I've realized now that the Michael Irvin's comments story is not a story in and of itself. It is a story-driven story.
Why do I say this?
Because it's about offensive comments that in truth offended nobody.
I want you to look sincerely into your mind and ask two questions:
1. Were you personally offended or insulted by Irvin's comments?
2. To what extent was your self-esteem damaged by Irvin's comments?
If you answered "yes" to the first question and anything significant to the second question, get ready to be offended again: you're an idiot. Seriously, I don't think a single person listening to Irvin's comments on Dan Patrick's show was personally offended or had his/her self-esteem damaged in any way. It's only a story to the extent that anybody is making it a story.
When Rush Limbaugh suggested that Donovan McNabb was overrated because he was black, he actually did offend people. He suggested a black player wasn't good enough on his own merit, and that the media was propping him up as better than he was because he was black. It is reasonable to be offended by such a statement. What he said could have hurt the self-esteem of aspiring black quarterbacks. Now, I'm a firm advocate of free speech--Limbaugh has every right to make those comments (though he doesn't have a "right" to make them on any particular network). But his comments did actually, sincerely, and personally offend people.
Irvin's did not. If you were personally offended by Irvin's comments, I don't know what to say to you. It probably means you are frequently offended for all sorts of meaningless things and you are a very unhappy person. What he said was not offensive enough to deserve outrage from anybody. He made a (bad) joke that used (widely held) stereotypes about athleticism and race. That's it.
Make no mistake about it--I think Irvin is a lousy commentator. But any outrage over his comments on race, athleticism, and Tony Romo is severely misplaced.