Watch: ESPN Anchor Unable to Hide His Disgust When Network Shows Two Men Kissing

When an ESPN personality goes viral among conservatives, the reason is usually predictable.

The network’s long-running reputation for elevating progressive activism over sports coverage is well established and widely criticized in media-watch circles. ESPN has spent years blurring the line between commentary and ideology, often to the frustration of viewers who just want the game.

But an ESPN anchor going viral for a moment of unfiltered authenticity — even unintentionally — is something else entirely.

That’s what made Scott Van Pelt’s New Year’s broadcast reaction so striking.

Van Pelt, ESPN’s longtime late-night anchor and one of the network’s most polished professionals, found himself at the center of social media attention after reacting live to a montage of New Year’s celebration clips. What followed was a moment so human — and so unscripted — that it caught viewers completely off guard.

WARNING: The following clip contains scenes that some viewers may find offensive.

As footage of jubilant couples kissing to ring in 2026 aired, Van Pelt remarked casually, “Yeah, live make-outs on SportsCenter,” referring to straight couples celebrating the moment.

But when the montage cut to two men kissing, his tone shifted immediately.

“Oh … What are we … What do we got?” Van Pelt said, clearly caught off guard.

Realizing the moment, he quickly recalibrated — audibly and visibly — adding, “We got love in the air. Make-outs!”

He then shrugged, seemingly unsure how to navigate what had just aired, and closed the segment by asking, “Who’s having a good time? Happy New Year, everybody!”

Intentional or not, the moment instantly resonated — particularly among conservatives who recognized what appeared to be a split-second of unguarded reaction before the familiar on-air correction kicked in.

The clip spread rapidly across conservative social media.

“All time clip of Scott Van Pelt nearly getting cancelled by the Left,” one X account posted, complete with a laughing emoji.

Trending Politics co-owner Collin Rugg also shared the video, adding his own commentary and closing with the internet shorthand for “laughing my a** off.”

Faith-based sports commentator Jon Root weighed in as well, writing, “Millions of Americans were repulsed by this too, Scott.”

Before activist organizations rush to manufacture outrage, it’s worth noting that Van Pelt — while private about his personal beliefs — has previously referenced faith in Jesus and the positive role it plays in the lives of athletes.

If Van Pelt is a Christian, his instinctive response aligns squarely with biblical teaching. Romans 1:26–27 describes such behavior as “committing shameless acts,” while other translations use the word “unseemly.”

Even setting faith aside, many Americans — including millions of ESPN viewers — found the moment jarring. Van Pelt’s reaction was not malicious, hateful, or political. It was human.

What should concern viewers far more than the reaction itself is how quickly Van Pelt appeared to recognize the professional danger of reacting honestly. That brief pause — that awkward tonal shift — spoke volumes about the climate modern broadcasters operate in.

It is apparently acceptable for LGBT activists to openly mock, attack, and denigrate “hetero” or “cis” Americans daily. But the smallest unintentional deviation from approved orthodoxy in the opposite direction can trigger calls for cancellation.

Van Pelt is known for professionalism, restraint, and an almost obsessive avoidance of controversy. He did not lecture, condemn, or demean anyone. He reacted, corrected himself, and continued the broadcast — exactly what a seasoned professional does.

Scott Van Pelt does not owe anyone a ritual apology for failing to perfectly manage a facial expression in real time. He didn’t advocate discrimination. He didn’t insult anyone. He didn’t turn SportsCenter into a sermon.

Treating that moment as grounds for punishment wouldn’t be accountability — it would be ideological enforcement.

A culture confident in its values doesn’t need to coerce apologies from people who committed no wrongdoing. And a media industry that still claims to value authenticity should remember the difference between malice and an honest human reaction.