THE ENTIRE FOX TV CREW CAN AGREE ON ONLY ONE THING- BRADSHAW IS A “SCUMBAG”
I happen to like New York Post sports media columnist Phil Mushnick. He is one of the few major writers who doesn’t take a paycheck from ESPN and therefore isn’t afraid to criticize them.
Where Mushnick often loses me though is when he pulls his faux moral outrage routine, like he did in Monday’s column. Mushnick went on a rampage over Fox announcers Terry Bradshaw and Howie Long use of the word “scumbag” on their Sunday pregame show.
Terry Bradshaw proudly proclaimed, “I am a scumbag!” during the opening of the Fox NFL Pregame Show Sunday. Bradshaw said he was openly rooting for the Detroit Lions to lose and go 0-16. Long jokingly agreed with Bradshaw, addressing him as, “Scumbag.”
You would think it was the end of Western Civilization as we know it. Mushnick accused Fox of “ambushing” its national aufience with a “foul-mouthed” tirade. He even refused to write the phrase used by Bradshaw and Long, deeming it too offensive for New York Post readers. Mushnick, in an infantile gesture of prudism, wrote “s–bag’” leaving the reader to wonder if Bradshaw really HAD used a term deemed offensive by the FCC.
There’s only one problem with Mushnick’s misdirected outrage. The New York Post practically INVENTED the use of the term “scumbag.” In fact, it’s doubtful that any publication in the history of the English language uses the phrase MORE than the Post. Certainly, not Fox television. Just recently, Post columnist Andrea Peyser called a cop killer a “scumbag” in her October 16th column. For the record, The Post didn’t edit her remarks as “s–bag.” That would be the same column where Peyser used the phrase “pissing on the grave” of a New York City cop. Where was Mushick’s arguing to save-the-children when that column came out? Maybe I didn’t get the memo that made Phil Mushnick the moral arbitrator for America.
Maybe Mushnick missed that particular column, but the Post also just referred to Peter Cook (Christie Brinkley’s ex-husband) as a “scumbag” in print. And, do you know why? Because Peter Cook IS a “scumbag.” Just like someoneone who shoots cops and then “pisses” on their graves. It’s a perfectly accurate and descriptive word that conveys a thought. Obviously, Mushnick’s employers at the Post don’t find the term so objectionable.
The use of the phrase “scumbag” has been on network television at least since Hill Street Blues signed on almost 20 years ago. Mushnick would be just as relevant if he were to lash out against “talkies” or crusade for tv to return to an all black and white format. He just comes across as old. Besides, if the term really is so offensive, why does his own paper use it? I know half the kids in New York can’t read, but if a term is too “foul-mouthed” and objectionable to possibly be heard on Sunday television, then it’s also too offensive to be delivered on the doorsteps of these same mythical New York children who may be harmed by the same phrase appearing in the New York Post.
Besides there is already a list of almost 1,200 words that the NFL ALREADY has deemed offensive and banned. These include such vile words as “Las Vegas.” I doubt adding another couple of words to that list makes this a better country. Phil Mushnick had better just shut the hell up and worry about his own employer.