I mean the previous host of the show was literally just "some guy" who was a games show presenter and was friends with the producer, same situation with Art Fleming before him.
I don't know if we really need to treat Jeopardy! as a hallowed institution instead of a game show on at dinner time that's been running for a while.
This view denies the reality of the situation at hand. They had an extremely popular candidate of color, famous for their love of knowledge and beloved by Americans, who very much fit the role and culture of the show -- and they chose some generic, unlikable, unknown white guy instead. Abdul-Jabbar has a good point.
I think we should assume he was talking about LeVar Burton because he's famous for his love of knowledge and beloved by Americans, and very much fits the role and culture of the show. Have you ever seen Reading Rainbow? (Or even TNG?) Everyone's been talking about how apropos that'd be, try googling "LeVar Burton Jeopardy".
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to make this about race.
That's a weird response. The essay's argument is that Jeopardy should retain the strength it had under Alex Trebek of being a game show that 'celebrates knowledge and intelligence when other game shows prefer slapstick humor or simple tasks'
Sure. Nothing wrong with that in itself. The issue I have is that he associates the choice of a white man with 'substantial lack of awareness of recent cultural history and the coming of age our institutions'.
And in case you were not sure, he makes it quite clear that be it isn't about his comments or statements. But is actually a 'deeper issue'.
The hypocrisy is astounding. Seriously, can you imagine if someone suggested that choosing a black woman was somehow opposing 'knowledge and intelligence'? People would explode and justifiably!
>But when it came to choosing the permanent host, they defaulted to a white male with a background as a television producer and game show host. His credentials included stints behind the scenes at The Price Is Right and Let’s Make a Deal, shows featuring avarice more than advancement. The choice of Mike Richards was business as usual.
It wasn't even a teacher, or a celebrity involved in educational charities, or anything. It was some guy who'd been an executive producer, and more recently, the executive producer of Jeopardy (and host of nonsense gameshows, but that's barely applicable to hosting Jeopardy). More notably, he had a storied history of shittiness, which includes firing a Price is Right girl because she "would not take us to great". [0] Maybe he can do some grammar learnings. The host of Jeopardy doesn't have to be highfalutin, but using correct fucking English should be the (not exactly high) bar to clear.
>The ideal host for Jeopardy! should embody what the show means to its viewership: a passion for knowledge and a respect for a diverse community. Maybe the host would also reflect that diversity in order to show that it’s not just white males who can be the gatekeepers to these values.
Frankly, making the jump from "the host should be someone who's publicly interested in knowledge and not an asshole" to "white men are decried for their original sin" is a bit of a leap. Or maybe it's just a startle reflex from a dogwhistle. Anyway, I think the reaction to Mike Richards has something to do with that fact that he's on-tape (well, on-podcast) making dodgy comments against Haitians and Jews. [1] To paraphrase Donald Trump, the prototypical "innocent-white-man", I like people who aren't on the shitlist of the Anti-Defamation League.
edit: Oh HN, never change. I guess these downvoters must have gone to the same private Christian college as Mr Richards, or something. Without typing out some words in response, we'll never know!
Hey sorry about the downvotes. I want you to know I appreciate the response.
So if the criticism were simply his comments (which I dont even know what they were, but let's just say they are disqualifying) there wouldn't be an issue. I am not ignoring because I don't think that matters--I am ignoring them because the author specifically says it's not about that.
But the byline of the article is "the media focus on Mike Richards' insensitive comments misses a deeper issue with the host search that "suggests the problem may not be just a bad branch, but a rotten root."
So even without his comments, he did not approve of Richards.
He spends a few paragraphs praising Jeopardy for being a leader in science and knowledge, and decrying anti-science and anti-history. I think if you look at the essay as a whole, it seems like Abdul-Jabbar associates the choice of a white man with regression on these fronts. It's one of those 'just another white guy' rants. As if we are all similar and replaceable. As if one white guy is the same as another.
I earnestly believe that if the roles were swapped this would be very eyebrow raising. Imagine I had an essay talking about how we need a smart host with a high IQ who is articulate. If I then decry the choice of a certain ethnicity, it feels like I am saying that ethnicity doesnt represent those values.
So let's cut the crap: he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress. They are anti-intellectual deadweight clinging to the past. They are deplorables. Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
Yes, I am reading between the lines here. But that's the same strategy that progressives use (and often it's correct. For instance, you cannot understand birtherisn without reading between the lines to understand it's just xenophobia.
he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress.
I don't know about the race or gender part of that sentence, but the point of being conservative is to want things not to change. To say a conservative opposes progress is more of a definition than an accusation.
>But the byline of the article is "the media focus on Mike Richards' insensitive comments misses a deeper issue with the host search that "suggests the problem may not be just a bad branch, but a rotten root." So even without his comments, he did not approve of Richards.
Yes. And? Even without his comments, I don't approve of Richards either. Abdul-Jabbar goes on to describe why, and I endorse his straightfoward explication:
>"Admirably, the producers had rotated guest hosts that represented a cross-section of America: women, men, Black, white. Many were more than just entertainers, they were also doctors, journalists, people with demonstrable interests beyond the television industry. But when it came to choosing the permanent host, they defaulted to a white male with a background as a television producer and game show host. His credentials included stints behind the scenes at The Price Is Right and Let’s Make a Deal, shows featuring avarice more than advancement. The choice of Mike Richards was business as usual."
I don't know that you're justified in assuming that Abdul-Jabbar is engaging in a "'just another white guy' rant", given the rest of the sentence, the first of the article in which Abdul-Jabbar mentions Richards' race.
If one actually reads the article, it's clear it's not about race at all, as much as it is not choosing some uncredentialed white guy who denigrates others based on their race, when they could be appointing, say, someone more emblematic of what Jeopardy represents in Western entertainment. Like someone from the diverse and intellectual guest host list. Anyone.
>So if the criticism were simply his comments (which I dont even know what they were, but let's just say they are disqualifying) there wouldn't be an issue
To be honest, I think that taking a position like the one you've taken without knowing at least this much about the situation is surprising. Could it be that Richards is familiar enough to you that you're defending him reflexively?
>So let's cut the crap: he thinks that conservative white men are holding back society from progress. They are anti-intellectual deadweight clinging to the past. They are deplorables. Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
Uh. Abdul-Jabbar's stated criteria are not "a non-white guy". They are: having the appearance of a public intellectual and not-racist, and Richards is neither. I have no idea why you'd jump to such a startling conclusion. It's entirely unsupported. I'll excerpt it again:
>"The ideal host for Jeopardy! should embody what the show means to its viewership: a passion for knowledge and a respect for a diverse community. Maybe the host would also reflect that diversity in order to show that it’s not just white males who can be the gatekeepers to these values."
No he didn't...? The final sentence of my reply is
>"Maybe the host would also reflect that diversity in order to show that it’s not just white males who can be the gatekeepers to these values."
The word maybe ought to strike you, there. The previous sentence outlines the two priorities, "a passion for knowledge and a respect for a diverse community", but that last sentence merely suggests that it need not be another white guy.
From this, you synthesized
>>Richards is just another, factory-produced white man inseparable from a sea of others. We cannot possibly represent diversity--because we are all identical. Whereas choosing a ethnic minority is a breath of fresh air that we can all rattle our pom-poms over.
To justify this screed, or even your first post, with such an insane logical leap makes me wonder about, as MLK said, the content of your character.
I don't know if we really need to treat Jeopardy! as a hallowed institution instead of a game show on at dinner time that's been running for a while.