Rick Reilly's response to my email
purelyPSA
Posts: 712 ✭✭
I forwarded my letter to Reilly himself, along with an explanation for why I felt the way I did. Here was his response:
Thanks for your feedback on the Pat Tillman/Todd Bates column. I'm sorry if it offended you, but as a columnist, my opinions and feelings don't stop where sports stops. I try to write about sports as part of the fabric of life and where it weaves itself with politics, society, and war, then I have to write it.
In no way do I mean to diminish the deaths of these two fine and brave men. I honor their sacrifice. But I question the leaders who put them in harm's way for a cause I don't believe in.
That's my take on it. You have yours and I not only respect it but I'm glad you shared it with me. Maybe we'll agree on the next one.
Best,
Rick Reilly
Thanks for your feedback on the Pat Tillman/Todd Bates column. I'm sorry if it offended you, but as a columnist, my opinions and feelings don't stop where sports stops. I try to write about sports as part of the fabric of life and where it weaves itself with politics, society, and war, then I have to write it.
In no way do I mean to diminish the deaths of these two fine and brave men. I honor their sacrifice. But I question the leaders who put them in harm's way for a cause I don't believe in.
That's my take on it. You have yours and I not only respect it but I'm glad you shared it with me. Maybe we'll agree on the next one.
Best,
Rick Reilly
0
Comments
Scott
"question the leaders who put them in harm's way". Again it's VOLUNTEER military and in Tillman's case, he specifically joined up to fight the terrorists behind 9/11. That put him in Afghanistan, where he died.
"a cause I don't believe in." Well, Rick, I guess we'll just have to take a poll every time there is a decision of national urgency. Maybe we can use your column since it so well represents the "Fabric of Society."
Most journalists are utopia-hugging idealists. To paraphrase Zig Ziglar, "while I will defend his right to his opinion, I sure as flip don't have to buy his magazine."
Tillman joined the fight in Afghanistan after seeing
thousands of Americans die on 9/11.
If Reilly only had an ounce of the guts that Tillman had.
marc
Unbelievable.
Collect primarily 1959-1963 Topps Baseball
set registry id Don Johnson Collection
ebay id truecollector14
<< <i>"I'm sorry if" is not an apology.
"question the leaders who put them in harm's way". Again it's VOLUNTEER military and in Tillman's case, he specifically joined up to fight the terrorists behind 9/11. That put him in Afghanistan, where he died.
"a cause I don't believe in." Well, Rick, I guess we'll just have to take a poll every time there is a decision of national urgency. Maybe we can use your column since it so well represents the "Fabric of Society."
Most journalists are utopia-hugging idealists. To paraphrase Zig Ziglar, "while I will defend his right to his opinion, I sure as flip don't have to buy his magazine." >>
So why are you not in Iraq fighting the evil doers, tough guy?
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
If you ain't gonna at least pull the wagon, then stay out of the way.
Oops, that was the last political post. I promise!
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
Yes, the Bush voters did out number the Gore voters. You see, the news you keep hearing is slanted by the left. After the Florida vote was done and Bush was declared (and rightfully so) the President of the US, no one counted the abesntee vote. That portion of voters tend to be military and wealthy/business people who tranditionally have voted 9 to 1 Republican. However your party did not want to add those votes to the nation's tally and have yet another defeat, so they dropped the counting and now spin this BS about Gore getting more votes than Bush. It's sad that the drones of the Democratic party (avg age of 30) are as informed and educated as my 6 year old.
Look face facts, the people of this country in the last 6 years have voted Republicans in Congress, Republican in Senate and Republican for President. Deal with it.
<< <i>Look face facts, the people of this country in the last 6 years have voted Republicans in Congress, Republican in Senate and Republican for President. Deal with it. >>
There's actually more to the story than this. The country has undergone a fundamental change over the past 70 years, culminating in 1994 as the last remnants of the New Deal coalition finally dissolved and the politicial realignment period in the South came to a close. The cause of this transformation is fodder for a PhD thesis, but the more relevant point here is that the result of these changes has created a new partisan/ideological majority in the U.S., one decidedly conservative - but unlike the Democrat dominance of the New Deal era, the margins are razor-thin. A lot of pundits talk about how evenly divided the county is these days, which it is - that in and of itself is truly remarkable, given the Democratic dominance of most of post-WWI 20th century politics.
<< <i>I'm here fighting the enemy inside the Republican party. More Muslims showed up in Precinct Conventions than in any year previously. Fortunately, we still outnumber 'em. >>
Wow, I don't know if you meant that the way you wrote it - but if you did, then it's Republicans like you that keep conservatives like me from officially registering with the GOP. Republicans with attitudes like that are actually the biggest internal enemy the party has ...
Robert
I both agree and disagree a little with every point raised in this thread thus far.
I am a centrist, not really far removed from Jesse Ventura. Before you laugh, take some time to examine his stance on the issues confronting the nation these days. One of his more poignant observations, remarkable in its simplicity yet utterly ignored by both sides, is that the VAST majority of people fall in line toward the center. They are less likely to speak out but their views are the backbone of the country, and must be found and followed. Instead, we get an unbelievably skewed "picture" of things from the media--far and away the most irresponsible institution in this country. That is then countered with the pap spewed by the too conservative right, which is then taken and spun by the media as reflecting all people who disagree with the self-righteous left, and the whole thing just perpetuates, to the point of farce.
I find Reilly's explanation lazy and intellectually weak--two of the three characteristics I would most often use to describe most members of the media (the other being overly self-important). He fancies himself both a reporter and an op-ed writer. After taking time to investigate the facts of a story and describing their impact on various people, he concludes by throwing out his two-bit opinion on foreign policy. For what purpose? Does he feel that we care about his opinion on the war? Does he think he is educating us in any way? Obviously not, as he makes no effort to explain why these leaders have failed and why the cause is not just. That would take reasoning and backbone. More importantly, he knows he is unqualified to write on such topics, and that we don't care to hear what he has to say. It almost appears as if he were afraid the story might portray him, the author, as being in favor of the war, and so he added his little swipe at the end to show that he, the hard-hitting journalist, was writing the piece not because he believed in the subject matter, but solely because it was his assignment. No doubt he actually feels courageous in doing so, when in fact, it seems to me that just the opposite is true.
ebay id: nolemmings
Does anyone have a PSA 9 of #8- George W's wolf's 8 hot dogs in 4 minutes? I'm willing to trade for #12- George W drives a Camaro.
If I have the freedom to express my opinion, does
that mean that I can curse you and your family right now
because that's the way I feel ?
Mr. Reilly said that he didn't believe Tillman's cause was just.
That is totally disrespectful to Tillman and his family.
Pat had the courage to go fight the thugs that killed
many people and ruined the lives of many on 9/11. Tillman's cause was just.
Or should we just let terrorists continue to kill anyone they want ?
Should we have no response to them at all ?
Perhaps we should let them blow up your children's school
and sit by and watch them blow up your house and neighborhood.
This is America, and according to you they can express themselves
without any reprecussion, correct ?
Reilly is a disgrace for doing a story on Pat and then stabbing him
in the back.
What I think is interesting-- and what should enrage you about Reilly's response- is that the thrust of your complaint wasn't Reilly's anti-war remarks per se; rather, it was the fact that he chose to make these remarks in a piece that in theory was supposed to honor Pat Tillman and the other military men and women who have lost their lives in the Middle East.
Yet, he responded to your email as if you were arguing his right to have an opinion; which, if I read you right, isn't what you were arguing at all. What Reilly needs to to is explain why he chose that article as his soapbox; not justify his right to be against this war.
I agree, BTW, that he could have chosen a more appropriate time to express his opinion on the war. Whether or not he's against is entirely irrelevant when dicussing the enormity of Pat Tillman (and others') sacrifice.
That was my whole point - that the whole thing was a submarine job. I'd have no problem with an article that was 10% anecdotal (like the story was) and 90% factual (supporting his position), though I don't feel SI is the place for something like that. Instead we got 95% of the first and 5% of the latter.
I explained my position to him in the email as such. It's possible he's gotten a lot of heat from readers, and that's just a boilerplate response that he cuts and pastes to any critical email. But hell, at least it meant he read it (I doubt he'd allow someone else to sign his name in these days of litigation), and he said something, which is more than I was expecting. And Reilly's got a big ego, so it's not like he'd say that he was wrong, especially to a reader. It dodged the thrust of things, but I suppose it's par for the course.
<< <i>Look ... there is no reason to argue about this. Reilly is a complete and utter moron. We all know this. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. There can be no disagreement. :-) >>
What do you make of this:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Oh well, wheres the Dubya Registry at?
First, Reilly's column isn't an "article". It's a column. An opinion piece. Don't confuse it with a news story that has to be devoid of opinion. Columns have existed since the early days of newspapers. They're an important part of a free press.
2) His column wasn't an "assignment". Columnists usually aren't 'assigned' columns, certainly not one of Reilly's stature. Like him or not, he's the best there is in the sports arena. His readership proves it. He chooses the topic and writes about it. Columnists write about something that strikes their interest or passion. If you disagree with him, it doesn't mean he stinks.
3)Purely PSA, his response to your letter WAS definitely of the boiler plate variety. Written and sent en masse to the (no doubt) thousands of others who responded to such a controversial column. He didn't address your specific question because many of the other responses were probably questioning his 'patriotism' and his right to an opinion (amazingly) and those are the people for whom the response is really directed. Reilly gets hundreds of letters in a month for less dicey topics. This was a hot button for obvious reasons. He'd need 8 secretaries and a barrel of Jolt cola to answer every one of the e-mails individually.
4) Boopots...just when is the "appropriate" time to write about war if not while it's going on?
5)..Curmudgeon...It's not the columnist's intent or mission to always "educate" us. Columnists write to get US to think. They write to stir discussion among the masses. It's not his job to 'explain failed policies' although in the paragraph before the end, he lays out why he thinks the way he does. And if Reilly isn't qualified to have an opinion that the government MAY not be doing this the right way, then who is? He's a citizen like the rest of us. Do we all need advanced degrees as you certainly have (based on your labeling those in the media as "lazy and intellectually weak") before we're allowed to say the war plans are right or wrong?? I guess the less-educated families who's sons & daughters are getting killed are also unqualified? Most of them probably can't explain US policy to your satisfaction either.
Now before you hit the 'reply' button and tell me I'm some Commie pinko, I, too, first thought it strange Reilly kind of tossed the anti-war line in at the end. But think about it. He''s not saying Tillman wasn't courageous or doing the right thing. He's saying the administration didn't give Tillman & others in Afghanistan enough manpower to do their jobs. (Tillman, riding up that mountain with limited backup, may have come to the same realization. We'll never know). And he's questioning whether war with Iraq is justified. Millions of others around the world are also questioning it. He IS saying the two athlete/soldiers were fine men who may have been put into impossible situations by their commander-in-chief. I'm not saying he's right. I'm not saying he's wrong. Reilly is saying it's a tragedy. He believes it.
SI does tackle issues that transcend sports. They've written on aids, hazing, equality, etc., etc. for most of the last 4 decades. It's why so many people continue to read it in an era when magazines are dropping like dinosaurs.
I quote the following coda from a member who calls himself "George Patton":
Getting rid of Communists and other morons.
Kevin/JoeStalin is a LIAR and a COWARD!
Does "getting rid of" mean killing? I hope not. By this logic, any person who votes for any kind of protectionism will be killed by this guy? Wow. So, he wants to kill everyone then, I guess.
Yes, there are "drones" on the left. They do nothing but call people on the right names like "fascist". Pretty much what this guy likes to do from the other side, I guess.
So I guess you dislike my political beliefs or my coda but you are OK with a guy who uses "Joe Stalin" as a handle name? One of the biggest butchers of all time.... but heck he wasn't a Republican, he was a Socialist must be OK - killing for Socialists principles are good. Also since you claim to be new I'll give you the beneift of the doubt and assume you have never read any of joestalin's posts here.
As far as "getting rid of" goes, everyone knows I mean from this board not killing people - couldn't you have read the following line of my coda before you made a fool of yourself?
Hi Ripken-
Either I misspoke, or you misinterpreted my post. Yes, I think now is a very appropriate time to voice one's opposition to the war. But you can argue that Reilly's decision to voice such in this piece was in poor taste. The forum, not the timing, was inappropriate.
Patton:
I didn't realize that Kevin uses the Stalin tag himself. That is, to say the least, rather bizarre. I guess I need to learn about who's who on these boards.
As far as making a "fool" of myself, well, I guess that line confirms my previous contention that the Republican rank and file offer little more than insults as a point of view.
what does your being a fool have to do with Republicans? It's not their fault you sling insults without understanding the facts. Next time you want to express your point of view and call names make sure you have your facts straight. I am not a republican - I am a Libertarian! I was merely pointing out to person that posted the "Gore got more votes" rhetoric as nonsense, again you sling without facts.