Is more required of black male superstar athletes?

Yahoo! NFL blogger Doug Farrar summarized an interesting article Out.com did on Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who is an outspoken supporter of same-sex couples having the right to be married. Kluwe definitely adopted a clear position on what is a contentious issue in American society today.

Many athletes refuse to wade into political battles for fear of losing endorsements, popularity, etc. (Farrar did mention the Baltimore Ravens’ Brendon Ayanbadejo as a supporter of same-sex marriage, while Kluwe’s former Vikings teammate and Ayanbadejo's current teammate center Matt Birk opposes same-sex couples having the right to be married.)

Toward the end of the article, Farrar touched on the backlash that Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan receive for staying apolitical.

This raises an interesting question: Why should prominent black male athletes be the ones who have to speak out? I have heard scant calls for Peyton or Eli Manning to take social stands. Nil for Aaron Rodgers. Same goes for last year’s National League MVP Ryan Braun.

There is a romanticization in mainstream media with Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, John Carlos and Tommie Smith? These men, along with many women, have gone against the grain to say what’s in their hearts and change the social landscape.

But why do LeBron James and other black male stars have to carry this legacy and not prominent athletes in general?

I write this warning of a little buyers’ remorse: Perhaps if more athletes do speak out, those “social activists” may not like what they hear.

-- Steve Bien-Aimé

A new low in coverage of Tiger Woods...in Vanity Fair?

The cover on the latest Vanity Fair, which includes a story by Buzz Bissinger with sordid details about Tiger Woods' extramarital affairs, plays so baldly to racist stereotypes about black, male athletes that the infamous 2008 Vogue cover pales in comparison. A shirtless, sweaty Woods (in skull cap, staring blankly at the camera) is typical of images of African-American athletes, playing to the stereotype of dark-skinned men as hypersexual, deviant and -- to use the magazine's coverline about Woods -- "raw."
Woods -- for all his flaws -- seemed to understand the (negative) power of these kinds of images, as evidenced in his advice to Charles Barkley years ago to avoid a controversial shirtless cover in Sports Illustrated.
It's surprising, then, that Woods posed for these pictures -- but the fact that they were for famous photographer-of-the-stars Annie Leibovitz a number of years ago likely had something to do with the decision. It's regrettable that VF decided to strategically dredge up these photos now, in a context that makes them even more stereotypically potent.
-- Marie Hardin

Women in the Tiger affair: 'Usual suspects'?

Robin Givhan of The Washington Post, in a column today, points out the stark differences in the way Tiger Woods and the women who have been involved in the story of his affair have been considered in coverage.
She writes: "While Woods is being portrayed as complicated and troubled, the women are merely types... The golfer has been called a dog, a liar and worse. But he still gets the benefit of being perceived as an individual."
Givhan suggests that the way the women in the Woods' story have been characterized -- as simply "waitress" or "model" (it doesn't take much modeling experience for women, including his wife, to get this label) -- has been done with a "kind of wink and a nod."
It's as though mere mention of these types of jobs -- commonly associated with women -- are enough to indicate a low moral fiber. As Givhan writes, "For the women connected to Woods, their fairly mundane 9-to-5 gigs serve as a smoking gun of bad behavior."
Evidence of Givhan's observation -- the way these women have become objects in the hand-wringing about Woods ("What do we do about Tiger?") is evident in the celebrity press and the mainstream sports press.
An example of an especially troubling storyline is the suggestion that the women with whom Tiger has been involved "set women back" as a group. Would anyone argue that Woods represents all athletes, much less all men? It's a ridiculous assertion and a lazy, ill-informed broad brush with which to approach this story.

Blogs to Tiger: We will decide how to cover you, not the other way around

The recent Tiger Woods car crash created a media firestorm—and not just in traditional sports journalism outlets. Celebrity and sports blogs were on the story, as well, and the differences in coverage illustrated the changing sports media landscape.
While traditional media outlets continued to report the “official” statement released by Woods’ web site along with an interview given by the local police, gossip and sports blogs like tmz.com, gawker.com and deadspin.com used a litany of unnamed sources to tell a much more sordid story from the beginning, something Woods is clearly not happy about. After all, the golfer is known for taking great lengths to protect his privacy – and his pristine, non-controversial image.
Traditional sports media outlets have a lot to lose in covering an unflattering story about Tiger Woods – they need access to him in order to be successful, and risking that access has a high cost. Given some of the commentary from sports journalists advocating Woods’ personal life be off limits, it’s safe to say they are aware of those costs. But blogs like tmz.com or deadspin.com don’t need such access, and that separation gives them a freedom that other outlets do not enjoy. Journalism purists may not like the very flimsy attitude such blogs take toward ethics and journalistic standards, but one thing is for sure: these new media outlets are changing the way sports stars are covered – not to mention the dynamics and unspoken rules in the sports media industry.
--Erin Whiteside