Talk:Bryant Gumbel

Controversy

- WHY ARE YOU EDITING THIS OUT OF THE CONTROVERSY SECTION:

In the closing monologue of the February 7 edition of HBO's "Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel," Gumbel said about the Winter Olympics: "Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them... So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention."

He said it. It was stupid. It needs to be listed among his other BONEHEADED comments. The guy is a tool.

Cracks me up to no end that people keep "cleansing" Gumbels bio. Talk about censorship. Wikipedia is guilty of surpressing free speech...talk about revisionist history. Who censors the censors here? Various members have been attempting to remove facts from Gumbels bio that shed the true light on his racist agenda.

Bryant is talented and outspoken. Deal with it.

Bryant is clearly outspokingly liberal. But the edits only removed claims like he is best known for his olympics comments. I would say that is a POV push, as one would think he is most known for being on the Today Show.

So is the long list of quotes supposed to make us admire Gumbel or hate him? He's right on the mark as to how Republicans don't care about poor people and black people. In either case, it's not NPOV to obsess over controversial remarks. Two-thirds of the article is just a list of quotations.

"He's right on the mark as to how Republicans don't care about poor people and black people."

And we Democrats wonder why we can't win elections. Maybe it is because of these types of comments.

Added intoduction on controversial remarks section.

Shouldn't there be some mention here about Bryant Gumbel's shameful role in the racist slander and dehumanization of Joe Frazier by Muhammed Ali? If it's not, I can only guess the reason is that the entire media culture was and is culpable for the disgrace. I'd add it myself, because it is documented, but I don't know how. S.A.Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.45.173 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversial remarks

I removed the following paragraph (among other edits made) because it violates Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy and includes original research. I first tried to write it in an NPOV way, but there really isn't any way to do so. Besides, if the remarks below it are so "controversial", they should need no explanation. Fagstein 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While many conservatives believe that there is a liberal bias in the media, most of their accusations are only based on a similarly biased interpretation of evidence. As many of the comments below illustrate, it is not the case with Bryant Gumbel. It is impossible for even the most stingent defenders of media bias to deny Gumbel's obvious dispain for conservatives and that his reports do not carry a non-partisan objectivity. However, it is important to note, that Gumbel has never publically declared himself to be an impartial reporter. In addition, Bernard Goldberg who also appears on Real Sports on HBO is a liberal media bias accuser appears to maintain a cordial and professional relationship with Mr. Gumbel.

Furthermore, since this entire section was cut and pasted from the Media Research Center here and is hence arguably a copyvio, does anyone object to my removing it and replacing it with a link to the article instead? Fagstein 22:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio, it has to be removed. No Guru 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But, is it? It's a list of quotations. It's clearly copy-pasted, but the quotes themselves can't be copyrighted, and there's no text other than the quotes and attributions. Fagstein 03:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not is it copyvio, the whole section needs to be removed. As mentioned above and below, the section is extremely POV because the choices of quotes and their presentation are explicitly designed to attack Gumbel. The Media Research Center's agenda is clearly to cast Gumbel in a particular negative light; while the quotes may be accurate, selecting ten quotes from a career of decades on television and implying that they are representative is ridiculous. Plenty of media figures make more controversial statements before breakfast than Gumbel made in decades. The fact that Gumbel has expressed some opinions on television is legitimate for the article. But this particular list is not. The MRC article should be linked to as an example of one perspective on Gumbel - their POV is legitimate for their website, but not for repetition verbatim in a Wikipedia article. Matt Toups 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This section of the article is ridiculous. Aside from the Winter Olympics comments & the "fucking idiots" one, the rest of those quotes are just anti-republican. Since when has having a political opinion been considered controversial? Those weren't even that radical. I mean in one of them he just stated that the government might need to raise taxes. Come on, now. 72.138.81.82 03:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the quotes except for the top two. If anyone has an issue with this, please reply instead of reverting my edits. --Liface 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've re-removed the other quotes, since they have no sources which indicate anyone has expressed issue with them (other than the MRC). Again, if someone feels differently, please reply here. Fagstein 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've again re-removed the other quotes. I would ask those who want them added to discuss them here. Fagstein 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

They have been added now under the new political commentary section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.84.252 (talk • contribs)

Changing the section title doesn't make it better. If you think his quotes are that important (and there's still no sources to suggest that any respectable media has cared about them), then they should be added to Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Fagstein 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If one would bother to look there are numerous articles that point to the politicking of Gumble on the air. Biased Gumbel Left Right Clash Over Reagan Media Coverage

Then feel free to summarize these articles in the "controversial remarks" section. Giving the quotes themselves with no context as to the controversy is entirely unhelpful. Fagstein 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont know quite what you mean. If you think these remarks can be properly summarized then the more apporpriate thing to do would be to do that instead of just erasing the entire section. Mbofuc 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these remarks should be summarized. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes, and this content is inappropriate here. If you want to quote Bryant Gumbel to death, put it on Wikiquote. Fagstein 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following: "Bryant has earned a reputation as one of the most politically active journalists on TV.". This sweeping assertion is justified by one reference to a partisan, conservative journal (National Review) and nothing else. Without more, and more credible, support, this is clearly POV. It is not even clear to me that it would be accurate to assert something like "most conservatives consider that Bryant is one of the most politically active journalists on TV" - one would need better evidence to support this claim. My own sense is that there are several other TV journalists that most conservatives would claim are more politically active or biased - but of course I would submit to reasonable documentation. Gogh 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "racist" to describe Gumbel's remarks about the winter olympics. Use of that adjective is drawing a conclusion, which I think is inappropriate. If you believe the quote is important enough to include here (I won't argue that now) then just include the quote and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions as to whether it is racist or not. If Gumbel was disciplined in some way by HBO for the remarks (I don't think he was) or later apologized for them (I don't think he did) you could include that information, and if either consequence invovled the judgement that the comments were racist or in some way inappropriate, you can include that.Gogh 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be an idiot to not consider his comment racist...........seriously.......the paucity of blacks and a GOP convention..........there is no doubt that was racist. Too bad you are so ignorant you can't see it.

I find these kinds of disagreements are so much more productive if we can avoid personal attacks. You might notice that I have not taken a position on whether the remarks are racist; I have simply made the point that it is not appropriate to draw this kind of conclusion when presenting the remarks. If the remarks are important and relevant (I think that they are) then just present them and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. It would also be appropriate to describe the public reaction to or consequences of the remark.Gogh 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The clips at the bottom of the page are unfair and seek to portray Bryant, one of the most revered journalist in modern times, as a liberal fanatic who uses his public pulpit to spout liberal views. All Tv journalists make statements to one side of the issue or the other when discussing certain topics, play "devil's advocate" at times, or jump on the bandwagon of positive or negative controversies, just look at Fox News. If Wikipedia is going to have these clips for Bryant Gumble, they must have them for every Tv journalist. -Reg

Then feel free to add them to more Tv journalists. See Bill O'Reilly controversies

I don't have a problem with the idea behind the following line at the end of the article: "Bryant has earned a reputation as one of the most politically active journalists on TV.[2]." I do, however, have a couple of problems with the execution of it. For one thing, to say that he has "earned a reputation" implies that the matter is settled (and I'm sure that some would disagree with that statement, even if I don't). More importantly, the source for the statement is an article from the National Review, which isn't exactly a bastion of objectivity in its own right. Perhaps the statement could read that "According to the National Review, Bryant has earned a reputation...etc."--Mcglotda 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Dennis

"Gumbel's remarks about the lack of black athletes in the Winter Olympics oddly enough came immediately following a piece he did on the 1966 Texas Western University basketball team, which had five all black starters."

'Oddly enough' this turd of a sentance was in the article to nurse someones bruised feelings. Its like, waaah waaah, bitch cry and moan, Gumbel made an obvious statement about how not a lot of black people play resort sports like the ones in the winter games. Quick white america! Get all defensive and say something like yeah, but lots of black people play basketball. Obviously, because of that any person who tries to point out that black people are underrepresented in activities of the middle and upper classes is a racist hypocrite and should ALWAYS be countered with a remark about blacks and basketball.

WTF Wikipedia! This sentance is foolish, petty, defensive, and at its heart comparing apples to oranges. Shame on you, wikipedia! Shame! Shame!

P.S. Im not an editor, but I'm going to go ahead and delete the sentence. I was going to just complain and let somebody else do it, but simply pondering upon the absolute absurdity of the reasoning behind including it will keep me awake at night, and frankly, Im not losing any sleep over Bryant Gumbel, so Im going to delete it from the article. I made a wiki editor account just for this: Gumbel'sRevenge

On the other hand, the absolute absence of blacks among Nobel Prize winning scientists (the REAL Nobels, not the lit and peace prizes, which are highly fudge-able and politicizied) causes no one to have to conceal their laughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.47.79 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Bryant Gumball is a racist. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.77.174 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Creole

Unless there is some proof or something that shows he is creole it shouldn't be in there. Especially considering americans use the one-drop rule

He was born in New Orleans.

That doesn't make him creole. I've lived there. Thats like less than 5% of the population there... 68.229.155.31 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lifting protection

The article was protected over claims that certain edits violated a NPOV. This is not vandalism according to Wikipedia's vandalsim policy There were also attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Two user's involved in the dispute were both stubborn in what should be included in the article. Again according to Wikipedia's policy on vandalsim this is not vandalsim. Also note that [1]Wikipedia's policy on semi-protection states, " It is also not an appropriate solution to regular content disputes since it may restrict some editors and not others." Therefore in the spirit of Wikipedia and in compliance with stated policies of Wikipedia the protection should be lifted. Mbofuc 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I will lift the protection, but will keep a close eye on the article editing activity. Any edit further edit warring will result in protection. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Talking white"

I've moved this from the article, since it's unsourced. If someone can locate a reliable source which asserts this we can discuss it further.

"Largely because of his polished image as host of the Today show, Bryant Gumbel has come to symbolize the archetype of a African-American who "acts White" or "thinks White". While his political views and level of community involvement strongly indicate that such a notion has no merit, this image has nonetheless persisted for years. To this today, being compared to Bryant Gumbel is considered to be an insult to most African-Americans."

• I won't search the entire Net trying to back up something that is, admittedly, based in large part in anecdotes. But anecdotal information is not necessarily incorrect. Gumbel's "Blackness" has been attacked by a number of individuals for at least 20 years, and being compared to him is most definitely NOT a compliment to most African-Americans. Personally, I think that the whole idea of trying to measure someone's "Blackness" (or "Whiteness", etc.) is ignorant and racist. But what can you do . . .

ABCxyz, 00:57, 07 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Eye?

Why is there no mention of his mid to late 90s show 'The Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel'??? It did well in the ratings at first before sliding out of contention and being cancelled.

Undocumented claim about first TV job

I have deleted the following: from the "controversies" section: "When Gumbel was first hired, the tapes provided in scouting did not include video. The station believed that he was a white man on hiring. The station attempted to fire him once realizing he was black. A law suit was threatened and he kept his job." It had been tagged as needing a source, but the claim is so vauge (what station, what year, who tried to fire him, when was the law suit threatened?), and unlikley that I don't think it should appear in the article at all unless and until a suitable source is provided. This even could only have occured at Gumbel's first TV job - which was at KNBC in 1972. It is highly unlikely that they did not know he was black, since they hired him from his prvious hosting duties on a show called "Black Sports". If there is any truth in this claim at all it much be more specific and better supported. Gogh 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Was he really born in 1908? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.32.134 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He is divorced, remarried, and a father of 2

he had a very messy divorce and has 2 kids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.142.130 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Letterman show

When I think of Gumbel, I think of his appearance on Letterman where he spray painted the front of Dave's desk, simply to be a jerk or something? God knows why. Maybe Letterman was in on the "stunt" but it didn't seem that way.
That was years and years ago. I haven't seen Gumbel since then. This article appears to support my impression that this is typical behaviour for the guy.
So maybe the Letterman incident could be added.
Varlaam (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

what the hell is going on with this wiki page?

A whole assortment of racist/bigoted garbage said/done by Gumbel has been repeatedly deleted, yet I don't see any admin types locking this down and taking charge?? It's wiki pages like this that make wikipedia look like a total biased joke. I will be reverting to a very old edit that includes his many idiotic/racist/bigoted comments if unless someone wants to fix the current version to include said material.Whatzinaname (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Gumbel on Early Show Longer than One Year

I don't know where you got this information, but Gumbel was on the Early Show well after 1999, I know because I watched the Early Show specifically because he was on it! He was preparing to leave in the fall of 2001 which is why he happened to be the first one to make the announcement about the attacks on the World Trade Center. MARK VENTURE (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)