One of the bigotry capitals of the world

---

[The first post at Reds Content Plus co-authored by the site’s owners.]

By now most of you know that Reds TV broadcaster Thom Brennaman used an appalling homophobic slur last night that was caught by a live microphone.

The Reds took the rare step of pulling Brennaman off the air in the middle of his broadcast. Shortly after the game, they released the following statement: 

Notes: (1) They described Brennaman’s statement as “horrific,” (2) they stated the organization has a “zero-tolerance” policy for bias and discrimination, and (3) they announced the broadcaster’s suspension pending final resolution of the issue. 

We promise to get back to Trevor Bauer and Jesse Winker in a minute, but there are a few points we want to make first:

The Reds must follow through and fire Thom Brennaman. Famous last name notwithstanding, the Reds should demonstrate that they appreciate the common understanding of “zero.” Brennaman’s behavior has become a national embarrassment for Cincinnati, the Reds and Fox Sports. The Reds need to take the strongest action to rid the stench. Brennaman has worked as the Reds broadcaster since 2006. The voice of the Reds can’t be the voice of hatred and prejudice. 

It was heartwarming to see Reds players denounce Brennaman’s behavior. It may have only been two players so far but a couple Reds showed character and leadership by speaking out against Brennaman’s statement. That’s how true allies in non-discrimination behave.  

To the LGBTQ community just know I am with you, and whoever is against you, is against me. I’m sorry for what was said today.

— CountOnAG (@Amir_Garrett) August 20, 2020

LGBTQ+ community, as a member of the Reds organization, I am so sorry for the way you were marginalized tonight. There will always be a place for you in the baseball community and we are so happy to have you here.

— Matt Bowman (@bowmandernchief) August 20, 2020

The episode paints a troubling picture of the Fox Sports workplace. Thom Brennaman didn’t mean for his words to make their way to our living rooms. But neither was he speaking in his own living room. Brennaman was at his workplace. He didn’t use the phrase in a shy or tentative way. Brennaman leaned into it, like someone wholly comfortable with what he was saying and that he could get away with it. Would anyone at the network have spoken up about his comments if they weren’t captured on a hot mic? Maybe Brennaman’s behavior was an outlier, and because of that famous last name and his seniority, others weren’t willing to challenge him.

We may never know if this was a technical glitch or the defiant act of a co-worker to show the world what Thom is like. 

The “this isn’t who Thom is” defense isn’t credible. That mean-spirited phrase is exactly who Thom Brennaman is. Brennaman is 56 years old and that word rolled off his tongue like someone who’s said it more than once. He didn’t misspeak, and he said it with vitriol. What he said was not an accident or a simple mistake. More likely, the false image is his on-air media persona. The one he guards with care to protect his job. That’s the phony “who he is.” It was telling that Brennaman’s on-air apology was addressed to the people who hold his fate in their hands — Fox Sports and the Reds — instead of the people he targeted with hateful language.

What a person says when he thinks he won’t pay a price is revealing. Tony Wolfe at Red Reporter put this well (please read the entire post): 

“Our character is not defined by who we are when the world is watching — it is defined by who we become when the door is closed, and our voice drops to a whisper. We are our most guarded words, the grace we extend to the vulnerable, and our response when there is pressure not to do the right thing. Of his pathetic remark, Brennaman said, “that is not who I am, it never has been.” Horseshit. That moment, in which a powerful broadcaster born into substantial privilege is having a conversation he believes will be heard by the people in his immediate vicinity and no one else, uses a homophobic slur he wouldn’t dare use when addressing a television audience, is exactly who he is. There could not be a more revealing moment in one’s life.”

The best possible case you can make for Thom is that he isn’t a bigot, he just wants to talk like one.

The lesson isn’t about the live microphone. It’s about the character of the speaker. The few defenders of Brennaman — largely his father and long-time media friends of his father — have emphasized the microphone aspect. “An open mic is the biggest enemy you have” is a Marty Brennaman takeaway from this. Nope, the twisted nature of his son’s heart is a much bigger enemy. A parent defending a child isn’t unusual. A mother testifying for her son happens all the time; juries see through it.

But hey, other writers and the broader media shouldn’t fall into the trap of foregrounding this sorry episode as somehow about the microphone.  

The “this is just locker room talk” defense is repulsive. Veteran columnist for the Cincinnati Enquirer and long-time Friend of Marty, Paul Daugherty, was quick to publish his take last night. As part of his weak-kneed, fence-straddling column, Daugherty actually wrote this obnoxious paragraph: 

“A baseball radio or TV booth is not a genteel place. It can be as full of overcooked testosterone and raging ego as any clubhouse or locker room. The jokes between innings would get a deacon banned from church. But you have to trust those in the room with you and you have to know when the mic is hot.” 

Let’s bracket for a moment that this didn’t take place in a locker room, it was a workplace. Daugherty says the language Brennaman used was understandable because TV booths are full of “testosterone” and “ego” and “you have to trust those in the room” to not to spill it. That’s another way of saying it’s OK as long as you don’t get caught. One wonders about the column Daugherty might have written if Brennaman had been overheard using a different kind of slur. 

And it raises legal questions. While we’re wondering out loud, how do Daugherty’s bosses at the Enquirer manage the environment of their workplace? Do they find hate-filled language acceptable as long as everyone agrees not to tell? When managers give permission to use that kind of language, through inaction or words, it can be used as evidence of a hostile work environment.

For that matter, if the Reds knew that Brennaman (and others in that workspace) or even should have known about this kind of behavior, it opens the door for the club to become vicariously liable for his behavior. 

Conclusion

We’re not saying people should hate Thom Brennaman or that he’s not worthy of forgiveness. Or that we shouldn’t hold out the possibility of redemption. We’re not saying he should never work again. But Brennaman has a mountain of work to do before he should ever be considered as the voice of an organization.

Before we rush to the forgiveness part, let’s be clear about what happened, how behavior like this causes real hurt and how it isn’t acceptable. Let’s grasp how the excuses are insufficient and often disgusting themselves. 

We all know workplace rules. You can’t be violent. You can’t be insubordinate. You can’t voice bigotry. And you can’t earn the right to do those things through seniority, performance or because of who your father is.

If the Reds fail to fire Thom Brennaman, they would say that employees can earn that right in their workplace. That message will ring louder than Thom’s words last night. In failing to fire him, the Reds organization would be showing us what it really is. 

One of the bigotry capitals of the world.