Student manager not solely to blame
Yes, Stan Holt’s actions in the game against Oregon were ill-advised and dumb. Yet, I disagree with Jon Haber’s arguments (“Student manager was out of place,” Feb. 1, 2010) on two terms.
Holt cost the team a technical foul due to his reactions to a call by the referee during the basketball team’s game against Stanford, but your claims that only a coach and a star player should be allowed to get technical fouls as well as your argument that he lost the game for the team is a point of stasis for me.
First, the claim that only a star player or coach can receive technical fouls: I find the flaw in your lack of evidence. I need more evidence that shows direct citations of players who received technical fouls and came back and re-scored the lost points and led their team to victory, or, in the case of USC, kept the momentum and finished the “comeback.” Also, I see no evidence to support the claim of a coach being able to receive technicals. I need sufficient evidence showing a team can rally behind a loss of points from a coach. There are so many more variables that are involved in rallying behind the leadership of coach that are overlooked here.
Secondly, I would assume that you agree that there are more than two people on a basketball team. Thus, there are more than two people who can affect the outcome of the game. Holt’s technical foul was not the only factor that lead to USC’s loss that night, and I’m sure everyone on the USC men’s basketball team would have to agree with that.
CBS an unfair target for criticism
This letter is in response to Christopher Agutos’ column, (“CBS fails to score with gay community,” Feb. 1, 2010).
The entertainment industry bases its foundation on pleasing its audiences on a wide-scale in order to reap profit. CBS, as a private corporation, has no obligation to change perceptions of Americans. I agree that the media could do a better job in depicting reality and promoting equality and fairness, but we must recognize that we are not in a position to criticize them when they fail to do so. They are businesses — plain and simple. They will run their businesses in order to generate more revenue. They need to provide entertainment, even in the form of commercials, to please those “millions of Americans who might still be uncomfortable with gay rights.” CBS is no different than any other studio in wanting to please its audiences. And especially in such a large-scale event like the Super Bowl, any studio would be overly cautious as to the types of commercials aired during the event.
Additionally, the racy Miller Lite commercial aired during the 2003 Super Bowl is poor evidence that CBS’s standard for commercials was inconsistent and played a double standard over the years. As mentioned in the article, the 2003 Super Bowl was aired on ABC. We’re dealing with two separate corporations, so that evidence does nothing to support the author’s claim. If CBS indeed had a clear history of inconsistent standards, finding a relevant example concerning CBS alone should have been a breeze.
Why attack CBS? Why now?