California Conservative

But is the game really over?

Last week, we offered some general comments on the so-called 49ers’ “training video controversy.” The S.F. Chronicle led a scathing campaign to discredit the man behind the video’s development: the team’s PR director, Kirk Reynolds.

While the press was generous in their condemnation of the video, they were scant in detailing the facts. By quickly crying foul and highlighting accusations of racism, sexism, gayism and vulgarity, the local media landed a swift verdict against Reynolds and the 49ers without any significant rebuttal. In San Francisco’s liberal environment, tightly controlled by the wardens of political correctness, those words are used like weapons. By promoting the stigma of scandal, the video’s critics controlled the offense entirely and created a de facto public opinion. Even the City’s Mayor weighed in with his condemnation of the tape.

The 49ers rushed to distance themselves, and Kirk Reynolds was forced to issue a prompt apology before accepting his pink slip. Now, he’s out of a job and under a cloud of shame created by the media’s reporting of the story.

However, how many people actually saw the video and, of those, how many would come to the same conclusions? This is a matter worth exploring.

Since the storm has passed, some might also be wondering about the relevance of revisiting this “old” news. Why do it? For the record. And for the purpose of providing full disclosure. The truth can only be found by examining the video in greater detail. Much has been left out and swept under by biased critics and biased reporting. The real story is behind the story.

We believe Kirk Reynolds was treated very unfairly. We believe he should not have apologized, because he didn’t owe it to anyone. And we believe this video was used by activists as a battering ram to further advance their agenda. Sticking to the sports analogies: the proponents of political correctness were able to move the ball further down the field when, in fact, they should never have been in the game.

Furthermore, what also remains interesting about this story is how quickly it flamed out. Special interests and the media served as judge and jury. The sentencing was quick and extreme, without a broad public hearing. In most cases, we don’t see this happening. Even Michael Jackson gets his day in court. But here they had the perfect villain: a straight, white male poking fun at some of San Francisco’s well-known idiosyncrasies under the auspices of “diversity training,” something which activists have forced upon many private businesses as a requirement.

Let’s start with that: Sensitivity training for a football team.

We are talking about a men-only, helmut-crashing, limb-crushing, body-slamming sports organization. Why in the heck do they need to learn about about “sensitivity?”

Reynolds explained it: (1) It’s San Francisco and (2) The media is always watching. Some might question the merits of those reasons, but they’re true, nonetheless.

In order to get this lesson across to a group of aggressive, prideful, young male athletes, the message needs to capture their attention. Showing them the equivalent of a driver’s ed video isn’t going to cut it. Reynolds knew this, and he came up with the perfect solution.

Second point of fact: The 49ers training video was made for in-house purposes only; not intended for public viewing.

The key to being a successful teacher is knowing how to get students interested in the subject. It’s also important to know your audience. Kirk Reynolds came up with a brilliant strategy: Let’s play mayor for the day.

By using this premise, Reynolds invited players via mock video to follow him throughout a-day-in-the-life-of a public figure, encountering situations and interacting with the media, much like the players have to do themselves.

Reynolds was liberal in his use of locker room humor and political satire, but never wavered from the message and the core lessons he was intending to teach. Watching his performance in the video, we find him personally charismatic and genuine. The real critique of this video should be: Were his efforts successful?

Third issue for examination: Despite all the allegations of wrongdoing, what were the specifics? What made the video so offensive to San Francisco’s elitist social critics and the S.F. Chronicle? We decided that the only way to really analyze the video was to create a full transcript, which we did.

(The video was broken down into eight segments by Chronicle and made available online)

After reviewing the footage, our “refs” find that the attacks against Reynolds are a bad call. Maybe worth a minor penalty, but not costing his job.

Given the hype, we were expecting the worst. What we found was nothing more than Comedy Central.

“It’s the same type of sarcasm and satire that has (comedian) Dave Chappelle as the No. 1 show. Knowing the context in which it was done, I don’t think it was as bad as everyone is making,” said 49er safety Tony Parrish.

Exactly.

So, what are the criticisms?

According the the Chronicle: “Racial slurs, lesbian porn, barbs at [Mayor] Newsom.” A major indictment.

Let’s take them one at a time. (Be sure to read the transcript for more comments)

Racism: A false characterization of what the video actually presented.

One scene depicts former 49er athletic trainer George Chung reading a newspaper with a heavy asian accent while standing in San Francisco’s China Town district. Presumably, no one held a gun to his head. He probably thought it was funny, too. The reason: the “language barrier” was used as an intentional acting device, allowing for a few humorous “misunderstandings” that led to some very comedic wordplay: the joke was on the team, not Chung.

Another scene, very briefly, shows a panhandler asking for change from the Mayor (played by Reynolds). The beggar is black (played by 49er Julian Peterson), but the joke has nothing to do with color. First, it’s poking fun at the player’s recent contract negotiations (thus, he’s holding a sign reading: “Will Tackle For Money”). Secondly, it’s making light of Gavin Newsom’s “pet” issue with the homeless problem in San Francisco. Newsom’s “Care Not Cash” agenda helped get him into office, but not much has changed in the city since his election.

Any critic of Chung’s performance should also be attacking comedians like Chris Rock or Eddie Murphy, both having made careers on playing up racial stereotypes. What about TV shows like “In Living Color” or, as Parrish mentioned, “Chappelle’s Show.” After all, a stereotype wasn’t invented yesterday; they evolve over time. Comedians joke about things as they see them. The audience laughs about them because they’re often true.

Does political correctness only apply to straight, white males?

Lesbian porn: Hardly.

In driving the message that San Francisco is very “diverse,” Reynolds used the Mayor’s recent policy of promoting gay marriages. Acting as the mayor (and as the mayor actually did), he presided over a mock wedding between two women (presumably lesbians). They kissed and rolled around a little. One was topless. Calling it “porn” is ridiculous, and disingenuous.

San Francisco sees more skin at the annual Folsom Street Fair and gay Pride Parade (another event over which the mayor presides) than they do on this video.

Barbs at Newsom: He’s a public figure.

One scene depicts Newsom taking money from a baseball player, who thanks him for a policy of “booze and hookers.” It’s so obviously a joke, there’s no chance of taking it any other way.

Another scene depicts the mayor drinking champagne and billing a fat lunch to the taxpayers. If Willie Brown didn’t have a problem doing it, why should Gavin?

If Newsom takes such objection to these “barbs,” then perhaps it’s striking a chord of truth. If he’s arguing that it’s character assassination of an elected official and not in the public’s interest, then where was he during the anti-war (read: anti-bush) protests? They were defaming the President of the United States, and America itself.

We believe the answer is “freedom of speech.” In the case against Reynolds, it’s liberal hypocrisy at it’s best.

San Francisco is a city where there are no limits. There is no defining of values or good taste. Anything goes — except any criticism of the far-left liberal political system that makes it possible. While most public “art” can push the limits (of vulgarity and perverted imagery), Reynolds modest form of creative expression has been censored and banned. Even though it was never meant to be seen by the public!

It’s no wonder that the 49ers felt the heat on this training video. Politics prevails. But are the critics worth listening to?

IN CONCLUSION, we return to a couple points made earlier: (1) Know your audience and (2) Was the video effective?

Reynolds definitely catered to his audience and produced a video that was entertaining and amusing, while delivering some important lessons to players.

In the end, who should be the arbiters of this work? We’ve mostly heard from San Francisco’s liberal establishment. The better review would come from the millions of 49er and NFL fans, the guys (and gals) that watch football. It’s a rough sport and they enjoy it.

If it weren’t for the bad press shaping opinions, the fans (particularly those outside of San Francisco) probably wouldn’t find the slightest objection to the video. They’d be laughing right along with the players.

If it weren’t for political correctness, instead of being fired, Kirk Reynolds would be doing the rounds on talk radio and getting a spot on Leno or Letterman.

Too bad nobody asked the fans.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 7th, 2005 at 9:21 am and is filed under Culture, Liberals, Media, San Francisco, Special Interests, Sports. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.