The Fox Fallacy and the Brees Opportunity
In a media interview, Drew Brees said he will “never agree” with those who disrespect the American flag. We all know he was reciting White America’s pushback against the Kaepernick Kneel during the national anthem as a peaceful means to protest police killings of unarmed African American men in America.
The Brees comments brought overwhelming outrage from a number of African American NFL players. Most prominent was the viral video from teammate Malcom Jenkins. Jenkins, though near tears, still provided a point by point analysis of why the comments were so hurtful, leading Jenkins to the conclusion that Brees lacked understanding of the issues, and any brotherhood rhetoric Brees may espouse in the future would be just that – rhetoric that is either not heart felt or not worth believing. Like AAA rated bonds being downgraded to junk bond status.
Now for the Fox Fallacy. Fox built an unsolicited defense for Brees: “He’s entitled to his opinion”.
That is a false narrative, which is a contrived attempt to deflect the main issue and inject instead something irrelevant to the initial discussion. Fox injected a false narrative because whether someone can have an opinion is a non-issue. Obviously, Drew Brees, or any 5-year-old for that matter can have an opinion. That is akin to Mohammed Ali’s “roper dope”. Ali would lean against the ropes pretending to be hurt, tired, or both, hoping the opponent (i.e. “the dope”) will believe it and wear himself out. Fox hopes to hijack the conversation about social justice efforts by NFL players and convert the narrative that these black players infringed on the right of Brees to have his own opinion.
The real issue, of course, is whether NFL players will participate in this social justice movement, and if so, how can they become a viable part of the solution. Talking about an entitlement to an opinion is irrelevant – likely by design. Fox hopes the public will be the dopes and start talking about something that really does not matter.
You are entitled to an opinion. But you are not entitled to a presumption of correctness that cannot be rebutted. The Jenkins rebuttal was analytical. His narrative included the all-important “why” for his conclusions, including where Brees had wrong assumptions and facts. Other current and former players did the same.
The better way to further the discussion is to test the quality of whatever opinion is being examined. At bottom, the way to test the quality of the opinion is to analyze whether the opinion is supported by facts and evidence to justify the conclusion.
To his credit, Brees listened to others, contemplated his actions and apologized. On further reflection and private conversations, he apologized a second time. Overall, Brees essentially admitted he was being educated on facts he did not initially consider. He realized he had some implicit biases, like assuming he was already well informed without the need to actually listen to the players have much more real-life familiarity with the police violence issues. He did not think about how they, not him, would have a better grasp of this side of American history and how it links to the present circumstances. He implicitly, not intentionally dismissed their entire experience as an African American male in America – an experience not worth consulting before arriving at an “opinion” and conclusion on what actions are appropriate.
When discussing patriotism and the flag, Brees incorporated his family’s war experience and executed his judgement of what should be done from that lens. What would make one think the black players in the league didn’t also have their families in the same wars with the same or greater risk of harm? If he had regarded their experience as valuable, he would come to understand the anger that comes with knowing that Black veterans came back home to worse consequences and fewer rewards without a GI bill for buying houses in appreciating neighborhoods. He apologized for having the uninformed opinion that lacked historical context on patriotism. And he apologized for a careless and hurtful consequence to his fellow players who did not have his privileges.
On each of the above points, the Brees opportunity is to now talk to his similarly-situated brethren about how they can avoid the same public pothole he just experienced. He has been a leader among peers on player relationships with the League. I expect those skills to be on full display despite initially being humbled. He would not have become a HOF level quarterback without fortitude.
After all, this issue is bigger than the sport they play for a living. They have to live here first to play here. So, I have faith that in the sports industry where employees have a uniquely high level of interdependence and synergy toward a common goal of winning, a critical mass of players will view themselves as being on the same team, just different positions. I am optimistic that each club will ante up, and funnel funds into entities designed to solve a problem – unless they get sidetracked by a false narrative like – disrespecting the flag.
Roger M. Groves is a Washington DC attorney and Florida business consultant. Formerly a tax judge, he is nationally networked with law firms and financial advisors in the sports and entertainment industry. He can be reached at (571) 228-0871, roger@sports-apps.com or 1629 K Street N.W., Suite 300, Washington DC, 20006