Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[NewEra]

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

"Does seem like his issue was that he wanted more of an answer about Fromm's whole situation."

 

That's basically my understanding too.  I think L-J wanted an answer like Josh Allen's "Wow, I didn't realize that my teammates have the experience of being afraid for their life when they're pulled over by police, I think that's awful.  There's no place for racism!" or even "When I sent those texts, I wasn't aware that gun taxes had been used in Georgia to keep black men from owning guns.  I believe the Second Amendment applies to everyone regardless of race.  There's no place for racism." 

 

It would show something about learning a different perspective or learning some history about how making things expensive was used to disarm people according to race.

 

Now I do understand the viewpoint that Fromm has no obligation to provide that to Marcel.    On the other hand, if he wants to persuade people of personal growth or change, he needs to help a reporter help him do so.

To sum this up, imo:  MLJ shouldn’t have used the term “not acceptable”.  He was hoping for more from Jake.  He said it would’ve been nice to hear more.  “Would’ve been nice” and “not acceptable” or not the same.  He should own “not acceptable” and admit that it was a poor choice of words.  
 

Not much else to say imo.

[C.Biscuit97]

Also, if you read Marcel’s twitter feed, he is nothing but cordial and respectful in responding to people who question him.  I think he is a great reporter and such an upgrade of what we have had.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

8 minutes ago, DFT said:

Some of the open dialogue in this thread and the civility within the conversations is among the best I’ve seen from most public forums.  Kudos to all on that.  To quote White Goodman...  “There’s a good energy in the Gym!”

I haven't seen outright personal attacks yet in 10 pages, which speaks to the mutual respect most of us carry for each other built over months/years on this site opining on whatever the topic du jour happens to be. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

22 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

If politics break up your family, it wasn’t a strong family to begin with.  It’s ok not to blindly thing that same.

 

personally, I think a two party system is an absolute joke.  Both parties are idiotic yet morons cling to them like they are in a gang.    If one of the first things you tell me about yourself is your political Party, You probably aren’t that cool of a guy (the general you, not personally). 

your second paragraph is ? 

 

i don’t care what your party is.  Look at Trump or Biden and convince me either one represents the best this country has to offer... 

 

And now fringe football players are obligated to provide ongoing social justice commentary, because a reporter says so.  
 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[GunnerBill]

20 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No, I think he just doesn't want to get involved in the debate so he gave a generic answer. Which he has the right to do. MLJ asked him about how he feels in general about "what the country has faced." He isn't required to state his opinion on that.

 

Agree. He isn't. Playing the religion card however is a cop out. 

[HamSandwhich]

42 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

sure thing... the one saying he’s free to answer and people are free to react is the one against freedom

So you don’t think he was “wrong” in his answer or not wanting to answer?  

[C.Biscuit97]

3 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Glad I never started. And I avoid PPP here like a covid positive public restroom. 

Very smart move.  
 

so far, I’ve very impressive at how respectful everyone in this thread is in discussing this issue.  This gives me hope haha!

3 minutes ago, NewEra said:

To sum this up, imo:  MLJ shouldn’t have used the term “not acceptable”.  He was hoping for more from Jake.  He said it would’ve been nice to hear more.  “Would’ve been nice” and “not acceptable” or not the same.  He should own “not acceptable” and admit that it was a poor choice of words.  
 

Not much else to say imo.

That’s pretty fair.  But it would be have been nice for Fromm to say something he learned from this whole situation.  I am critical of Allen as a passer but look at how he handled these questions.  
https://13wham.com/buffalo-plus/bills-latest-news/josh-allen-i-support-the-black-community

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

Once again, that is your unsupportable interpretation of the words.  The only interpretation based on the quoted words is that Marcel is not a christian or doesn't believe the Bible is valid?  If Marcel was a Christian he wouldn't view Fromm's admission that he wasn't going to get political as a dodge?

 

Father forgive whatdrought for he know not what he done.

 

 

Lol. Way to miss the point..

 

If Marcel believed that what Fromm was saying was acceptable, he wouldn't have said it wasn't. Why else would he take issue with his comments? 

 

His entire response is that he's learned from his lesson and he plans to use his faith as the guide to act more appropriately in the future - Marcel is saying that's an unacceptable thing- why? Why else unless he's saying he doesn't agree with the idea of Fromms conviction. 

 

Father forgive Jauronimo for being obtuse and not understanding virtue signaling at it's finest. He knows what he does, but that's just his schtick. 

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

First of all, MLJ is a wimp for not saying this to Fromm's face.

 

Secondly, I agree with MLJ. The only people who would say they "don't want to get political" when asked about social inequality are those who have a problem with the movement. Period. If they thought social injustice was a problem that needed addressing, they would not lead with not wanting to get political, because it shouldn't be a political issue. I have no doubt what side Fromm is on.

[C.Biscuit97]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. He isn't. Playing the religion card however is a cop out. 

It’s like a pitcher for the Giants who said he couldn’t support BLM because of his religion.  Such BS. 

[NewEra]

4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Very smart move.  
 

so far, I’ve very impressive at how respectful everyone in this thread is in discussing this issue.  This gives me hope haha!

That’s pretty fair.  But it would be have been nice for Fromm to say something he learned from this whole situation.  I am critical of Allen as a passer but look at how he handled these questions.  
https://13wham.com/buffalo-plus/bills-latest-news/josh-allen-i-support-the-black-community

Yes.....it “would be nice”.  I agree.  “Not acceptable” is going waaaaay overboard imo.

 

edit:  hard to put myself into my 22 year old brain.  Everything he says now is going to be put under a microscope.  I can’t blame any 22 year old that isn’t wise beyond his years for handling that question the way he did.  It’s not Fromms last interview.  There will be more opportunities to show what he’s learned.  Just because MLJ decided that NOW was that time, doesn’t mean that has to be the case.  Not bad reporting by MLJ, poor choice of words regarding his opinion of the matter

Edited August 7, 2020 by NewEra

[C.Biscuit97]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

your second paragraph is ? 

 

i don’t care what your party is.  Look at Trump or Biden and convince me either one represents the best this country has to offer... 
 

 

It blows my mind how much time is wasted; how grown adults act like babies who can’t get along with others; all because of two choices that are both very flawed.  
 

america, the “greatest “ country in the world, has 2 guys in their 70s who are losing their minds competing to be our leader.  Good job America!!!

[DFT]

1 minute ago, Gregthekeg said:

I wonder if Fromm would have said anything about "Elite Whites" to his brothers in the locker room. 

 

I don't doubt that he regrets sending the texts, and hopefully he has learned from them.  He could have easily answered that he understands how his statement was ignorant and in speaking with his team he understand that they have a negative connotation and do not reflect how he feels about minorities in the country.  Again I can't imagine the Buffalo Bills PR team didn't prepare him for that.

 

I enjoy MJL's work, and I believe he is much better than other writers Buffalo has had in the past who try to kick up dirt for news. (Looking at Vic C) Vic even had a dumb question on Stefon Digg's intro call that you could tell Digg's didn't appreciate.  Even the way he asked it was just to be confrontational and do gotcha journalism, and Diggs threw it right back at him asking what he publicly said.  

Good post!  I’ll raise my hand to this as a former coach.  I had to quell many an inappropriate conversation in our locker room because as players, you’re brothers to the core.  As such, your tolerance for what comes out of your brother’s mouth may be more lenient than it should be at times.  Even in jest, some of what I’ve overheard in my time coaching as “accepted viewpoints” makes me cringe even to this day.   From high school to the collegiate level, you’ll find no greater a place for unchecked freedom of speech than a winning team’s locker room - save for maybe a long-standing community barber shop.  It’s at the NFL level that this changes instantly (and for good reason).  Unfortunately there are a lot of great coaches in the world, but few that seize the teaching moment when these conversations occur (myself included).  

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

Lol. Way to miss the point..

 

If Marcel believed that what Fromm was saying was acceptable, he wouldn't have said it wasn't. Why else would he take issue with his comments? 

 

His entire response is that he's learned from his lesson and he plans to use his faith as the guide to act more appropriately in the future - Marcel is saying that's an unacceptable thing- why? Why else unless he's saying he doesn't agree with the idea of Fromms conviction. 

 

Father forgive Jauronimo for being obtuse and not understanding virtue signaling at it's finest. He knows what he does, but that's just his schtick. 

If you're generally curious, you can actually read Marcel's own explanation of his use of the term "unacceptable" instead of furthering your baseless he's anti-Christian and doesn't respect the Bible or Fromm's faith hypothesis.  That might help, as inconvenient as you may find it.

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

 

Your kid gets in a fight at school. 
 

you have a big talk about conflict resolution etc...

 

ask your kid about a situation you witness and your kid says “love god and each other” and doesn’t talk continue on to the deescalation techniques you discussed or strategies for better outcomes... does questioning whether he got the point mean you have disregarded his faith? 
 

marcel doesn’t say his faith is wrong but without tying your faith to knowledge and action it’s just faith, not an example of growth and new maturity that he was looking for. It’s fair to question whether he actually understands how to better live his faith than he did prior. Fromm didn’t offer that info. Which is his right to sidestep but it’ll irk some people.

 

 

He wasn't asking him about his tweets, he was baiting him into a conversation about a separate issue that he knows from is going to disagree with. 

 

Fromm says "I don't plan on answering about that specific situation, but my plan is to live my life by this certain ethos." 

 

Marcel says this is an unacceptable response... If he was happy with the ethos that Fromm plans on living with, he wouldn't find his answer unacceptable because it would conform with what Marcel believes Fromm owes society. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

It’s like a pitcher for the Giants who said he couldn’t support BLM because of his religion.  Such BS. 

 

Yep. Utter nonsense and should be called out on it. 

 

Fromm not wanting to get into politics - fine. But then playing the religion card? Well yea.... that brings its own connotations with it too.

 

I won't tell Jake Fromm how to practice his religion, but when he uses it as a defense mechanism I reserve the right to call cop out.  

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

It's not the same reporters and journalists are held to a higher standard than random people on the internet. I mean if they're not they sure as hell should be.

That’s BS imo, individual people are just as responsible for what they say as any reporter, we are held to a high level as well, or we sure as hell should be. 
 

Go Bills!!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

It blows my mind how much time is wasted; how grown adults act like babies who can’t get along with others; all because of two choices that are both very flawed.  
 

america, the “greatest “ country in the world, has 2 guys in their 70s who are losing their minds competing to be our leader.  Good job America!!!

The satire the upcoming debates will produce are going to be incredible.

 

Im pretty sure after they air, China and Russia will scrap all their invasion plans as “no longer necessary, we’ve already won!”

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

It blows my mind how much time is wasted; how grown adults act like babies who can’t get along with others; all because of two choices that are both very flawed.  
 

america, the “greatest “ country in the world, has 2 guys in their 70s who are losing their minds competing to be our leader.  Good job America!!!

 

If I was an American citizen I would spoil my ballot if presented with that choice. 

[DFT]

11 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Also, if you read Marcel’s twitter feed, he is nothing but cordial and respectful in responding to people who question him.  I think he is a great reporter and such an upgrade of what we have had.

He’s a great person as well and I think that needs to be echoed in this thread.  Incredibly respectful and is extremely well-versed and knowledgeable.  Agree with that sentiment 100% even if I don’t agree with the context of the Fromm questioning.  

[NoHuddleKelly12]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yep. Utter nonsense and should be called out on it. 

 

Fromm not wanting to get into politics - fine. But then playing the religion card? Well yea.... that brings its own connotations with it too.

 

I won't tell Jake Fromm how to practice his religion, but when he uses it as a defense mechanism I reserve the right to call cop out.  

He brought it up in the context of making an observation of how the world could be made better--how is that a defense mechanism per se? If loving God & others is how he chooses to then do his part, maybe MLJ could've followed up with asking for specific examples, what concretely that means to Fromm now in his daily life, how can he better serve his "neighbor" in the context of improving racial relations, etc.? Since the text messages didn't show that type of neighborly conduct, it's fair to ask what's changed for Fromm since then? 

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

He wasn't asking him about his tweets, he was baiting him into a conversation about a separate issue that he knows from is going to disagree with. 

 

Fromm says "I don't plan on answering about that specific situation, but my plan is to live my life by this certain ethos." 

 

Marcel says this is an unacceptable response... If he was happy with the ethos that Fromm plans on living with, he wouldn't find his answer unacceptable because it would conform with what Marcel believes Fromm owes society. 

I don’t plan on speaking to that issue but here’s my ethos is an answer that will get your answer criticized, even by people that like your ethos. 

[Rico]

29 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Again - what does Fromm want?  If he wants to persuade people he's learned and changed, shouldn't he be able to come up with a bit of a better answer in two months?

 

I think that's L-J's point.   Fromm  could even decline to answer - he could say "This is a topic where I'm still educating myself and I want to keep those conversations private".  I could be wrong, but I think L-J would have been chill with that.

 

If Fromm doesn't want that, or doesn't GAF, then your "if I were Fromm" makes perfect sense as a strategy.

 

 

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to explain what you meant.  I don't think it's acceptable as a response showing that he's been having conversations about a different point of view on race, but as a general scriptural response I can see where you're coming from.

Yes,  Fromm doesn't need to persuade anyone that he's "changed and learned".

Edited August 7, 2020 by Rico

[Royale with Cheese]

The sensitivity of everything is really annoying.

[NoSaint]

18 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

So you don’t think he was “wrong” in his answer or not wanting to answer?  

I think loving your fellow man and serving god is totally fine. I’m not religious but I’m generally all for people finding ways to live with love in their hearts.
 

I think In response to that question, and compounded further by the context of his situation and his previous comments, it’s a rather lackluster answer both if he was truly answering or if he was dodging the question.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

He brought it up in the context of making an observation of how the world could be made better--how is that a defense mechanism per se? If loving God & others is how he chooses to then do his part, maybe MLJ could've followed up with asking for specific examples, what concretely that means to Fromm now in his daily life, how can he better serve his "neighbor" in the context of improving racial relations, etc.? Since the text messages didn't show that type of neighborly conduct, it's fair to ask what's changed for Fromm since then? 

 

Because what it essentially said with God 1st, people 2nd was "well God is more important than people anyway". When being asked about issues affecting society to start your answer with that is a defense mechanism. 

 

It might be his religious belief and though I vociferously disagree with it I equally vociferously defend his right to hold that belief. But using it as a means of deflecting that question is a cop out and I don't think it does him any favours. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

He wasn't really asked about the texts or his attitudes either though, he was asked about the "things that have happened in this country" over the past couple months.  

 

Actually since the racial injustice movement has been global and not just confined to “in this country”, Fromm may have thought he meant the great “tastes great, less filling” debate. 

[whatdrought]

18 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

It blows my mind how much time is wasted; how grown adults act like babies who can’t get along with others; all because of two choices that are both very flawed.  
 

america, the “greatest “ country in the world, has 2 guys in their 70s who are losing their minds competing to be our leader.  Good job America!!!

 

The real race is which one will lose it faster. 

[Chaos]

Sometimes things are simple. Fromm's answer was fine. Reporter's commentary was ridiculous. 

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I don’t plan on speaking to that issue but here’s my ethos is an answer that will get your answer criticized, even by people that like your ethos. 

You seem to be assuming that a grown man is responsible for answering a question about the cluster-youknowhat that is the current climate in this country.

 

He gave a general answer for how a lot of issues can be solved- people loving each other. Do you disagree that that would solve problems? Does Marcel?

 

Either Marcel finds that wrong and thus unacceptable, or he finds how fact that Fromm won’t be baited into a no-win conversation as unacceptable. Either way, an back to the point of the thread - bad journalism. 

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

You seem to be assuming that a grown man is responsible for answering a question about the cluster-youknowhat that is the current climate in this country.

 

He gave a general answer for how a lot of issues can be solved- people loving each other. Do you disagree that that would solve problems? Does Marcel?

 

Either Marcel finds that wrong and thus unacceptable, or he finds how fact that Fromm won’t be baited into a no-win conversation as unacceptable. Either way, an back to the point of the thread - bad journalism. 

you act like asking the guy that made a racist tweet what he thinks about this civil rights movement going on is some insurmountable perfect trap of nefarious intent.
 

yea, as a rule of thumb lots of good comes from people loving each other but without saying what that looks like - it amounts to saying thoughts and prayers. 
 

there are plenty of better ways to navigate that question, and what marcel thinks of the answer means little to me.

 

and no, Fromm isn’t obligated to answer anything but he is accountable to the response he gives. In this case a minor flub that had minor pushback.

Edited August 7, 2020 by NoSaint

[mjt328]

2 hours ago, Dragoon said:

Im sick of cancel culture and we all need to stand up to it. 

 

This morning, I was listening to a talk show.  The two hosts were suggesting this country has reached a tipping point, where we are completely beyond civil discourse.  The two political/cultural sides are so far apart, it's hard to believe we can ever find common ground.  

 

I mean... we have reached the place where phrases like "All Lives Matter" and "Love God, Love People" are considered hateful and disrespectful.  

 

 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Because what it essentially said with God 1st, people 2nd was "well God is more important than people anyway". When being asked about issues affecting society to start your answer with that is a defense mechanism. 

 

It might be his religious belief and though I vociferously disagree with it I equally vociferously defend his right to hold that belief. But using it as a means of deflecting that question is a cop out and I don't think it does him any favours. 

Gunner, but at the very heart of the belief that undergirds the point behind Mark 12:28-31, is that you are directed to love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule)--not loving God at the expense of loving others, but rather, because of loving God, you also love others (in fact are directed to love others equally to yourself). This is why Jesus taught what He did concerning "The Good Samaritan," a story which in and of itself makes no earthly sense because the Samaritan personally himself got nothing out of helping his tribal enemy in need. But seen in the broader context of the scripture I referenced, it makes perfect sense. My point is, these are not mutually exclusive concepts such as your comment indicated you may think Fromm presented them as?    

[HappyDays]

36 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. He isn't. Playing the religion card however is a cop out. 

 

A cop out of what? I think it was a polite way of saying he doesn't want to step into a political debate. I respect that decision. Maybe you and I are on the same page here.

2 hours ago, Logic said:

Hopefully, he does some self reflection and realizes that “everyone should love God”, while a fine idea, is not in itself a sufficient answer to the question of “how can we foster meaningful change to the problems of systemic racism and endemic white supremacy”.

 

Why does a football player need to answer that question to the media? He didn't state an opinion one way or the other. Some girl put out an image of a private conversation he had over a year ago where he made a dumb and tasteless joke. Does that mean he now has to be the face of racial equality for the rest of his career? MLJ was baiting him, plain and simple.

 

Still better than Mike Rodak though.

[YoloinOhio]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

A cop out of what? I think it was a polite way of saying he doesn't want to step into a political debate. I respect that decision. Maybe you and I are on the same page here.

 

Why does a football player need to answer that question to the media? He didn't state an opinion one way or the other. Some girl put out an image of a private conversation he had over a year ago where he made a dumb and tasteless joke. Does that mean he now has to be the face of racial equality for the rest of his career? MLJ was baiting him, plain and simple.

 

Still better than Mike Rodak though.

So ironically I heard Rodak on the radio today and had to do a double take. He was being interviewed on our local station about previewing Alabama’s football season. I agree that marcel is a major upgrade!

[HamSandwhich]

26 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I think loving your fellow man and serving god is totally fine. I’m not religious but I’m generally all for people finding ways to live with love in their hearts.
 

I think In response to that question, and compounded further by the context of his situation and his previous comments, it’s a rather lackluster answer both if he was truly answering or if he was dodging the question.

What informs you that it’s lackluster or perhaps dodging the question. Another words, what is your moral compass? Where does it come from? 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

A cop out of what? I think it was a polite way of saying he doesn't want to step into a political debate. I respect that decision. Maybe you and I are on the same page here.

 

If he had made statement without throwing God into the first sentence I would have zero issue. 

11 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Gunner, but at the very heart of the belief that undergirds the point behind Mark 12:28-31, is that you are directed to love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule)--not loving God at the expense of loving others, but rather, because of loving God, you also love others (in fact are directed to love others equally to yourself). This is why Jesus taught what He did concerning "The Good Samaritan," a story which in and of itself makes no earthly sense because the Samaritan personally himself got nothing out of helping his tribal enemy in need. But seen in the broader context of the scripture I referenced, it makes perfect sense. My point is, these are not mutually exclusive concepts such as your comment indicated you may think Fromm presented them as?    

 

It is not everyone else's responsibility to interpret what Jake Fromm means from scripture. It really isn't. That is him imposing his belief system on me. That is why he should not have made his first comment on the situation about God. 

 

[TigerJ]

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

I just felt like he judged Fromm’s response personally, and attached it to his reporting of the quote. It struck me as unprofessional.

Wholeheartedly agree.  It's trendy right now that when there's been a whiff of racism in the air for everybody to pile on.  Don't let the perpetrator up until he's been bloodied beyond recognition.  I don't really know Jake Fromm at all.  What he said was fine, but what really matters is how he conducts himself going forward, particularly with his teammates who may be a bit sensitized because of his earlier tweets.

[C.Biscuit97]

9 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

This morning, I was listening to a talk show.  The two hosts were suggesting this country has reached a tipping point, where we are completely beyond civil discourse.  The two political/cultural sides are so far apart, it's hard to believe we can ever find common ground.  

 

I mean... we have reached the place where phrases like "All Lives Matter" and "Love God, Love People" are considered hateful and disrespectful.  

 

 

Because people keep purposely try to ignore the message.  Not one person has said other Lives don’t matter.  So people saying this are being completely disingenuous.

 

the best way to understand how dumb saying all lives matter is right now is to think of a funeral.  Someone’s family member died.  What kind of disrespectful idiot would get up in the middle of the service and start yelling “what about my grandmother who passed away??? Doesn’t her life matter?”

 

if you told me something you were struggling with and bothering you, I would listen and be empathetic.  I won’t be like I have my own problems and find reasons not to listen. 
 

as for love god, love people, a lot of people love to say that but not as many truly do that.  A lot of people love using God as a crutch.

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If he had made statement without throwing God into the first sentence I would have zero issue. 

I have no problem with him tossing his faith into his lack of response. I have an issue with everyone who cannot admit that he dodged the question, which is painfully clear, and instead want to argue about the profundity of "i think the world can be a better place if we can love god first and then love people".  He may as well have said  the world can be a better place if we recycle.  Both statements are true, as deep as a bumper sticker, and only tangentially related to the question.