Roland Martin has been suspended from CNN due to the Tweets he made regarding the David Beckham Superbowl commercial. Apparently Martin tweeted, "If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham's H&M underwear ad," he wrote, "smack the ish out of him!" Martin apologized, stating that his comments were not meant to bash the gay and lesbian community, but rather a dig at the sport of soccer.
The Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) called for the immediate removal of Martin and CNN obliged, making a statement which read, "Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being."
Did CNN rush to judgment or are they justified in suspending Martin? Do you think Martin will return to the air like Imus or is he done at CNN for good?
6 comments:
Everytime I read a post about this I get worked up into a tizzy. I was actually following Roland Martin on Twitter Superbowl Sunday and "gay bashing" was the furthest thing from my mind when I read his tweets. He was twittering (tweeting) during the entire game and they picked those comments?
Seems like a conspiracy theory to me.
I think someone from GLAAD is being oversensitive on this one or they need a manual on "talking sh*t during a football game."
Hi Shantel C. I have a Twitter account, but I don't really tweet and this is probably why. Nothing is private. I feel that you ought to be able to tweet and utilize other social networking tools without losing your job. I am with you, I don't think Roland meant anything malicious (he was just trash talking)and I sincerely hope CNN comes to their senses. Mr. Martin is a bright young man who deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. I believe him.
I don't really know Roland Martin, but I'm willing to give him a pass if he says it wasn't meant to be anti-gay. It seemed more or less like a Beckham bash to me.
It can be construed as a comment about not wanting your male teammate to enjoy seeing a brief-wearing male. But a lot of comments can be construed like that.
Just this morning on Mike and Mike, Jalen Rose was talking about how he'd be upset if two of his male teammates were chest-bumping without their shirts.
I don't see anything wrong with it, but GLAAD probably would. But that's part of GLAAD's purpose as an organization.
Special interest groups take special interest in some very uninteresting things.
(Not sure what type of reaction this would get from someone else saying it, but that's not important.)
As to CNN's reaction - dumb.
For the love of Pete, people, stop caving in every time someone barks a little bit! Someone is always upset about something in the world. It's the responsibility of the upset party to get over it sometimes, not the responsibility of someone else to cater to that party's sensibilities.
Amen Josh!
What shows up more to me that is that this man presented himself as a thug for demanding violence.
I think someone tweeting encouraging violent assault is a lowlife that does not belong in the public eye. There's simply no justification for this.
When I read Roland's tweets, I was initially appalled. However, once I heard his explanation, it sounded plausible.
Although CNN may have overreacted by suspending him, it was probably the smart thing for them to do from a business perspective. However, if they fire him for this, they are going too far. I think he'll be back on CNN soon.
Post a Comment