quarter of the 2006 Fiesta Bowl, Brent Musburger stated that he would like to see the OSU tight end Ryan Hamby score a touchdown. What citation is needed? A reference to an official transcript? I don't think those are available. Musburger's statement of desire to see an OSU player score is not necessarily evidence of an anti-Notre Dame bias, but it is clearly evidence of a lack of journalistic neutrality.
Are you kidding? These are sports anchors. They're not really expected to have "journalistic neutrality." · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
So sports announcers aren't expected to have "journalistic neutrality," you say. That means that Musburger is allowed to have his biases. That's fine, as long as I am allowed to include a reference to actual statements made by Mr. Musburger in his Wikipedia entry. If he's allowed to have bias, I should be allowed to factually state evidence of his bias in this entry. Facts are facts, and I should be allowed to include factual recounting of his statements. I didn't include statements that Musburger "hates Notre Dame" or anything along those lines. I didn't infer anything from his statements, or imply anything about him being anti-Notre Dame. I simply posted the fact that he displayed a lack of journalistic neutrality when he stated that he wanted to see an Ohio State player score a touchdown. Explain to me how that violates the principles of Wikipedia.

I agree. There is no good reason to delete the paraphrased commentary made by Musburger during the Fiesta Bowl. He made the remark about Tyler Hamby, thus he should be held accountable. Musburger crossed the line of neutrality on Monday evening, and people should know about it.

If you can cite a source for someone criticizing him for these comments (and maybe someone has, I don't know), you're welcome to summarize their criticisms. But cherry picking quotes and presenting them in a critical fashion because you got offended by something he said isn't proper. Does someone have a source like that? Or maybe even a source for something saying that fans got mad at it? (Anything published really.) We just need to be summarizing an already published source on this, rather than editorializing. See what I mean? · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I do see what you mean in principle. However, paraphrasing text from the Fiesta Bowl is in no way editorializing. Sports journalism is based on the fundamental premise that the broadcaster should be neutral. Simply, he or she should call the game and color the teams and competition up a bit when time permits. Musberger made the Hamby comment when the game was within one touchdown. This involves much more than a few Irish fans being offended.

Musburger didn't say that he wanted Ryan Hamby to score, he said that *if* Ohio State *did* score, he hoped it would be Hamby, on account of the death threats and hate mail he received after dropping a pass in the end zone against Texas.


[edit] Proposed solution

Being that the sports fans I've talked to seem to have strong opinions about Brent Musberger, he has clearly been a controversial figure, even before the Fiesta Bowl. I can say that I'm completely neutral on the guy, because I don't watch sports. It would not be fair to isolate a single controversial quote for presentation on Wikipedia because doing so would beg the question of motivation for isolating that quote. The user arguing for inclusion of the quote about the touchdown clearly believes that Musberger violated a standard of integrity in doing so, but the presentation of that POV is unacceptable unless presented in a subheading that would, I believe, need to include at least the following:

1. The direct quote from Musberger, including the full context; 2. Arguments for the contention that Musberger, as a sports journalist, violated accepted standards of professional integrity, with references to unbiased (or at least balanced) sources who discuss impartiality and bias-free reporting standards for sports journalists, including examples of past incidents, and preferably coming from other sports journalists (his peers), 3. Arguments for the contention that Musberger, as a sports journalist, did not violate any such standards, with similar references as in (2).

It would also be good to explore varying standards between sports journalists and news journalists.

Again, including the quote without full context and a fair discussion of the issues surrounding it would amount to expressing a POV. I'd argue against including the quote and discussion at all, but if it must be included, then someone's going to have to do the research. --Maande10 11:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line, Brent Musburger is a controversial journalistic figure. In stating this, there is no POV being violated. It is rare to see journalists writing critcisms about their colleagues. Musburger is known for having a great voice, and sometimes allowing this "gift" to interfere with his job as a neutral play by play announcer. We should all take a look at some of the other sports related articles. Controversy is included.

In reply to "Bottom line, ..." posted from 198.82.197.15, I'd like to ask the following. Judging from your IP, you are either a Virginia Tech student, faculty, or staff (I recognize the IP address block because I went to Virginia Tech, but anyone could traceroute you). Hypothetically, let's say I wanted to edit the Lee Corso (another sports journalist) page as follows. "Lee Corso is particularly well-known at VT for having impugned the Hokies' chances of winning the national championship in the lead up to the 2000 Virginia Tech vs. Georgia Tech football game, after which a bolt of lightning singled out Corso's rental car among tens of thousands parked outside the stadium. The bolt's victim wasn't known until later, when Corso was trying to drive away and had to get a ride back to his hotel with some friendly fans. Corso deserved it. It was God's wrath for speaking against the Hokies. Corso said, "I don't know what a Hokie is, but God is one of them." The quote made it on to Virginia Tech fan t-shirts." Do you see anything wrong with what I wrote? I do. First, it was not a major event in Lee Corso's life and it's not well-known or discussed outside of Virginia Tech circles. Therefore, does it really need to be on his Wikipedia biography? Second, it expresses a Point of View when I use phrases like "impugned," "singled out," "deserved it," "God's wrath," and "friendly fans." Third, I have not cited any sources (although I will contend that they are out there, and that this story, if sanitized to contain only verifiable facts, is true). Please keep these three things in mind when you argue for Musberger's alleged team bias and/or alleged alcohol violation. Sources, please. --Maande10 03:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is that in order to include criticism of Musberger, there need to be people who have criticized him that we can cite. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Right...because every other piece of "information" in Wikipedia has verified sources. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Ever heard of John Seigenthaler Sr.? Where are the citations for all of the other information in the Musburger article? Seems like people are trying to pick and choose which items need citations and which to not...if the admins don't like the content, it can't be included without a citation, but if the admins are fine with the content it's okay to include it with no citation. Seems like that undermines whatever credibility Wikipedia has.
Disputed information without sourcing may be summarily removed. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be returned to the page, it has been taken down several times too. “Play-by-play announcer Brent Musburger had just finished calling the Huskers' game against Pittsburgh when he was cited near Memorial Stadium. Lincoln police said he was cited for consuming alcohol in public and having an open container in his car.” http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/4992183/detail.html

Has he been convicted of either of the charges? --Maande10 03:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

References

1.From the AP, "According to records from the Lincoln city attorney's office, Musburger paid the fine on Oct. 20 rather than show up in court. He was fined $50 for the open container of alcohol, $50 for drinking from it and $44 in court costs." http://www.azcentral.com/sports/colleges/articles/1121musburger-ON.html

I would be fine with this information being included in a subheading on the main article. Be careful with the terminology; his plea might have technically been nolo contendre, rather than guilty. State the facts of the article. --Maande10 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ---

HUH??? Who the heck cares how he pled? The "technicality" of his plea is completely irrelevant. Musberger was found guilty. That's all anybody needs to know.

2. Regarding Brent Musburger's questionable coverage of the United States vs. Iran Soccer game http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/soccer/longterm/worldcup98/columns/articles/waves28.htm

This is not a news article. It is an opinion piece written by Leonard Shapiro of the Washington Post in June, 1998, more than 7 years ago. Further, Shapiro uses the personal pronoun when he introduces Musburger, "... I thought he and his producers went over the line in pumping up United States vs. Iran last Sunday ... ." Shapiro does not say or imply that his thoughts on Musburger as widely held in the sports journalism profession. --Maande10 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Regarding Brent Musburger's praise of certain players http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/2000/oct/10-31-2000/sports/03.html

This is another sports opinion column, not hard news. --Maande10 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Regarding Musburger's hyping certain players, and insulting Heisman voters who don't vote for Musburger's favorite: http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/5965773

The article does not allege any violation of professional integrity on the part of Musburger. Rather, it takes exception with his analysis of Heisman contenders, saying, "Yeah, it's sometimes ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as Musburger's short-sighted analysis." --Maande10 09:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Unprotection

Please remove this article's protection.

Been 10 days. No discussion. Maybe things have simmered down. Will unprot. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

Info icon

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calls and utterances section

What's would be the criteria for a Musburger call to be considered "notable"? I mean, the first few are OK, as they are from moments that are truly among the most famous and well-known moments in the history of their respective sports. But random calls from an Ohio State/Purdue game in 2002 or Michigan/Iowa game in 1985? Why shouldn't every person just put in whatever Musburger said the last time he called our favorite team having an exciting moment or big win? Mwelch 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Michigan/Iowa one may be a little scarce in terms of high recognition, but certainly "Holy Buckeye" (the Ohio State/Purdue game) is an instant classic. Another reason for it's justified entry IMO is that it's a "classic Brent call", but one that came later in Brent's life as he nears 70. Basically to me, the criteria for a "notable" call or utterance is one that compliments a classic visual moment in a particularly classic game in sports history. Pretty much every entry fits in someway or another. With Musburger, it's easy to put in every quote, because of the way Brents cool bombast makes it so, but to me, and I have put a few entries in the Calls and Utterances section, it must be a call that compliments a classic moment. --Stoogeyp 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought, I can certainly give you "Holy Buckeye". Although, for it to be an All-Time Classic game or Classic moment, it should be considered and well-remembered as a classic by all fans of that sport, not by those who follow the two teams involved. This is certainly true of Dr. J's scoop shot, of Game 5 of the '76 NBA Finals, and of Doug Flutie's throw. I'm not sure OSU/Purdue 2002 is quite in that category for those who are not Big 10 fans in particular. But Musburger's coming out with the memorable phrase "Holy Buckeye", in and of itself gives the play/game and acceptable level of notability. I'll back down on that one.
But Iowa kicking a field goal in 1985? Yeah, it was a big game at the time, but now, does anyone outside the Big 10 really remember this? Or Musburger simply noting that the Trojans looked like a good bet to make the BCS Championshipo game in '06? Trojan fans may remember it forever because it was so satisfying to them to hear the words. But is anyone else gonna remember that call five years from now? Especially given that they didn't even make it after all? Who is ultimately going to remember those as "classic moments" other than the fans of those teams? And probably OSU/Texas '06, too. A very good game, to be certain, but I'll be surprised if non-OSU/non-Texas fans are remembering that one five years from now as a classic.
Even the Mariners/Yankees one. Certainly something to the argument that it's important in that it was come-from-behind win in extra innings in the deciding game of a playoff series. But I'm still left to people really remember that moment if they're not Yankee or Mariner fans. I mean, for me I will never in my LIFE forget Steve Finley's bottom-of-the-ninth grand slam in '04 to beat the Giants and win the division for the Dodgers. But somehow I doubt that non-Giant/non-Dodger/and non-family-and-friends-of-Steve-Finley fans particularly remember it.
The '97 Rose Bowl? Another such case. It was undoubtedly a great game. And it was the Rose Bowl, so certainly that adds the significance. But if you're not an OSU or ASU fan, do you really remember it? And in any event, the description of the call as listed on the page here ("acknowledgs the incredible prowess . . .") definitely leaves something to be desired.
And "they're in a footrace"? Good Lord, what football annoucner has not ever said that? Mwelch 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I'll have to defend the Yankees/Mariners one however, because except for CBS radio, Brent NEVER did baseball on TV, in fact, it was like that brief time in 1995 on ABC that he did (I believe), so in that context, I would defend the Edgar Martinez winning RBI double call (and I'm a YANKEE fan nonetheless! Boy was that a heartbreaker when I saw that live..but I digress LOL), only for the fact that it was a rare classic baseball BRENT call, and again, since there isn't much to go from with Brent and Baseball, that call should stay (IMO)...

Brent in recent years has been associated with the "Footrace" call...now if we were to say who really owns what, we could both go to the Marv Albert page and pull things, cause Marty Glickman said em (maybe invented them) first, same with Chick Hearn. There is no ownership implied of course of who said what first and all, I mean the urban legend is that Brent invented "March Madness" and I'll bet that as many people who agree with that, disagree with that. Was he the first ever to utter "You Are Looking Live!" ? Who knows, but it's associated with him, like "Go For It" is associated with Rocky, even though he didn't invent the phrase....mediocre example, but I think you get the idea...

The 97 RoseBowl is up for debate sure, I like the call, I think it was a classic play..and in a way, he WAS acknowledging the incredible football prowess of Jake Plummer LOL..but really, I mean, the Mets won the World Series in 1969, and Tommy Agee made a GREAT, GREAT catch, I'm sure you know of it..called by Curt Gowdy of course..I wonder if that's on the Curt Gowdy page..my point with this is that most everyone remembers the Miracle Mets of '69, but how many people except for die hard Mets fans and die hard sports fans, can recall the Agee catch? Or Don Clendenons (sp) ? I mean when all is said and done, there either are Brent fans or there aren't. He's never had a happy medium as we all know...it's hard to base an entry on "well, does a non sports fan know the moment?" Other than Michael Jordan or Ali, it's hard to ask a layman ANYTHING in terms of sports, (again, IMO),..it's like, the neutral people who come to this entry really can't make the distinction between the importance of Celtics/Suns 1976 over the 1997 RoseBowl.. so I think that those of us who have shaped this entry here (you and me included) are the ones who are fans of Brent as well as just making an encyclopedia entry in a generic sense (I mean, I can admit I am a huge Brent fan)...If you read the GQ article on Brent done about a month ago, you'll notice that the writer most certainly came to this page for research, so I would think we are doing something right!  :)

And yes, the USC entry is ridiculously dated now eh? Thanks to UCLA...that's another reason why "brand new" Brent entries need time to see if they are relevant...more of my two cents here LOL

--Stoogeyp 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't referring to *non*-sports fans. I was referring to sports fans who aren't *particular* fans of the two teams involved. I am not a fan of the Celts nor Suns but anyone who is an NBA fan and at all familiar with NBA history knows about Game 5 of the '76 NBA Finals. I am not a fan of Boston College nor the University of Miami, but anyone who was following college football at the time knows about Flutie's throw. With Dr. J. . . OK, I am a Lakers fan. But I'm pretty sure any NBA fan who is familiar with NBA history from that time knows exactly what shot you're talking about when mention the time he floated behind the backboard and scooped it up against the Lakers in the Finals. All of those moments have been replayed time and again and continue to be so today so sports fans are always seeing them over and over.
However, I assure you I follow college football just as closely every year, but I couldn't have told you anything about the '97 Rose Bowl prior this conversation causing me to go refresh my memory. As much as I watch college football, I'm pretty sure I've not seen that Plummer play replayed for me in the 10 years since it happened, as opposed the constant replay of the above calls. (And no, I wouldn't put Agee's catch on a Gowdy page, nor would I put something on a Rocky page that suggests that the phrase "Go For It" is somehow uniquely associated with that movie, either.)
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that maintainers of this page haven't done anything right. Didn't mean that, at all. Without going through it point by point again, suffice it to say that I just remained thoroughly unconvinced about the true overall notability of some of the calls listed.
All of that said, however, it's not anything that I'll be losing sleep over. It certainly appears that I'm the only one that's at all bothered by it, so in that case, I'll be content to pipe down let it be, even if I personally disagree.
It's all good. 8-) Mwelch 07:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gambler or vandalism?

He is listed for winning the World Series of Poker is this vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.57 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/e/Talk%7EBrent_Musburger_39d1.html"