Tony Dungy’s comments about Michael Sam are an indictment of the media, not Sam’s sexual preference

by Kent Sterling

The media can be an oily serpent that cruises for targets – a well-known person who says something damning in a moment of weakness, dunderheadedness, or honesty.

When talking to the media, steering clear of subjects where nuance is needed to understand a point being made is wise because for every ten reporters working for print, TV, radio, and digital spaces like to think they are pillars of virtue, there is one who lurks in the shadows waiting for a gotcha moment that allows them to make their bones and increase the value of their brand.

Click here to follow Kent Sterling on Twitter

That’s what Tony Dungy was talking about when he made the mistake of stepping on the third rail of sports journalism by deviating from the welcoming cliches so many have employed when answering questions about Michael Sam, and whether he would be welcome on a team.

Dungy would want to avoid the distraction, he said.  That didn’t mean the locker room stuff so many have oddly anticipated with the inclusion of a gay player on a team of brothers as they repair for battle and recover from it.  He was talking about the endless barrage of questions the likes of which he answered, and this afternoon he clarified his comments, “I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.”

So if the media wants an answer for why people like Dungy would take what they describe as the cowardly road on non-inclusion, they need only look at themselves in the mirror.