One of the funniest things in sports radio may be when WFAN host Mike Francesa stumbles across something he doesn’t really understand and tries to make sense of it on air. We’ve seen it before when he tried to have the St. John’s men’s soccer coach explain the game to him during the 2014 World Cup, when callers got him talking about pro wrestling and Matt Saracen’s draft prospects, when he got confused by New York City FC’s name, when he spent eight minutes complaining about Sports Illustrated‘s “Summer of Soccer” cover, when he tried to discuss “Oriental” band The Slants, and perhaps in the greatest one of all, when he couldn’t figure out if a Mets’ injury was a new report or an old report.
The latest entry in this series involves Francesa trying to explain how nude photos of Tiger Woods wound up “on an internet,” wondering why anyone would take nude photos in the first place, debating if nude photos are a publicity scam, and wondering what the difference is between ESPN The Magazine’s Body Issue and nude photos. Here’s the clip, from @BackAftaThis, the artist formerly known as Funhouse:
https://twitter.com/BackAftaThis/status/900058584813326336
“Tiger Woods had nothing to do with this. This came off Lindsey Vonn’s phone is the story. He didn’t have anything to do with it, but there was a photo of him in there. So the bottom line is, he let her take a picture of him naked, okay, that’s his prerogative, that’s his business, but it wound up, which he wasn’t happy about, on an internet. So now, if you’re interested in what Tiger Woods looks like naked, you can go find him. Be my guest. If that’s what, you know, makes your day, go ahead, have fun. How about that.”
“But, if you notice, I’m always very skeptical of this stuff from the standpoint of the young lady, because why does it keep happening? If they wanted to protect themselves, they wouldn’t take the photos. They all take the photos, and then they get hijacked. But how come they take them?”
Francesa’s producer, Brian Monzo, interjects with “I think they take them to send them to people.” Francesa has quite the response:
“Why? Why would you be transmitting naked photos of yourself? What is the point? If you notice, these actresses all wind up with naked photos of themselves somewhere, so it seems to be kind of a rite of passage for these actresses for this to happen. So I’m a little skeptical. I think, when someone’s maybe, you know, not in the public eye, this is how they get themselves back in the public eye.”
“And I’m not talking about Tiger here. This has nothing to do with Tiger. Tiger didn’t do this, Tiger just happened to be in one of the photos, that’s all, or two of the photos, or I don’t know how many photos. There might be more than two, I’m gathering there’s a couple. I don’t know.”
Monzo says “There’s 43,” and Francesa goes “Oh, there’s 43? Okay, there’s 43 photos. I had no idea how many photos there were, so whatever. But hadn’t Lindsey Vonn already been in a photoshoot before? Hadn’t she done a photoshoot before that? I thought she did a photoshoot for ESPN or something?” Monzo says “I think that was for the Body magazine (Actually, it was the 2016 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition), which is not…” and Francesa cuts him off with “Right, she was naked in that too, right?” Monzo says “Right, but you couldn’t see anything.” Francesa says “Okay, so now you can see her private parts. Huh. Well, okay. Well, if that’s what you want to do, go do it! What can I tell you?”
That is quite the take from Francesa on a number of fronts, first wondering why anyone would take and or send nude photos, then theorizing that subjects of leaks like Vonn want those photos leaked, and then failing to understand the difference between a photo shoot she posed for with the intention of it being public and private photos she didn’t want distributed. Tune in next time for another edition of “Mike Francesa Doesn’t Explain It All.”
[@BackAftaThis on Twitter]
