Indeed.

Notice that Rob Parker became part of ESPN's team after he called Hank Aaron a coward for not joining him in bowing to Barry Bonds? Kind of like Skip Bayless became a national name after spreading Troy Aikman is gay rumors.

I just wonder how some of these people have jobs. Do the execs at ESPN really think some of these jokers are legitimate? Do they think the public likes them? That we watch because of how cool they are? No, we watch because it's ESPN and we want sports.

What do you know Rob Parker is an asshole. I knew this from reading his crap the last 10 years.

It seems that hypocrisy invades ESPN...just last week the story about Michele Tafoya claiming disgust about Deadspin then joining a conversation about men's urinals, now this.

There's also hypocrisy at AA regarding Dana Jacobson. If you don't like her, just say you don't like her. You don't have to keep bringing up an incident that you did not see as evidence that she should or shouldn't be asking someone something. She's offended by a blow-up doll. That's not unusual. Ask your mother if she is, too.

Okay that's just a ridiculous argument. You're welcome to your opinion about the site but everything else you said makes no sense. She has every right to be offended by a blow up doll...hell I wouldn't be comfortable with it either.

There's no hypocrisy here at all. I rather enjoyed her and still do from time to time, but when it comes to matters of religion she's just not credible. The fact that I didn't see it is irrelevant...I've talked to many people who were present, and she has yet to deny any of the claims. Because she can't.

Everything revolves around credibility and if you think she's credible then by all means enjoy her "work".

What do you want, AA? Do you want Mr. Sexual Harrassment, Jay Crawford, talking about blow-up dolls?

That would be hilarious and way more hypocritical than Dana. First Take chose the lesser of two evils.

I agree with anon. Who did you talk to from the event? Ask them again if she made anti-religious remarks or anti-Notre Dame remarks. She's a credible interviewer and you are being way too unfair to her.

I agree with AA that Dana Jacobson doesn't deserve much respect for her classless remarks at that roast, but at the same time, isn't she more of a moderator of sorts on 1st and 10? I don't watch it, so I don't really know.

If she is basically the moderator, her history and her personality shouldn't be taken into context, should they? She shouldn't be the one forming opinions, and from the looks of the question (I can't seem to view the video), she was posing the question to the people debating the issue and not necessarily inserting her own opinion.

And even so, shouldn't she be allowed to continue doing her job? As a professional interviewer/host/moderator, she can't be asked to shy away from questions just because her personal history can make those questions seem awkward or hypocritical.

AA,
You seem to have some sort of bizarre fixation with this interviewer and get upset every time she asks a question. Seriously, you posted her Tiger interview, which wasn't bad at all. Now this. It really does reek of piling on.

I'm only piling on because the hypocrisy keeps happening. I by no means think she should have been fired for what she did, but you lose all credibility when you do something like that.

I agree with AA. Marv Albert should never call a game again because he was arrested--and found guilty!--for assaulting his girlfriend. How can he have any credibility calling a game where a fight could break out? Pat Summerall should have been kicked off the air for all the times he's been drunk in public, too. Stu Scott sends text messages to girls, how can he be entrusted to read our news. They're all hypocrites! And we should demand our pound of flesh. I mean, how dare Dana get drunk at a semi-private function and diss Notre Dame! She should never be allowed to ask questions that involve religion or alcohol again!

Very humorous "take" Free Dana, but that's not the only thing that Dana said that night. If Marv started talking about hot women in the crowd I'd be miffed, if Summerall started talking about drunk people in the crowd I'd be weirded out, and if Stu Scott started commenting on an athlete cheating on his wife I'd be just as upset as AA.

It's all about context people.

i think we are giving this broad too much credit, im sure she is just saying whatever the producer is saying in her ear. and chances are that guy thinks its hilarious to make her say something like that

I agree with Mike Georger. Why does anyone care about this chick? AA, make a promise. No more Jacobson posts.

Fine...fine. I promise. But I reserve the right to post the "F Jesus" video if it ever surfaces.

No, AA should be pissed at Dana. She epitomizes the main problem with journalists today--that they inject themselves into stories and cross over into commentators with unwarranted editorializing. This blurs news and opinion, and basically shows a lack of an ability to be true journalists. I have issues with bloggers claiming to be on par or above journalists, but with this caveat: there are so few real journalists who abide by journalistic standards that those professionals who complain about bloggers' quality of work seem remarkably hypocritical. Get a column or shut up. In this case, Dana, be something other than a moderator, or don't give an opinion. Can you imagine Tim Russert interrupting a presiential debate with, "Oh, well, I think the gas tax is a good idea?"

Moreoever, if she were a real journalist, she'd be more careful with her hypocritical words (you know how you often see contrary opinions mentioned in straight-forward articles?), but DJ, like so many of these idiots on TV, just want to get in their opinions no matter what. Buccigross and Van Pelt do this too instead of just giving highlights, so I'm not picking on only Jacobson. ESPN especially has used a business model that emphasizes personality and the audience, in their mind, needs to know what every anchor, moderator, reporter, etc. thinks. The old Tirico (before his radio show) and Brian Kennys are a thing of the past.

Well put, dude. There's too much crossing over; Jacobson is paid to move the program along and interview people, not inject her opinion into things.

You are conflating their on air comments with their personal lives in terms of analyzing them and what's the point? They speak for ESPN not themselves as people, so why analyze their questions in this way. Isn't it more important whether the question she posed is relevant period? I mean christ, let's criticize the way someone actually handles a sporting event, but this just a shit show to being with from start to finish on "first take." It's blabbering and talking for its own sake and it's all bullshit. the fact that dana jacobsen's personal life considered as context for the questions makes it more absurd is besides the point yeah?

Since when does hating Notre Dame equate to having a problem with religion? I guess that makes me a church-going atheist because I despise Notre Dame and think their Touchdown Jesus is a crock!

AA, I like your Jacobsen posts. Keep em up.