Joe Paterno and Mike Krzyzewski are two coaches that often seem larger than life. Their tenures as coaches for Penn State football and Duke men’s basketball are among the longest in collegiate sports history, and their strategies for success are often emulated by their peers.
During the filming of ESPN’s “Difference Makers: Life Lessons with Paterno and Krzyzewski” the two legendary coaches discussed their philosophies of teaching and coaching. As they reminisced about the people and events that influenced them, it was hard to believe it was the first time the two had met.
In between moments of reflection and playful banter, the two touched upon topics such as teaching and values. They highlighted the importance of providing athletes with support outside the realm of athletics. Both coaches discussed the need to attend to athletes to help them succeed scholastically while instilling values that will eventually help the “boys” become men. A running theme was that the coaches’ respective universities went a long way to encourage a culture that has allowed the programs to enjoy long-term success.
When asked about NCAA reforms, Paterno and Krzyzewski offered some basic, but insightful opinions. Paterno suggested the NCAA need to consider making freshmen ineligible, allowing them to work with special coaches to help ease them into the university environment. Krzyzewski believes one of the biggest problems the NCAA needs to address is a modernization of policies. In particular, he pointed to how changes in technology have made practices related to recruiting and contacting athletes different than in years past.
For another review of the event, visit the gopsusports.com blog. Additionally, photos of the event are available on gopsusports.com. The 90-minute show will air on June 30, beginning at 8 p.m. on ESPN and continuing at 9 p.m. on ESPNU.
- Melanie Formentin
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
ESPN's "NASCAR NonStop" and the game of attention keep-away
-
ESPN announced yesterday that it will introduce "NASCAR NonStop" for its NASCAR "Chase for the Sprint Cup" broadcasts this year. As a video here shows, rather than cut away from the race to traditional spot commercials, viewers will still get to watch the race in a small "picture-in-picture" (PIP) screen next to the commercial advertisement. This isn't a completely novel idea; for instance, ESPN has shown the "crawl" of NFL Draft selections while commercials interrupted the draft for several years. NASCAR NonStop is different, of course, in that it is the continuous broadcast of a live commercial sports event. Moreover, NASCAR (like soccer) doesn't have the normal interruptions of time-outs and changes of field, as in football and baseball. It's presumably for these reasons that the article above characterizes the NASCAR Nonstop as, "One small step for NASCAR fans, one giant leap for mankind."
Before we go overboard with the hyperbole, though, I think it's probably better to historicize things, and question whether this really amounts to fan "empowerment." For many of us, when we turn on the television we begin a game of attention keep-away. TV networks produce shows to try to lure us into watching corporate advertisements. Our attention is their goal, especially our attention during commercials. Indeed, this is how commercial media companies make money--by selling our attention to advertisers. Many of us try to avoid advertisements though: they can be annoying (and loud); being sold to can be uncomfortable; and (outside of noteworthy exceptions like the Super Bowl), we'd presumably prefer to focus our attention on TV programs than the interruptions to them.
Over the past few decades, new technologies have altered how this game is played (kind of like the introduction of the forward pass changed the game between offenses and defenses). The remote control allowed TV viewers to easily "surf" to other programming during commercials. With the VCR we were able to "time-shift" programs and "zip" through ads by fast-forwarding, and the DVR only made this practice easier. Indeed, some of you might be reading this post right now with browsing software that allows you to "zap" advertisements entirely. We like these new tools in the attention keep-away game; they provide us with a degree of power over the viewing experience. On the other hand, commercial media companies--and especially advertisers--are not terribly excited about advances in advertising-avoidance technology.
Don't fret for commercial media companies and advertisers though; they've continually adjusted to technological changes in "how the game is played" (they've introduced the pass rush, to pound this the metaphor into the ground). For one, product placement has emerged as a ubiquitous counter-offensive of hypercommercialism. The logic is that the viewer can only avoid product placements by also missing the TV program. Sports programming, in particular, is considered an effective form of "zap-proof" programming (see here and here): sports viewers may be less likely to channel surf during ads for fear of missing something important; the value of catching a game live means that using a DVR to avoid ads may also mean being "out of the loop." Further, branded entertainment (think: Home Depot Half-Time Report) and in-game signage (think: ads on the NHL boards and NASCAR's team sponsors) are the norm not the exception, and sports viewers seem to have a particularly high tolerance for commercialism during sports broadcasts.
While it seems like a dream come true for race fans, NASCAR Nonstop may present further opportunities for inundating the already hypercommercialized world of sports broadcasting with even more commercial advertising. I don't know how much of the average NASCAR broadcast is taken up by commercial spot advertising (if you find this stat, I'd appreciate it), but for the sake of argument, lets say spot ads take up 20% of the program. Now let's say that NASCAR Nonstop is a success for ESPN: viewers are not turned off by watching a smaller version of the race as an adjoining, larger commercial makes its pitch; and commercial advertisers are willing to pay commensurable rates to reach viewers through this model. If I'm ESPN, do I consider subtly bumping the portion of the program that is spot advertising up to 25%? Maybe 30%? Whatever the market (accounting for viewership, ad revenue & commercial clutter) deems appropriate? I'd certainly consider it, and--from our analysts position--I'd begin to wonder just how big that "one small step" is for NASCAR fans.
One aspect that will be interesting to key in on is whether the advertising conventions employed for these PIP ads begin to take on formal advertising conventions more common in radio. In other words, assuming that much of the viewer's (visual) attention during PIP spot advertising will be on the race (and not the advertisement), I'd expect that these PIP ads will center around aural rather than visual appeals (if you don't think advertising folks think like this, consider the ways DVRs encourage advertisers to use big, bold words, pictures, and logos on the screen for long periods of time to get the message across to viewers as they zip through). While athletes (including, for our purposes here, NASCAR drivers) are already common pitchmen, don't be surprised to eventually hear sports commentators--even those from the race itself--hawking wares during these PIP spot ads. Indeed, this is a strategy commonly employed in radio where the personality's voice holds listeners to the advertising by creating the impression of continuity between advertising and editorial content. Listeners of the Jim Rome Show, just about every ESPN radio show, and Glenn Beck's Radio program will be well aware of these practices.
From my view, then, ESPN's NonStop appears to be just the latest move by the sports-media complex in attending to the attention keep-away game. Race fans may benefit from being able to watch the whole event, but this could come at the cost of new forms of subtle commercial intrusion.
-- T.C. Corrigan
For more research along these lines, check out...
Bellamy, Jr., R.V. “Sports media: A modern institution.” In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 63-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.
McAllister, M. P. (1996). The commercialization of American culture: New advertising, control, and democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilbur, K. C. “How the digital video recorder (DVR) changes traditional television advertising.” Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 143-149 (2008).
I also have an forthcoming entry on zipping and zapping in The Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing
ESPN announced yesterday that it will introduce "NASCAR NonStop" for its NASCAR "Chase for the Sprint Cup" broadcasts this year. As a video here shows, rather than cut away from the race to traditional spot commercials, viewers will still get to watch the race in a small "picture-in-picture" (PIP) screen next to the commercial advertisement. This isn't a completely novel idea; for instance, ESPN has shown the "crawl" of NFL Draft selections while commercials interrupted the draft for several years. NASCAR NonStop is different, of course, in that it is the continuous broadcast of a live commercial sports event. Moreover, NASCAR (like soccer) doesn't have the normal interruptions of time-outs and changes of field, as in football and baseball. It's presumably for these reasons that the article above characterizes the NASCAR Nonstop as, "One small step for NASCAR fans, one giant leap for mankind."
Before we go overboard with the hyperbole, though, I think it's probably better to historicize things, and question whether this really amounts to fan "empowerment." For many of us, when we turn on the television we begin a game of attention keep-away. TV networks produce shows to try to lure us into watching corporate advertisements. Our attention is their goal, especially our attention during commercials. Indeed, this is how commercial media companies make money--by selling our attention to advertisers. Many of us try to avoid advertisements though: they can be annoying (and loud); being sold to can be uncomfortable; and (outside of noteworthy exceptions like the Super Bowl), we'd presumably prefer to focus our attention on TV programs than the interruptions to them.
Over the past few decades, new technologies have altered how this game is played (kind of like the introduction of the forward pass changed the game between offenses and defenses). The remote control allowed TV viewers to easily "surf" to other programming during commercials. With the VCR we were able to "time-shift" programs and "zip" through ads by fast-forwarding, and the DVR only made this practice easier. Indeed, some of you might be reading this post right now with browsing software that allows you to "zap" advertisements entirely. We like these new tools in the attention keep-away game; they provide us with a degree of power over the viewing experience. On the other hand, commercial media companies--and especially advertisers--are not terribly excited about advances in advertising-avoidance technology.
Don't fret for commercial media companies and advertisers though; they've continually adjusted to technological changes in "how the game is played" (they've introduced the pass rush, to pound this the metaphor into the ground). For one, product placement has emerged as a ubiquitous counter-offensive of hypercommercialism. The logic is that the viewer can only avoid product placements by also missing the TV program. Sports programming, in particular, is considered an effective form of "zap-proof" programming (see here and here): sports viewers may be less likely to channel surf during ads for fear of missing something important; the value of catching a game live means that using a DVR to avoid ads may also mean being "out of the loop." Further, branded entertainment (think: Home Depot Half-Time Report) and in-game signage (think: ads on the NHL boards and NASCAR's team sponsors) are the norm not the exception, and sports viewers seem to have a particularly high tolerance for commercialism during sports broadcasts.
While it seems like a dream come true for race fans, NASCAR Nonstop may present further opportunities for inundating the already hypercommercialized world of sports broadcasting with even more commercial advertising. I don't know how much of the average NASCAR broadcast is taken up by commercial spot advertising (if you find this stat, I'd appreciate it), but for the sake of argument, lets say spot ads take up 20% of the program. Now let's say that NASCAR Nonstop is a success for ESPN: viewers are not turned off by watching a smaller version of the race as an adjoining, larger commercial makes its pitch; and commercial advertisers are willing to pay commensurable rates to reach viewers through this model. If I'm ESPN, do I consider subtly bumping the portion of the program that is spot advertising up to 25%? Maybe 30%? Whatever the market (accounting for viewership, ad revenue & commercial clutter) deems appropriate? I'd certainly consider it, and--from our analysts position--I'd begin to wonder just how big that "one small step" is for NASCAR fans.
One aspect that will be interesting to key in on is whether the advertising conventions employed for these PIP ads begin to take on formal advertising conventions more common in radio. In other words, assuming that much of the viewer's (visual) attention during PIP spot advertising will be on the race (and not the advertisement), I'd expect that these PIP ads will center around aural rather than visual appeals (if you don't think advertising folks think like this, consider the ways DVRs encourage advertisers to use big, bold words, pictures, and logos on the screen for long periods of time to get the message across to viewers as they zip through). While athletes (including, for our purposes here, NASCAR drivers) are already common pitchmen, don't be surprised to eventually hear sports commentators--even those from the race itself--hawking wares during these PIP spot ads. Indeed, this is a strategy commonly employed in radio where the personality's voice holds listeners to the advertising by creating the impression of continuity between advertising and editorial content. Listeners of the Jim Rome Show, just about every ESPN radio show, and Glenn Beck's Radio program will be well aware of these practices.
From my view, then, ESPN's NonStop appears to be just the latest move by the sports-media complex in attending to the attention keep-away game. Race fans may benefit from being able to watch the whole event, but this could come at the cost of new forms of subtle commercial intrusion.
-- T.C. Corrigan
For more research along these lines, check out...
Bellamy, Jr., R.V. “Sports media: A modern institution.” In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 63-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006.
McAllister, M. P. (1996). The commercialization of American culture: New advertising, control, and democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilbur, K. C. “How the digital video recorder (DVR) changes traditional television advertising.” Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 143-149 (2008).
I also have an forthcoming entry on zipping and zapping in The Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Not Just a Game
Although many would argue that politics and sports don’t mix, Dave Zirin thinks that argument couldn’t be further from the truth.
From military spectacles at sporting events to the challenges faced by homosexual athletes, Zirin argues that sport practically revolves around politics. He concisely drives this point home in his new documentary, Not Just a Game.
In Not Just a Game, renowned sportswriter Zirin brings his compelling history of sports and politics to the big screen. He cites well-known political turning points in sports history to suggest that not only are sports full of politics, but also these two seemingly competing public arenas should be mixed.
Zirin begins his documentary by challenging the most overt joining of politics and sport: The militarization of professional sports. American sports fans don’t think twice about the political displays they see at major events. We see themed event nights aimed at supporting or honoring the military, and we talk about sports in terms of war and sacrifice.
But how far can this militarization be taken? Apparently all the way to the battlefield.
Arguably, Pat Tillman represents the point where the militarization of sports goes wrong. The cover-up of the events surrounding his death were all but meant to preserve the aura of Tillman as a sporting and military hero. Even worse is that the sports broadcasting community was willing to gloss over the controversial knowledge that, by the time Tillman passed, he was firmly against the war. Here, sports lore outweighed politics.
Zirin goes on to discuss how sports have allowed issues of gender, race and sexuality to be brought to the forefront of public consciousness. Sports legends such as Billy Jean King and Muhammad Ali used sport as a platform to affect change, but it would be denial to suggest we’ve achieved equality.
King, for example, serves as an early—and sustained—example of intolerance toward homosexuals in sports. Although King was hailed for breaking gender barriers, her coming out as a homosexual practically unraveled her credibility. Players such as John Amaechi still face this challenge, and the only athletes who have confirmed their homosexuality have done so after their playing careers have ended.
Finally, Zirin wraps up his documentary questioning the lack of politics in sports today. He turns to commercialization as the culprit, pointing to Michael Jordan as one of the reasons we no longer want a side of politics with our meal of sports.
In 1992, Jordan arrived for the “Dream Team’s” gold medal ceremony with the American flag draped over his right shoulder. While many would like to believe this was an act of patriotism, Zirin points out it was an act of commercialism; Jordan was covering up the Reebok logo on his jacket. This stands in stark contrast to the political statement made by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics.
Ultimately, Zirin believes what is wrong with sports today is that it doesn’t embrace politics. Athletes rarely use their platform to create awareness and change, and they generally avoid discussing controversial issues for fear of alienating fans and sponsors. The commercialization of sport glorifies rebellion, but does not actually embrace it, and Not Just a Game presents a compelling argument to suggest we might be better off believing politics have a place in sports.
- Melanie Formentin
From military spectacles at sporting events to the challenges faced by homosexual athletes, Zirin argues that sport practically revolves around politics. He concisely drives this point home in his new documentary, Not Just a Game.
In Not Just a Game, renowned sportswriter Zirin brings his compelling history of sports and politics to the big screen. He cites well-known political turning points in sports history to suggest that not only are sports full of politics, but also these two seemingly competing public arenas should be mixed.
Zirin begins his documentary by challenging the most overt joining of politics and sport: The militarization of professional sports. American sports fans don’t think twice about the political displays they see at major events. We see themed event nights aimed at supporting or honoring the military, and we talk about sports in terms of war and sacrifice.
But how far can this militarization be taken? Apparently all the way to the battlefield.
Arguably, Pat Tillman represents the point where the militarization of sports goes wrong. The cover-up of the events surrounding his death were all but meant to preserve the aura of Tillman as a sporting and military hero. Even worse is that the sports broadcasting community was willing to gloss over the controversial knowledge that, by the time Tillman passed, he was firmly against the war. Here, sports lore outweighed politics.
Zirin goes on to discuss how sports have allowed issues of gender, race and sexuality to be brought to the forefront of public consciousness. Sports legends such as Billy Jean King and Muhammad Ali used sport as a platform to affect change, but it would be denial to suggest we’ve achieved equality.
King, for example, serves as an early—and sustained—example of intolerance toward homosexuals in sports. Although King was hailed for breaking gender barriers, her coming out as a homosexual practically unraveled her credibility. Players such as John Amaechi still face this challenge, and the only athletes who have confirmed their homosexuality have done so after their playing careers have ended.
Finally, Zirin wraps up his documentary questioning the lack of politics in sports today. He turns to commercialization as the culprit, pointing to Michael Jordan as one of the reasons we no longer want a side of politics with our meal of sports.
In 1992, Jordan arrived for the “Dream Team’s” gold medal ceremony with the American flag draped over his right shoulder. While many would like to believe this was an act of patriotism, Zirin points out it was an act of commercialism; Jordan was covering up the Reebok logo on his jacket. This stands in stark contrast to the political statement made by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics.
Ultimately, Zirin believes what is wrong with sports today is that it doesn’t embrace politics. Athletes rarely use their platform to create awareness and change, and they generally avoid discussing controversial issues for fear of alienating fans and sponsors. The commercialization of sport glorifies rebellion, but does not actually embrace it, and Not Just a Game presents a compelling argument to suggest we might be better off believing politics have a place in sports.
- Melanie Formentin
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Twitter users compare men's basketball to the women's game
Although Butler left the floor feeling low after the men’s basketball national championship, it was women’s basketball that took a beating Monday night. In describing just how bad and boring the men’s final was, users of the site repeatedly compared it to the women’s game, implicitly discounting the sport in the process.
CBS analyst Roland S. Martin wrote “It is not a stretch to say that the women’s national championship game will be far more interesting.” Another blogger tweeted “I’d rather watch the #WNBA than this #NationalTitleGame.” ESPN.com’s “The sports guy” tweeted: April 2011: The month that women’s college basketball caught up to men’s college basketball. A
Make no mistake: The men’s national final was painful to watch. The two teams set a new record for lowest combined first half points total and Butler shot a horrid 18.8 percent from the field – the lowest mark ever in a national final game. And although UConn took home the trophy, they won by scoring just 53 points on 35 percent shooting.
The game was boring. Illustrating just how boring it was by comparing it to women’s basketball denies the women’s game the legitimacy it deserves. As Dave Zirin wrote, also on twitter. “I hope every last person hating on this game, watches the NCAA women's finals tomorrow. See two teams actually make shots.”
--Erin Whiteside
CBS analyst Roland S. Martin wrote “It is not a stretch to say that the women’s national championship game will be far more interesting.” Another blogger tweeted “I’d rather watch the #WNBA than this #NationalTitleGame.” ESPN.com’s “The sports guy” tweeted: April 2011: The month that women’s college basketball caught up to men’s college basketball. A
Make no mistake: The men’s national final was painful to watch. The two teams set a new record for lowest combined first half points total and Butler shot a horrid 18.8 percent from the field – the lowest mark ever in a national final game. And although UConn took home the trophy, they won by scoring just 53 points on 35 percent shooting.
The game was boring. Illustrating just how boring it was by comparing it to women’s basketball denies the women’s game the legitimacy it deserves. As Dave Zirin wrote, also on twitter. “I hope every last person hating on this game, watches the NCAA women's finals tomorrow. See two teams actually make shots.”
--Erin Whiteside
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Curley Center Chat Evaluates Coverage of Youth Sports
Some basic sports rules—including three strikes and you’re out in baseball or 10 yards for a first down in football—apply whether a game is contested among professionals or pre-teens, but accepted and expected conduct of the media when covering those competitions often differs according to the age and experience of participants.
The challenges, ethics and responsibilities for journalists covering youth sports will be discussed at 1 p.m. Monday, March 21, during an online chat conducted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism.
"Ethical Issues in the Coverage of Youth Sports" is free, and people may access and participate in the session by visiting http://sportsjourn.psu.edu/live-chats online.
Participants include:
--Steve Barr, director of media relations for Little League Baseball and Softball;
--George Dohrmann, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who writes for Sports Illustrated and authored “Play Their Hearts Out,” which examines grassroots basketball, in 2010;
--Tracy Greer, online editor of the North County Times in Escondido, Calif.; and
--Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society and director of the Curley Center.
Marie Hardin, an associate professor of communications at Penn State and associate director of the Curley Center, will serve as moderator for the hour-long session, which will focus on journalism coverage of youth sports and how the age of the participants can and should shape how media outlets cover those activities.
The Curley Center explores issues and trends in sports journalism through instruction, outreach, programming and research. The Center's undergraduate curricular emphasis includes courses in sports writing, sports broadcasting, sports information, sports, media and society, and sports and public policy, which is cross-listed with the Penn State Dickinson School of Law.
- Curley Center for Sports Journalism
The challenges, ethics and responsibilities for journalists covering youth sports will be discussed at 1 p.m. Monday, March 21, during an online chat conducted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism.
"Ethical Issues in the Coverage of Youth Sports" is free, and people may access and participate in the session by visiting http://sportsjourn.psu.edu/live-chats online.
Participants include:
--Steve Barr, director of media relations for Little League Baseball and Softball;
--George Dohrmann, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who writes for Sports Illustrated and authored “Play Their Hearts Out,” which examines grassroots basketball, in 2010;
--Tracy Greer, online editor of the North County Times in Escondido, Calif.; and
--Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society and director of the Curley Center.
Marie Hardin, an associate professor of communications at Penn State and associate director of the Curley Center, will serve as moderator for the hour-long session, which will focus on journalism coverage of youth sports and how the age of the participants can and should shape how media outlets cover those activities.
The Curley Center explores issues and trends in sports journalism through instruction, outreach, programming and research. The Center's undergraduate curricular emphasis includes courses in sports writing, sports broadcasting, sports information, sports, media and society, and sports and public policy, which is cross-listed with the Penn State Dickinson School of Law.
- Curley Center for Sports Journalism
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Sports-talk radio hosts talk about social media challenges
It’s no surprise to hear that online social networks and the blogosphere are creating new dilemmas for sports-talk radio hosts. Rumors run rampant on the Web and athletes are less likely to grant in-person interviews, adding to the challenges faced by hosts who make a living commenting daily on what’s happening with local sports teams.
Visiting Penn State for the “Sports-Talk Radio: Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh” event, radio hosts Mike Missanelli of 97.5 (The Fanatic) in Philadelphia and Paul Alexander of 93.7 (The Fan) in Pittsburgh spoke to students about some of the challenges of being in sports radio. In addition to giving students plenty of advice about breaking into—and being successful in—sports radio, the two hosts spoke about some of the issues and benefits of the presence of social networking sites and blogs.
One of the biggest challenges Alexander and Missanelli face involves separating fact from fiction, or debunking the rumors that gain legs on the Internet. While discussing the importance and challenges of cultivating information and sources, Alexander lamented his pet peeve of dealing with “information that surfaces on blogs that remains unsubstantiated.” Missanelli echoed this sentiment, explaining that when rumors do crop up “you can’t report things as a story.”
To these hosts, cultivating sources is a matter of getting their job done correctly. By gaining the trust of reliable sources and not chasing rumors, both Alexander and Missanelli feel they can receive confirmation about stories while not making mistakes.
“We’re reporters at heart because we both grew up as reporters,” Missanelli said. “We try to combine that with the entertainment of sports-talk radio.”
“I love to dig a whole lot deeper,” Alexander added, “and provide information and opinion that is well informed and source generated.”
The importance of being well informed and getting information correct was driven home by Alexander when talking about the balance between chasing a story and being competitive. Echoing the sentiments of previous speaker Tom Verducci (http://sportsmediasociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/verducci-visits-psu-discusses-mlb.html), Alexander said, “I’m not about being first, I’m about being right. If I can be first, that’s awesome.”
“I don’t want to get something wrong first,” Alexander said, “I want to be right first.”
Additionally, the hosts felt that Twitter use has actually reduced athletes’ willingness to talk to reporters. Missanelli said that using Twitter and Facebook has given athletes “another reason not to talk to you,” and that in some cases athletes direct reporters to their Twitter for comments. Alexander used Tiger Woods as an example, pointing out that “all his information is transmitted on his website,” making it unnecessary for him to grant interviews.
Despite some of the drawbacks posed by social networks and blogs, the hosts agreed that they can also benefit from using these online tools. For example, the hosts can use Facebook to announce what they’re talking about on the air to generate interest in their program. Additionally, Missanelli pointed out that radio is “immediate” and reaction happens instantaneously. Facebook can then enhance the show by generating more of that instant feedback and improving listener numbers.
Overall, the benefits and issues related to the presence of social media and blogs in the sports-talk landscape aren’t necessarily new. Although rumors may crop up or athletes may be hard to reach, reporters like Alexander and Missanelli fall back on the same tactics they’ve always used when chasing stories: follow leads, build trust among reliable sources and don’t break a story unless you’re confident you’ve got your facts straight.
- Melanie Formentin
Visiting Penn State for the “Sports-Talk Radio: Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh” event, radio hosts Mike Missanelli of 97.5 (The Fanatic) in Philadelphia and Paul Alexander of 93.7 (The Fan) in Pittsburgh spoke to students about some of the challenges of being in sports radio. In addition to giving students plenty of advice about breaking into—and being successful in—sports radio, the two hosts spoke about some of the issues and benefits of the presence of social networking sites and blogs.
One of the biggest challenges Alexander and Missanelli face involves separating fact from fiction, or debunking the rumors that gain legs on the Internet. While discussing the importance and challenges of cultivating information and sources, Alexander lamented his pet peeve of dealing with “information that surfaces on blogs that remains unsubstantiated.” Missanelli echoed this sentiment, explaining that when rumors do crop up “you can’t report things as a story.”
To these hosts, cultivating sources is a matter of getting their job done correctly. By gaining the trust of reliable sources and not chasing rumors, both Alexander and Missanelli feel they can receive confirmation about stories while not making mistakes.
“We’re reporters at heart because we both grew up as reporters,” Missanelli said. “We try to combine that with the entertainment of sports-talk radio.”
“I love to dig a whole lot deeper,” Alexander added, “and provide information and opinion that is well informed and source generated.”
The importance of being well informed and getting information correct was driven home by Alexander when talking about the balance between chasing a story and being competitive. Echoing the sentiments of previous speaker Tom Verducci (http://sportsmediasociety.blogspot.com/2011/01/verducci-visits-psu-discusses-mlb.html), Alexander said, “I’m not about being first, I’m about being right. If I can be first, that’s awesome.”
“I don’t want to get something wrong first,” Alexander said, “I want to be right first.”
Additionally, the hosts felt that Twitter use has actually reduced athletes’ willingness to talk to reporters. Missanelli said that using Twitter and Facebook has given athletes “another reason not to talk to you,” and that in some cases athletes direct reporters to their Twitter for comments. Alexander used Tiger Woods as an example, pointing out that “all his information is transmitted on his website,” making it unnecessary for him to grant interviews.
Despite some of the drawbacks posed by social networks and blogs, the hosts agreed that they can also benefit from using these online tools. For example, the hosts can use Facebook to announce what they’re talking about on the air to generate interest in their program. Additionally, Missanelli pointed out that radio is “immediate” and reaction happens instantaneously. Facebook can then enhance the show by generating more of that instant feedback and improving listener numbers.
Overall, the benefits and issues related to the presence of social media and blogs in the sports-talk landscape aren’t necessarily new. Although rumors may crop up or athletes may be hard to reach, reporters like Alexander and Missanelli fall back on the same tactics they’ve always used when chasing stories: follow leads, build trust among reliable sources and don’t break a story unless you’re confident you’ve got your facts straight.
- Melanie Formentin
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
PSU undergrads use blogs to analyze and critique the sports-media-society relationship
This is the second semester my Sports, Media, & Society course has maintained blogs--as groups of 3-4 students--for critique and analysis of the role of sports in American culture. Each week half the class is required to post to their group's blog, with the goals of (1) critically reflecting on the relationship between course content and the contemporary sports, media, & social landscape, (2) developing new media skills that are increasingly desired by employers in both the media industry and industries across American society, and (3) getting students to think about how the choices they make as media creators and the processes they employ in putting together media shape the content they develop in important ways.
Each week this semester I've been writing up "digests" of these student blog posts (and I'll continue trying to keep this up throughout the semester). From a pedagogical perspective, I've gotten some student feedback that suggests these digests encourage students to go to their classmates' blogs, check out their posts, and reflect on how their classmates are approaching the project. Have a read through these digests from the weeks of 1/26 and 2/2, and follow the links to my students' posts. I'd love feedback and suggestions on the project.
-T.C.
Each week this semester I've been writing up "digests" of these student blog posts (and I'll continue trying to keep this up throughout the semester). From a pedagogical perspective, I've gotten some student feedback that suggests these digests encourage students to go to their classmates' blogs, check out their posts, and reflect on how their classmates are approaching the project. Have a read through these digests from the weeks of 1/26 and 2/2, and follow the links to my students' posts. I'd love feedback and suggestions on the project.
-T.C.
Mega-events offer outlet for against-the-grain analysis & critique
Sports mega-events like the Super Bowl, the World Cup, and the Olympics offer grand stages for the participants (athletes & others), organizations, and institutions associated with each; these mega-events also provide an opportune stage for analysis and critique of the relationships between -- on the one hand -- these very participants, organizations, and institutions, and -- on the other hand -- culture, society, politics, and economics. That is, of course, if those offering the analysis and critique can manage to be heard over the cheerleading.
Several articles have caught my eye recently as intriguing analysis and criticism concerning the NFL and society. Each are, in my opinion, definitely worth a read:
NPR's Michele Martin looks at concerns about football-related long-term brain injury from the NFL down to pee wee. Further, she goes on to point out the social toll our exuberant emphasis on youth sports may have: "this might be particularly insidious in sports dominated by poor kids, especially poor black kids, because the people involved are so busy congratulating themselves on how they are saving the kids from ruin."
The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins considers whether "Jerry World" -- referring to Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones' new $1.15 billion stadium -- is the direction the league should be going in. While Jenkins acknowledges that the Super Bowl can be a valuable source for civic pride, this Super Bowl highlighted for her that "luxury can be debasing." She points out that everyday fans have been priced out of the spectacle, while the taxpayers in most of the NFL's U.S. metropolitan areas have been asked to pick up much of the tab for stadium and luxury box construction over the past 15 years.
Finally, progressive sportswriter Dave Zirin has been on a tear of late (see here, here, and here), highlighting the non-profit, public ownership of the Green Bay Packers by the citizens of Green Bay -- a unique arrangement in U.S. professional sports (NFL bylaws, interestingly, say that no other NFL franchise is allowed to employ a similar ownership structure).
Zirin has been busy of late...
** He's got a new book out, "Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games We Love."
** His new documentary "Not Just a Game: Power, Politics, and American Sports" (produced by the good folks over at the Media Education Foundation) is getting attention within academic circles and in major sports media outlets.
-T.C.
As posted in "Mega-events offer outlet for against-the-grain analysis & critique"
Several articles have caught my eye recently as intriguing analysis and criticism concerning the NFL and society. Each are, in my opinion, definitely worth a read:
NPR's Michele Martin looks at concerns about football-related long-term brain injury from the NFL down to pee wee. Further, she goes on to point out the social toll our exuberant emphasis on youth sports may have: "this might be particularly insidious in sports dominated by poor kids, especially poor black kids, because the people involved are so busy congratulating themselves on how they are saving the kids from ruin."
The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins considers whether "Jerry World" -- referring to Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones' new $1.15 billion stadium -- is the direction the league should be going in. While Jenkins acknowledges that the Super Bowl can be a valuable source for civic pride, this Super Bowl highlighted for her that "luxury can be debasing." She points out that everyday fans have been priced out of the spectacle, while the taxpayers in most of the NFL's U.S. metropolitan areas have been asked to pick up much of the tab for stadium and luxury box construction over the past 15 years.
Finally, progressive sportswriter Dave Zirin has been on a tear of late (see here, here, and here), highlighting the non-profit, public ownership of the Green Bay Packers by the citizens of Green Bay -- a unique arrangement in U.S. professional sports (NFL bylaws, interestingly, say that no other NFL franchise is allowed to employ a similar ownership structure).
Zirin has been busy of late...
** He's got a new book out, "Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games We Love."
** His new documentary "Not Just a Game: Power, Politics, and American Sports" (produced by the good folks over at the Media Education Foundation) is getting attention within academic circles and in major sports media outlets.
-T.C.
As posted in "Mega-events offer outlet for against-the-grain analysis & critique"
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Changing the Title IX narrative: A prescription for change
Women’s sports activists are gathering around the country to recognize National Girls and Women in Sports Day and encourage advocates to keep pushing for the benefits mandated by Title IX.
Such efforts for equality are needed to keep issues like Title IX on the front burner; as advocacy groups often point out, the majority of institutions that fall within the purview of the law are out of compliance.
Although such efforts are needed, solely advocating for equality may not translate into the change women’s advocates are hoping for. Although sports fans may support the idea of Title IX – after all, notions of fairness and equity are cornerstones of American value systems, there is still not widespread acceptance for its application. This may be because of the consistent way in which sports are framed; as long as sports are situated in popular discourse as a space for the celebration of masculinity, cultural acceptance of women’s inclusion may falter.
It is thus critical, then, that we continue to support equality efforts, while also advocating for the adoption of new frames in sporting discourse to trouble the association between masculinity and sports. Such frames may stem from increased media coverage of women’s sports that focuses on athleticism rather than femininity. Continued visibility of women in authority positions – from athletic directors to play-by-play announcers – will also help deconstruct the notion that sports belong to men. Most importantly, however, is a continued push toward challenging existing cultural meanings of sports so we may move toward a vision in which women’s inclusion seems not only logical, but beneficial.
--Erin Whiteside
Such efforts for equality are needed to keep issues like Title IX on the front burner; as advocacy groups often point out, the majority of institutions that fall within the purview of the law are out of compliance.
Although such efforts are needed, solely advocating for equality may not translate into the change women’s advocates are hoping for. Although sports fans may support the idea of Title IX – after all, notions of fairness and equity are cornerstones of American value systems, there is still not widespread acceptance for its application. This may be because of the consistent way in which sports are framed; as long as sports are situated in popular discourse as a space for the celebration of masculinity, cultural acceptance of women’s inclusion may falter.
It is thus critical, then, that we continue to support equality efforts, while also advocating for the adoption of new frames in sporting discourse to trouble the association between masculinity and sports. Such frames may stem from increased media coverage of women’s sports that focuses on athleticism rather than femininity. Continued visibility of women in authority positions – from athletic directors to play-by-play announcers – will also help deconstruct the notion that sports belong to men. Most importantly, however, is a continued push toward challenging existing cultural meanings of sports so we may move toward a vision in which women’s inclusion seems not only logical, but beneficial.
--Erin Whiteside
Curley Center chat to address issues in covering recruiting
Sports fans across the country often follow the recruiting of potential college student-athletes as closely as any on-field action, and that coverage of high school students about to make major life decisions comes with many challenges for sports journalists.
The competing agendas, ethics, influences and impact of recruiting coverage will be discussed at 1 p.m. Monday, Feb. 14, during an online chat conducted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism.
"Issues in Covering Recruiting" is free, and people may access and participate in the session by visiting http://sportsjourn.psu.edu/live-chats online.
Participants include:
-- Sean Fitz, a recruiting expert who focuses on Penn State for 247sports.com, which operates program-specific web sites for major college athletic programs across the nation;
-- Rachel George, who covers college sports and recruiting for the Orlando Sentinel; and
-- Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Spoors Journalism and Society and director of the Curley Center.
Marie Hardin, an associate professor of communications at Penn State and associate director of the Curley Center, will serve as moderator for the hourlong session, which will also include a coach or recruiting coordinator from a Division I-A football program. Because coaches and recruiting coordinators are finalizing their classes of incoming student-athletes in advance of national signing day this week, the participation of a specific coach or coordinator will not been determined until later.
The Curley Center explores issues and trends in sports journalism through instruction, outreach, programming and research. The Center's undergraduate curricular emphasis includes courses in sports writing, sports broadcasting, sports information, sports, media and society, and sports and public policy, which is cross-listed with the Penn State Dickinson School of Law.
- Curley Center for Sports Journalism
The competing agendas, ethics, influences and impact of recruiting coverage will be discussed at 1 p.m. Monday, Feb. 14, during an online chat conducted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism.
"Issues in Covering Recruiting" is free, and people may access and participate in the session by visiting http://sportsjourn.psu.edu/live-chats online.
Participants include:
-- Sean Fitz, a recruiting expert who focuses on Penn State for 247sports.com, which operates program-specific web sites for major college athletic programs across the nation;
-- Rachel George, who covers college sports and recruiting for the Orlando Sentinel; and
-- Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Spoors Journalism and Society and director of the Curley Center.
Marie Hardin, an associate professor of communications at Penn State and associate director of the Curley Center, will serve as moderator for the hourlong session, which will also include a coach or recruiting coordinator from a Division I-A football program. Because coaches and recruiting coordinators are finalizing their classes of incoming student-athletes in advance of national signing day this week, the participation of a specific coach or coordinator will not been determined until later.
The Curley Center explores issues and trends in sports journalism through instruction, outreach, programming and research. The Center's undergraduate curricular emphasis includes courses in sports writing, sports broadcasting, sports information, sports, media and society, and sports and public policy, which is cross-listed with the Penn State Dickinson School of Law.
- Curley Center for Sports Journalism
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Verducci visits PSU, discusses MLB, current challenges in sports journalism
Tom Verducci fell in love with newspapers while delivering them as a kid. Flipping through the pages, he always stopped at the sports section because he wanted to read about his other love: baseball. Eager to see how someone wrote about games he had watched the previous night, Verducci felt the post-game analysis added another layer of information to the game.
Now Verducci is the person adding extra layers of information to the game of baseball.
While visiting Penn State and the Curley Center, Verducci spoke last night about his experiences as a baseball writer and some of the controversial issues he has covered in his nearly three decades as a sports journalist. The Penn State graduate (1982) has emerged as one of the most respected writers in the profession in part because of work related to hard-hitting issues such as steroid use in Major League Baseball.
As a Hall of Fame voter, Verducci was asked about his take on allowing players who have used steroids into Cooperstown. To illustrate the divide between Hall voters, he asked for a show of hands from audience members who would vote for a great player that used steroids. The impromptu survey revealed a 50-50 split, similar to the split he sees among Hall voters—and much less than the necessary 75% approval to get elected to the Hall.
Verducci discussed the notion that a rule change regarding the majority vote would need to occur to change the current voting situation. Evaluating how people approach the issue, he spoke of reporters that believe a player makes a choice to use steroids and then must live with that legacy. The feeling is that players are doing things they know are wrong—and can’t even talk about—and are changing the way baseball is played. However, Verducci also maintained that his vote is an “endorsement of [a] whole career” and not just the “clean and dirty parts.”
The Cooperstown theme continued through a discussion about Pete Rose. Although Verducci maintains that Rose deserves lifetime banishment from the game and should never again be allowed to put on a uniform, he believes his accomplishments as a player stand alone. Verducci suggested that if eligibility rules changed he would not vote for Rose as a manager—the time period in which he allegedly gambled on the game—but would be in favor of voting for him as a player.
Moving to the issue of technologically-based time constraints felt by sports journalists, Verducci touched on the implications of the situation regarding Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Culter and the injury he suffered during the NFC Championship game. Verducci discussed the “character assassination” and how fans and current and former players jumped on social networking sites to question the extent of Cutler’s injury. He believes this is showing a shift in journalism in which people are setting the agenda regarding important issues. Instead of broadcasters and writers setting the news, these journalists and coaches are now responding to real-time fan reaction.
Verducci also pointed out that in such fast-paced settings he believes it’s more important to be right than to be first. He emphasized that Cutler was prevented by doctors from returning to the game, something no one would have known at the time of the injury. As such, even though speed has forced writers to make quick decisions, he still follows advice received from a former professor: When in doubt, leave it out.
The importance of accuracy was not the only advice offered to students. Verducci also discussed the need to outwork others and the need to strike a balance between personal and professional relationships with athletes. He also talked about the importance of finding good stories and being willing to put in the time and effort to get those pieces.
In all, Verducci provided intriguing commentary about ongoing issues in baseball and sports journalism. By expanding on topics such as steroid use and the changing pace of journalism, he shed valuable insight for the next generation of writers hoping to add extra layers of information to the sports journalism community.
- Melanie Formentin
Now Verducci is the person adding extra layers of information to the game of baseball.
While visiting Penn State and the Curley Center, Verducci spoke last night about his experiences as a baseball writer and some of the controversial issues he has covered in his nearly three decades as a sports journalist. The Penn State graduate (1982) has emerged as one of the most respected writers in the profession in part because of work related to hard-hitting issues such as steroid use in Major League Baseball.
As a Hall of Fame voter, Verducci was asked about his take on allowing players who have used steroids into Cooperstown. To illustrate the divide between Hall voters, he asked for a show of hands from audience members who would vote for a great player that used steroids. The impromptu survey revealed a 50-50 split, similar to the split he sees among Hall voters—and much less than the necessary 75% approval to get elected to the Hall.
Verducci discussed the notion that a rule change regarding the majority vote would need to occur to change the current voting situation. Evaluating how people approach the issue, he spoke of reporters that believe a player makes a choice to use steroids and then must live with that legacy. The feeling is that players are doing things they know are wrong—and can’t even talk about—and are changing the way baseball is played. However, Verducci also maintained that his vote is an “endorsement of [a] whole career” and not just the “clean and dirty parts.”
The Cooperstown theme continued through a discussion about Pete Rose. Although Verducci maintains that Rose deserves lifetime banishment from the game and should never again be allowed to put on a uniform, he believes his accomplishments as a player stand alone. Verducci suggested that if eligibility rules changed he would not vote for Rose as a manager—the time period in which he allegedly gambled on the game—but would be in favor of voting for him as a player.
Moving to the issue of technologically-based time constraints felt by sports journalists, Verducci touched on the implications of the situation regarding Chicago Bears quarterback Jay Culter and the injury he suffered during the NFC Championship game. Verducci discussed the “character assassination” and how fans and current and former players jumped on social networking sites to question the extent of Cutler’s injury. He believes this is showing a shift in journalism in which people are setting the agenda regarding important issues. Instead of broadcasters and writers setting the news, these journalists and coaches are now responding to real-time fan reaction.
Verducci also pointed out that in such fast-paced settings he believes it’s more important to be right than to be first. He emphasized that Cutler was prevented by doctors from returning to the game, something no one would have known at the time of the injury. As such, even though speed has forced writers to make quick decisions, he still follows advice received from a former professor: When in doubt, leave it out.
The importance of accuracy was not the only advice offered to students. Verducci also discussed the need to outwork others and the need to strike a balance between personal and professional relationships with athletes. He also talked about the importance of finding good stories and being willing to put in the time and effort to get those pieces.
In all, Verducci provided intriguing commentary about ongoing issues in baseball and sports journalism. By expanding on topics such as steroid use and the changing pace of journalism, he shed valuable insight for the next generation of writers hoping to add extra layers of information to the sports journalism community.
- Melanie Formentin
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Tweeting Sports Journalists: Curley Center Commentary
To tweet, retweet or maybe not retweet is a question facing all journalists in today’s media landscape. For sports journalists in particular, learning and understanding how to harness Twitter is an issue that can mean breaking a story or non-story.
Lori Shontz, member of the Curley Center board of directors, tackled this issue in the first monthly Curley Center commentary.
After hearing a journalist suggest that ignoring Twitter is like “not using the phone,” Shontz couldn’t help asking how Twitter should be used if it’s so important to journalists. Editors and writers don’t have guidelines to follow, instead relying on instinct and training to determine when a tweet should be taken seriously or when information should be shared.
Shontz cites recent stories regarding freshman quarterback Rob Bolden and defensive coordinator Tom Bradley as examples of the challenges of using Twitter. For journalists covering the Bolden story, Twitter effectively drew readers to articles and information about the player’s attempts to transfer. However, unchecked tweets about Bradley being hired by Pitt left writers scrambling for information and Rewteeting apologies for disseminating incorrect information.
Although guidelines may be harder to develop, it seems that falling back on ethical responsibilities may be the most effective way to approach Twitter.
For the whole commentary by Shontz, check out Harnessing Twitter remains a challenge for sports journalists on the Curley Center’s official website.
- Melanie Formentin
Lori Shontz, member of the Curley Center board of directors, tackled this issue in the first monthly Curley Center commentary.
After hearing a journalist suggest that ignoring Twitter is like “not using the phone,” Shontz couldn’t help asking how Twitter should be used if it’s so important to journalists. Editors and writers don’t have guidelines to follow, instead relying on instinct and training to determine when a tweet should be taken seriously or when information should be shared.
Shontz cites recent stories regarding freshman quarterback Rob Bolden and defensive coordinator Tom Bradley as examples of the challenges of using Twitter. For journalists covering the Bolden story, Twitter effectively drew readers to articles and information about the player’s attempts to transfer. However, unchecked tweets about Bradley being hired by Pitt left writers scrambling for information and Rewteeting apologies for disseminating incorrect information.
Although guidelines may be harder to develop, it seems that falling back on ethical responsibilities may be the most effective way to approach Twitter.
For the whole commentary by Shontz, check out Harnessing Twitter remains a challenge for sports journalists on the Curley Center’s official website.
- Melanie Formentin
Friday, January 21, 2011
College athletics reform and where it should go
If Ronald A. Smith had his way, the NCAA would revive a decades-old rule eliminating freshman eligibility in sports. He’d enforce rules through the “death penalty” for sports programs, and he’d limit salaries for coaches.
A professor emeritus of sports history, Smith spoke at Penn State on Thursday to discuss themes from his book Pay for Play: Reflections on Big-Time College Athletic Reform. In his book, Smith discusses major issues in—and traces the history of—reform in college athletics.
Echoing the sentiments of previous speakers such as Michael Oriard, Smith suggested that if he was to institute one reform he’d eliminate freshman eligibility. Smith noted this rule existed for six decades through the 1960s and could only stand to improve current student athlete experiences. Preventing freshmen from playing would allow those student athletes to be more involved with school before facing the rigors of a life dominated by college athletics.
Smith also suggested that the NCAA has not been at the center of major reform efforts. Instead, laws and court cases have made the biggest impact on college athletics. Citing integration and women’s equality as the two greatest reforms, Smith pointed to Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Acts and Title IX as the greatest vehicles for change. His belief is that significant, future reform will continue to come from outside sources, as the NCAA is not likely to enact considerable changes without outside pressure.
However, were the NCAA to enact more of its own changes, Smith believes that severe penalties would do the most for reform. Smith cited the cases of the Kentucky and Southern Methodist universities, suggesting that dissolving a program—or giving it the “death penalty”—for an extended period of time might do the most for integrity-based reforms.
In the past, most reform has been the result of efforts to level the playing field. Smith believes that in the 21st century major reform efforts will surround issues such as treating athletes as workers, licensing agreements, salary limits for coaches, and academic transparency. Although such efforts to increase academic integrity and promote fair compensation are worthy, Smith doesn’t believe they will be easy to achieve and come by because of the culture of collegiate athletics. Paying athletes, for example, would be an enormous task leading to increased commercialization.
Although reform is a hot topic in collegiate athletics, it may take a lot of pressure from outside sources to make significant changes. Scholars such as Smith continue to dedicate time and effort to discussing issues of academic integrity, fairness, and equality.
Curley Center scholars have focused on athletic reform issues. The Center has partnered with the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) on an assessment of faculty involvement in athletic issues at FBS universities. The article will be published in the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport this summer.
- Melanie Formentin
A professor emeritus of sports history, Smith spoke at Penn State on Thursday to discuss themes from his book Pay for Play: Reflections on Big-Time College Athletic Reform. In his book, Smith discusses major issues in—and traces the history of—reform in college athletics.
Echoing the sentiments of previous speakers such as Michael Oriard, Smith suggested that if he was to institute one reform he’d eliminate freshman eligibility. Smith noted this rule existed for six decades through the 1960s and could only stand to improve current student athlete experiences. Preventing freshmen from playing would allow those student athletes to be more involved with school before facing the rigors of a life dominated by college athletics.
Smith also suggested that the NCAA has not been at the center of major reform efforts. Instead, laws and court cases have made the biggest impact on college athletics. Citing integration and women’s equality as the two greatest reforms, Smith pointed to Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Acts and Title IX as the greatest vehicles for change. His belief is that significant, future reform will continue to come from outside sources, as the NCAA is not likely to enact considerable changes without outside pressure.
However, were the NCAA to enact more of its own changes, Smith believes that severe penalties would do the most for reform. Smith cited the cases of the Kentucky and Southern Methodist universities, suggesting that dissolving a program—or giving it the “death penalty”—for an extended period of time might do the most for integrity-based reforms.
In the past, most reform has been the result of efforts to level the playing field. Smith believes that in the 21st century major reform efforts will surround issues such as treating athletes as workers, licensing agreements, salary limits for coaches, and academic transparency. Although such efforts to increase academic integrity and promote fair compensation are worthy, Smith doesn’t believe they will be easy to achieve and come by because of the culture of collegiate athletics. Paying athletes, for example, would be an enormous task leading to increased commercialization.
Although reform is a hot topic in collegiate athletics, it may take a lot of pressure from outside sources to make significant changes. Scholars such as Smith continue to dedicate time and effort to discussing issues of academic integrity, fairness, and equality.
Curley Center scholars have focused on athletic reform issues. The Center has partnered with the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) on an assessment of faculty involvement in athletic issues at FBS universities. The article will be published in the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport this summer.
- Melanie Formentin
Thursday, January 06, 2011
The NBA Game Time app and smart TV's trajectory
I swear this will get to a discussion of sports media shortly, so bear with me...
Earlier this month tech aficionados (and journalists) flocked to the Las Vegas Convention Center for the annual Consumer Electronics Show. Though companies like Apple increasingly bypass CES to announce launches of their newest iSomething (and much of the gadgets previewed at CES will never actually materialize for consumers), the show is, nonetheless, an opportunity for major media and electronics companies to show off their newest wares and make promotional "announcements" (covered as stories in-and-of-themselves by the media).
While I won't pretend to be a tech aficionado or someone that really follows this dimension of the media industry as closely as others, C-Net's Tom Krazit noted that this year's CES saw "an increasing focus on so-called 'smart TVs,' or TVs that can access content from both the Internet and the cable jack or satellite dish." To give you an example of what that would mean for the consumer television experience, here is John C. Abell of Wired's take on Google TV--the smart TV operating system that the new media giant is rolling out:
Google TV, to clarify, is not, itself, a television. It's an operating system that will run on Sony's Internet TVs, Logitech's "Revue" set-top device, and other manufacturer's devices. Much recent media attention to Google TV has focused on release delays and the choice of broadcast networks and video distributors to block their content on Google TV (Michael Learmonth of AdAge provides a fascinating explanation for this blocking); however, a content aspect intriguing from a sports media perspective was an October deal between Google and NBA Digital to bring the league's "NBA Game Time" smartphone app to Google TV for the service's launch. (Note: I'll refer to NBA Digital and the NBA Game Time app as "league" ventures in this piece; in reality, though, NBA Digital is a joint venture of the NBA and Turner Broadcasting System).
NBA Digital's landing an app on Google TV is, perhaps, unsurprising. The league already has a wide set of features for its Game Time mobile app available, employing price discrimination among several add-on options (the free app offers scoreboard and in-game box scores; add-ons of $3.99, $9.99, and $39.99 offer customization, out-of-market radio feeds, and the League Pass TV package, respectively). Further, the league was already heavily invested in Google's Android operating system for its NBA Game Time app; NBA Digital VP, Bryan Perez said that this put the league in an advantageous position to repurpose the mobile app "for the living room."
The NBA Digital/Google TV relationship raises important questions, though, for the future of sports media (and media in general). In his historical work on "Material and Cultural Factors in the Evolution of the Sports/Media Complex", Sut Jhally points out that during the 1920's, sporting events (and other cultural fare like music and theater) served as "bait" for the sale of radio sets as a consumer product. As the market for radio sets became saturated in the late 1930's, an audience--and, importantly, a sports audience--became available that could be packaged and sold to advertisers. Sports, then, as meaningful cultural fare, served not only the instrumental function of manufacturing demand for a consumer electronics product; it also played an important role in producing a saleable audience of radio listeners where none previously existed. Since commercial television adopted a "radio with pictures" approach, we can think of sports' role in the formative days of radio as a important (and by no means inevitable) contributor to the subsequent structure of 21st century commercial electronic media.
Similarly, we can look at the NBA Game Time app as "bait" for the sale of devices running the Google TV operating system and, potentially, a contributor to the construction of a new type of relationship between television consumer and the media industry. While it would be highly presumptuous to say that the implications of Google TV compare with the evolution of commercial radio (and the commercial television model that followed it), there is no shortage of claims that Google TV and other smart TV technology could "revolutionize" television consumption (as Forrester Research's James McQuivey suggests would happen with the sale of 10 million devices by Google and its partners).
The stakes appear to be particularly high for video distributors (i.e., cable, satellite, Netflix). For instance, the introduction of smart TVs could make traditional cable or satellite line-ups obsolete, allowing consumers to "cut the cord" on a distributor's services (excuse me for calling the cable line-up part of "traditional" media). On the other hand, smart TV companies like Google TV know that much of the professional network content that would attract consumers (both on TV and the Web) is the proprietary content of distributor-conglomerates. As the New York Times' Brian Seltzer put it, "All involved know that connecting the Internet to television and vice versa could solidify the distributors’ place in the food chain — or greatly erode it."
More fundamentally though, we can speculate about how a search-based consumer television experience like Google TV may impact decision-making by content creators. Again, this has implications for both sports media and content creators across the media environment. Take, for instance, the growth of a company like Demand Media. As an On the Media segment explained, Demand Media uses an algorithm to identify trending search terms (that match advertiser keywords), but which the online environment offers little content relevant to. It then offers around $15 per article/video for freelancers to quickly create content relevant to that search.
Strategies like those of Demand Media and others (including traditional media outlets) speak to the development of search-driven (and often cut-rate) processes for creating media that consumers appear to want (or, perhaps more accurately, a more efficient strategy for packaging relevant media consumers for advertisers). For all the business logic of producing content along these lines, we should all reflect on the social impact of media structures organized around giving media consumers "what they want." Indeed, Dr. Hardin recently discussed on this blog how cultural assumptions about women and sports shape public interest in women's spectator sports events, as well as media producers' valuation of those events as desirable media content. A sports media environment geared to consumer search practices may intensify the implications of these cultural assumptions, providing media producers further justification to marginalize and trivialize such content--they're just giving us "what we want."
Finally, it should be pointed out that the NBA Game Time app will be available as an app. Viewers will not have to stumble upon this content through the Google TV search function to access it. NBA Game Time is, in a sense, elevated--economically and culturally--in the Google TV editorial hierarchy, along with other "apps and optimized websites that will bring added features to the TV and take advantage of the larger screen." Indeed, apps do allow content creators to create more rich media experiences for users that enter the app's "walled garden." At the same time, the growth of apps also raises questions about how providers like mobile carriers, Apple, and Google TV hierarchize their app offerings, serving, in effect, as the "gatekeepers" for app-based media. For concerns specific to sports media, how might practices of hierarchization (and marginalization) in the app market impact the potential of women's and alternative sport to compete with commercial sport offerings for public interest?
In the sporting landscape and the broader media landscape, the ascendancy of Google TV (or other smart TV offerings) raises challenging questions about the trajectory of the media/society relationship. For the broader media environment, I'm reminded of C. Edwin Baker's stress on the importance of "structural diversity" within the media system. Every ownership and subsidy structure is susceptible to corruption in its own unique way; a diversity of media structures provides a safeguard against the widespread impact of any specific corrupting influence. Despite its convenience, we should be wary of "the tyranny of search" as an increasingly ubiquitous logic for structuring the relationships between audiences, media producers, and advertisers. Google doesn't have to violate its "Do No Evil" slogan for search to shape media and social relationships in a variety of ways, some of which are troubling.
For thinkers interested in sports media, pulling together research on this topic served, for me, as a valuable reminder of the importance of locating our sporting interests within the broader media and social landscape. Jhally's work provides one avenue for this type of thinking, but it's just one among many. Putting sports media "in motion" with other political, economic, social, and cultural developments challenges us to make our research more relevant to diverse publics.
--T.C. Corrigan
Earlier this month tech aficionados (and journalists) flocked to the Las Vegas Convention Center for the annual Consumer Electronics Show. Though companies like Apple increasingly bypass CES to announce launches of their newest iSomething (and much of the gadgets previewed at CES will never actually materialize for consumers), the show is, nonetheless, an opportunity for major media and electronics companies to show off their newest wares and make promotional "announcements" (covered as stories in-and-of-themselves by the media).
While I won't pretend to be a tech aficionado or someone that really follows this dimension of the media industry as closely as others, C-Net's Tom Krazit noted that this year's CES saw "an increasing focus on so-called 'smart TVs,' or TVs that can access content from both the Internet and the cable jack or satellite dish." To give you an example of what that would mean for the consumer television experience, here is John C. Abell of Wired's take on Google TV--the smart TV operating system that the new media giant is rolling out:
It’s not about web surfing or e-mailing from your couch, but rather getting easy access to programs off the web as easily as you’d change channels. And, thanks to the broadcasters themselves, a lot of professional content already lives online. In Google’s perfect world you pick up your remote and search for Star Trek and get it, whether it’s on Netflix, your media library or your cable company’s on-demand list. Google gets into your living room with a new way to provide search, and all the ways it has to make money off that.
Google TV, to clarify, is not, itself, a television. It's an operating system that will run on Sony's Internet TVs, Logitech's "Revue" set-top device, and other manufacturer's devices. Much recent media attention to Google TV has focused on release delays and the choice of broadcast networks and video distributors to block their content on Google TV (Michael Learmonth of AdAge provides a fascinating explanation for this blocking); however, a content aspect intriguing from a sports media perspective was an October deal between Google and NBA Digital to bring the league's "NBA Game Time" smartphone app to Google TV for the service's launch. (Note: I'll refer to NBA Digital and the NBA Game Time app as "league" ventures in this piece; in reality, though, NBA Digital is a joint venture of the NBA and Turner Broadcasting System).
NBA Digital's landing an app on Google TV is, perhaps, unsurprising. The league already has a wide set of features for its Game Time mobile app available, employing price discrimination among several add-on options (the free app offers scoreboard and in-game box scores; add-ons of $3.99, $9.99, and $39.99 offer customization, out-of-market radio feeds, and the League Pass TV package, respectively). Further, the league was already heavily invested in Google's Android operating system for its NBA Game Time app; NBA Digital VP, Bryan Perez said that this put the league in an advantageous position to repurpose the mobile app "for the living room."
The NBA Digital/Google TV relationship raises important questions, though, for the future of sports media (and media in general). In his historical work on "Material and Cultural Factors in the Evolution of the Sports/Media Complex", Sut Jhally points out that during the 1920's, sporting events (and other cultural fare like music and theater) served as "bait" for the sale of radio sets as a consumer product. As the market for radio sets became saturated in the late 1930's, an audience--and, importantly, a sports audience--became available that could be packaged and sold to advertisers. Sports, then, as meaningful cultural fare, served not only the instrumental function of manufacturing demand for a consumer electronics product; it also played an important role in producing a saleable audience of radio listeners where none previously existed. Since commercial television adopted a "radio with pictures" approach, we can think of sports' role in the formative days of radio as a important (and by no means inevitable) contributor to the subsequent structure of 21st century commercial electronic media.
Similarly, we can look at the NBA Game Time app as "bait" for the sale of devices running the Google TV operating system and, potentially, a contributor to the construction of a new type of relationship between television consumer and the media industry. While it would be highly presumptuous to say that the implications of Google TV compare with the evolution of commercial radio (and the commercial television model that followed it), there is no shortage of claims that Google TV and other smart TV technology could "revolutionize" television consumption (as Forrester Research's James McQuivey suggests would happen with the sale of 10 million devices by Google and its partners).
The stakes appear to be particularly high for video distributors (i.e., cable, satellite, Netflix). For instance, the introduction of smart TVs could make traditional cable or satellite line-ups obsolete, allowing consumers to "cut the cord" on a distributor's services (excuse me for calling the cable line-up part of "traditional" media). On the other hand, smart TV companies like Google TV know that much of the professional network content that would attract consumers (both on TV and the Web) is the proprietary content of distributor-conglomerates. As the New York Times' Brian Seltzer put it, "All involved know that connecting the Internet to television and vice versa could solidify the distributors’ place in the food chain — or greatly erode it."
More fundamentally though, we can speculate about how a search-based consumer television experience like Google TV may impact decision-making by content creators. Again, this has implications for both sports media and content creators across the media environment. Take, for instance, the growth of a company like Demand Media. As an On the Media segment explained, Demand Media uses an algorithm to identify trending search terms (that match advertiser keywords), but which the online environment offers little content relevant to. It then offers around $15 per article/video for freelancers to quickly create content relevant to that search.
Strategies like those of Demand Media and others (including traditional media outlets) speak to the development of search-driven (and often cut-rate) processes for creating media that consumers appear to want (or, perhaps more accurately, a more efficient strategy for packaging relevant media consumers for advertisers). For all the business logic of producing content along these lines, we should all reflect on the social impact of media structures organized around giving media consumers "what they want." Indeed, Dr. Hardin recently discussed on this blog how cultural assumptions about women and sports shape public interest in women's spectator sports events, as well as media producers' valuation of those events as desirable media content. A sports media environment geared to consumer search practices may intensify the implications of these cultural assumptions, providing media producers further justification to marginalize and trivialize such content--they're just giving us "what we want."
Finally, it should be pointed out that the NBA Game Time app will be available as an app. Viewers will not have to stumble upon this content through the Google TV search function to access it. NBA Game Time is, in a sense, elevated--economically and culturally--in the Google TV editorial hierarchy, along with other "apps and optimized websites that will bring added features to the TV and take advantage of the larger screen." Indeed, apps do allow content creators to create more rich media experiences for users that enter the app's "walled garden." At the same time, the growth of apps also raises questions about how providers like mobile carriers, Apple, and Google TV hierarchize their app offerings, serving, in effect, as the "gatekeepers" for app-based media. For concerns specific to sports media, how might practices of hierarchization (and marginalization) in the app market impact the potential of women's and alternative sport to compete with commercial sport offerings for public interest?
In the sporting landscape and the broader media landscape, the ascendancy of Google TV (or other smart TV offerings) raises challenging questions about the trajectory of the media/society relationship. For the broader media environment, I'm reminded of C. Edwin Baker's stress on the importance of "structural diversity" within the media system. Every ownership and subsidy structure is susceptible to corruption in its own unique way; a diversity of media structures provides a safeguard against the widespread impact of any specific corrupting influence. Despite its convenience, we should be wary of "the tyranny of search" as an increasingly ubiquitous logic for structuring the relationships between audiences, media producers, and advertisers. Google doesn't have to violate its "Do No Evil" slogan for search to shape media and social relationships in a variety of ways, some of which are troubling.
For thinkers interested in sports media, pulling together research on this topic served, for me, as a valuable reminder of the importance of locating our sporting interests within the broader media and social landscape. Jhally's work provides one avenue for this type of thinking, but it's just one among many. Putting sports media "in motion" with other political, economic, social, and cultural developments challenges us to make our research more relevant to diverse publics.
--T.C. Corrigan
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The media and UConn's winning streak: Another take
I've been reading -- with great interest -- the commentary around the UConn women's basketball team, which will very likely tonight break the longest winning streak in D-I basketball (set by the UCLA men's team under John Wooden).
Much of the commentary isn't on UConn's winning record, but is instead on what to make of coverage of UConn's phenomenal streak. If you've been paying attention to the story, you know that UConn coach Geno Auriemma himself weighed in on the coverage in a news conference after the team's game on Sunday.
He, along with others including sports columnist Christine Brennan and others who study women's sports coverage blame sports media for not giving the story more attention.
I certainly understand this argument. We have scores and scores of research that tells us two things: that institutions covering sports are dominated by men; and that women's sports don't get nearly the attention that men's sports get.
But behind the blame on sports journalists, editors and producers is this assumption: That somehow, those who cover sports are different from those who follow sports. They're "out of touch" with what we (sports fans, Americans, whatever) really want.
In short, it's the (cliched) "build it and they will come" assumption, mixed with imagery of an (evil) wizard behind the curtain pulling the strings contrary to the wishes of the hordes of consumers who would have it otherwise. It reminds me of the title of a book: Why TV Is Not Our Fault, which essentially argues that viewers have little influence over what they watch. It's someone else's fault.
No doubt, there are serious issues of political economy and masculine hegemony/power in the sports/media complex, to borrow the academic concepts that underpin these "media=bad" arguments.
But I'm convinced that at the end of the day, blaming the media for lack of coverage or for the wrong kind of coverage is failing to see the bigger problem.
It really is us. (Gulp.) It is our fault.
What I mean is this: The problem is embedded in the way we see women, men, and gender roles. It's in the way we define sports. It's in the small things we take for granted as "normal" in our everyday lives about the performance of gender. (Women wear skirts, men don't. Etc.) And in what all of these small things say about bodies and power.
These norms aren't without consequence.
They result in a culture that is less interested in women's sports as spectator activities because of the ways these performances challenge our everyday gendered lives.
Those who go to work for media are products of that culture. They aren't so different from the rest of us.
Not that things can't or won't change. But they happen slowly. Forty years out from Title IX is like 40 days in the big scheme of things. We're talking about a generation --maybe two, I think. Beyond our lifetimes to see real change.
In the meantime: I like what Megan Hueter,in her blog "Because I Played Sports," said about the UConn streak. She talked about the power of community and about the way progressive sports fans have found ways to connect, to create media, and to celebrate women's sports.
The real changes in our connection and celebration of women's sports won't start with big media -- they'll start with us.
-- Marie Hardin
Much of the commentary isn't on UConn's winning record, but is instead on what to make of coverage of UConn's phenomenal streak. If you've been paying attention to the story, you know that UConn coach Geno Auriemma himself weighed in on the coverage in a news conference after the team's game on Sunday.
He, along with others including sports columnist Christine Brennan and others who study women's sports coverage blame sports media for not giving the story more attention.
I certainly understand this argument. We have scores and scores of research that tells us two things: that institutions covering sports are dominated by men; and that women's sports don't get nearly the attention that men's sports get.
But behind the blame on sports journalists, editors and producers is this assumption: That somehow, those who cover sports are different from those who follow sports. They're "out of touch" with what we (sports fans, Americans, whatever) really want.
In short, it's the (cliched) "build it and they will come" assumption, mixed with imagery of an (evil) wizard behind the curtain pulling the strings contrary to the wishes of the hordes of consumers who would have it otherwise. It reminds me of the title of a book: Why TV Is Not Our Fault, which essentially argues that viewers have little influence over what they watch. It's someone else's fault.
No doubt, there are serious issues of political economy and masculine hegemony/power in the sports/media complex, to borrow the academic concepts that underpin these "media=bad" arguments.
But I'm convinced that at the end of the day, blaming the media for lack of coverage or for the wrong kind of coverage is failing to see the bigger problem.
It really is us. (Gulp.) It is our fault.
What I mean is this: The problem is embedded in the way we see women, men, and gender roles. It's in the way we define sports. It's in the small things we take for granted as "normal" in our everyday lives about the performance of gender. (Women wear skirts, men don't. Etc.) And in what all of these small things say about bodies and power.
These norms aren't without consequence.
They result in a culture that is less interested in women's sports as spectator activities because of the ways these performances challenge our everyday gendered lives.
Those who go to work for media are products of that culture. They aren't so different from the rest of us.
Not that things can't or won't change. But they happen slowly. Forty years out from Title IX is like 40 days in the big scheme of things. We're talking about a generation --maybe two, I think. Beyond our lifetimes to see real change.
In the meantime: I like what Megan Hueter,in her blog "Because I Played Sports," said about the UConn streak. She talked about the power of community and about the way progressive sports fans have found ways to connect, to create media, and to celebrate women's sports.
The real changes in our connection and celebration of women's sports won't start with big media -- they'll start with us.
-- Marie Hardin
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The sports beat: How much has it really changed?
The latest issue of Nieman Reports looks at the beat structure in news reporting and includes a special focus on sports departments. In a piece about the influence of new media on sports reporting, Curley Center Director Malcolm Moran writes that "competitive pressures are rewriting the rules" by challenging traditional practice in regard to verifying sources and ensuring accuracy. Lindsay Jones, a beat writer for The Denver Post, talks about how she aims to adhere to high journalistic standards even as she races to be the first on the story -- with her thumbs on her phone keypad -- via Twitter.
Not all has changed, however. In a story I wrote about the beat structure in sports departments, I argue that the infinite news hole created by new media hasn't really expanded coverage of women's sports, mostly because beat structures in sports departments haven't changed to allow it. In other words, the technologies may be new, and the challenges to reporters to get the story fast may be more intense, but the types of sports covered and the types of stories consumers get from media sources haven't really changed that much.
The bottom line: It'll take a lot more than technology to see substantive changes in sports media content.
--Marie Hardin
Not all has changed, however. In a story I wrote about the beat structure in sports departments, I argue that the infinite news hole created by new media hasn't really expanded coverage of women's sports, mostly because beat structures in sports departments haven't changed to allow it. In other words, the technologies may be new, and the challenges to reporters to get the story fast may be more intense, but the types of sports covered and the types of stories consumers get from media sources haven't really changed that much.
The bottom line: It'll take a lot more than technology to see substantive changes in sports media content.
--Marie Hardin
Friday, November 19, 2010
Emmert on student athletes and commercialization
New NCAA President Mark Emmert reasserted the top priorities of his predecessor, Myles Brand, in an interview Friday where he emphasized the need to focus on the welfare of student athletes while addressing thorny issues involving commercialization of college athletics.
Emmert was interviewed by Penn State President Graham Spanier for the Big Ten program "Expert Opinion" today at the Newseum. Emmert came to the job from the University of Washington and has been dealing with a number of high-profile issues since moving to Indianapolis in October, including an investigation into rumors of "pay-to-play" involving Auburn quarterback Cam Newton.
Spanier's interview with Emmert generally avoided specific controversies but instead focused on providing an overview of the NCAA. Emmert said student athlete welfare has been --and will be-- a key focus.
"We have to make sure we protect the collegiate model of athletics," Emmert said. "It's frankly the only way we can protect the brand." Related to that is the issue of paying student athletes--an idea that has been the subject of debate. Emmert didn't leave room for speculation.
"Student athletes will never be paid as long as I'm president of the NCAA," he said. Fewer than 20 schools break even on collegiate sports, he added. "It is grossly inappropriate for universities to even talk about paying student athletes."
It's the perception of wealth in big-time programs that is likely driving the discussions about paying athletes. So is the commercialism, which Emmert said presents the most pressing ethical issues he's facing. More revenue is a "good thing," Emmert said, but the model can't compromise the collegiate model. Protecting that balance will be a Herculean effort.
Emmert promised he would also be "very focused" on enforcing NCAA rules. "We have to do enforcement in a way that is fair and honest and transparent," he said. The NCAA has no subpoena power -- and the process is slow and cumbersome. Emmert said he wants to expedite the process--but can't risk getting it right. He also promised to look at organization's rules to make sure focus is on the "bigger issues."
Other issues:
On agents: "I'm very pleased with the level of conversation we're having," Emmert said. "I think we're going to have some good progress there." Emmert said he won't address it just as an enforcement issue but will look at modifying the NCAA's rules, hinting that they could be changed.
On the hiring of African-American football coaches: Football is behind basketball and other sports in mentoring and bringing up minority coaches through the ranks. Emmert said the NCAA needs to use the "bully pulpit" with university presidents and ADs; last year saw some improvement.
On NCAA focus on Div. 2 and Div. 3 schools: These smaller divisions are important --they involve large numbers of student athletes. But Emmert justified the NCAA focus on Division 1. "We have to recognize that Division 1 sports are the revenue drivers...Their (smaller divisions) future is tied to Division 1."
On universities cutting non-revenue sports: "We're probably not done with that."
The program will air Monday on the Big Ten network.
Emmert was interviewed by Penn State President Graham Spanier for the Big Ten program "Expert Opinion" today at the Newseum. Emmert came to the job from the University of Washington and has been dealing with a number of high-profile issues since moving to Indianapolis in October, including an investigation into rumors of "pay-to-play" involving Auburn quarterback Cam Newton.
Spanier's interview with Emmert generally avoided specific controversies but instead focused on providing an overview of the NCAA. Emmert said student athlete welfare has been --and will be-- a key focus.
"We have to make sure we protect the collegiate model of athletics," Emmert said. "It's frankly the only way we can protect the brand." Related to that is the issue of paying student athletes--an idea that has been the subject of debate. Emmert didn't leave room for speculation.
"Student athletes will never be paid as long as I'm president of the NCAA," he said. Fewer than 20 schools break even on collegiate sports, he added. "It is grossly inappropriate for universities to even talk about paying student athletes."
It's the perception of wealth in big-time programs that is likely driving the discussions about paying athletes. So is the commercialism, which Emmert said presents the most pressing ethical issues he's facing. More revenue is a "good thing," Emmert said, but the model can't compromise the collegiate model. Protecting that balance will be a Herculean effort.
Emmert promised he would also be "very focused" on enforcing NCAA rules. "We have to do enforcement in a way that is fair and honest and transparent," he said. The NCAA has no subpoena power -- and the process is slow and cumbersome. Emmert said he wants to expedite the process--but can't risk getting it right. He also promised to look at organization's rules to make sure focus is on the "bigger issues."
Other issues:
On agents: "I'm very pleased with the level of conversation we're having," Emmert said. "I think we're going to have some good progress there." Emmert said he won't address it just as an enforcement issue but will look at modifying the NCAA's rules, hinting that they could be changed.
On the hiring of African-American football coaches: Football is behind basketball and other sports in mentoring and bringing up minority coaches through the ranks. Emmert said the NCAA needs to use the "bully pulpit" with university presidents and ADs; last year saw some improvement.
On NCAA focus on Div. 2 and Div. 3 schools: These smaller divisions are important --they involve large numbers of student athletes. But Emmert justified the NCAA focus on Division 1. "We have to recognize that Division 1 sports are the revenue drivers...Their (smaller divisions) future is tied to Division 1."
On universities cutting non-revenue sports: "We're probably not done with that."
The program will air Monday on the Big Ten network.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Redirecting the gaze
After the epic Baylor-UConn game appeared on national television, the game story also earned a spot on cnn.com’s mobile page. Given that the mobile front page includes about eight headlines on average, cnn’s choice to include the recap represented some nice exposure for women’s collegiate basketball.
The story largely focused on the exciting game, top-level early-season competition and the superstar battle between Maya Moore and Brittney Griner.
However, in discussing Griner, the author included a parenthetical quote from a UConn player expressing amazement at her size near the end of the story.
There is no question that at six-foot-eight, Griner’s stature is unusual. After all, the average height for women in the United States is five-foot-four and 95 percent of 20-year-old women in this country are under five-foot-10.
Given that Griner has received national coverage since she was in high school – and plenty more during her first year of college during the 2009-2010 season, her stature is well-documented and thus remarking on her unusual height is something of old news.
Further, the quote lacked any reference to Griner’s play in this major early-season game and instead brought a focus to Griner’s unusual body. In including the comment, the piece became part of an ongoing narrative that focuses on women’s bodies over their athleticism.
Researchers have long written on the ways in which popular media coverage often emphasizes women’s aesthetic appeal, a practice achieved through featuring female athletes in passive poses rather than action shots, for example, or focusing on their off-the-court activities instead of their on-court athletic endeavors. Both strategies ultimately present female athletes as female first and athlete second.
Remarking on Griner’s body is a new twist on this old theme. When we view female athletes depicted in revealing dresses or with their kids away from athletic competition, we are invited to focus on their femininity – and ultimately their feminine bodies -- as opposed to their athleticism. Focusing on Griner’s unusual body redirects our attention in the same way, taking the focus away from her exploits on the court and returning our gaze to her body.
--Erin Whiteside
The story largely focused on the exciting game, top-level early-season competition and the superstar battle between Maya Moore and Brittney Griner.
However, in discussing Griner, the author included a parenthetical quote from a UConn player expressing amazement at her size near the end of the story.
There is no question that at six-foot-eight, Griner’s stature is unusual. After all, the average height for women in the United States is five-foot-four and 95 percent of 20-year-old women in this country are under five-foot-10.
Given that Griner has received national coverage since she was in high school – and plenty more during her first year of college during the 2009-2010 season, her stature is well-documented and thus remarking on her unusual height is something of old news.
Further, the quote lacked any reference to Griner’s play in this major early-season game and instead brought a focus to Griner’s unusual body. In including the comment, the piece became part of an ongoing narrative that focuses on women’s bodies over their athleticism.
Researchers have long written on the ways in which popular media coverage often emphasizes women’s aesthetic appeal, a practice achieved through featuring female athletes in passive poses rather than action shots, for example, or focusing on their off-the-court activities instead of their on-court athletic endeavors. Both strategies ultimately present female athletes as female first and athlete second.
Remarking on Griner’s body is a new twist on this old theme. When we view female athletes depicted in revealing dresses or with their kids away from athletic competition, we are invited to focus on their femininity – and ultimately their feminine bodies -- as opposed to their athleticism. Focusing on Griner’s unusual body redirects our attention in the same way, taking the focus away from her exploits on the court and returning our gaze to her body.
--Erin Whiteside
Monday, November 15, 2010
Fantasy sports: Tipping point for the NFL?
The Curley Center was host today to a live chat about fantasy sports attended by editors and writers who write for a fantasy sports audience and by a league official (NHL) who coordinates outreach efforts to those fans.
One of the most interesting assertions about fantasy sports is that they were the catalyst for the NFL's rise during the past decade. Alex Simon, senior director of digital media for the NHL, said that fantasy "may be the single biggest explanation behind the NFL's success over the past 15 years" because of its power to turn casual fans of a given team into passionate fans of the game without specific team allegiances. Nate Ravitz, who writes and edits about fantasy sports for ESPN, said that overall, though, fantasy players aren't a large segment of NFL fans.
Even so, the chat reminded us of the power of fantasy sports to dictate how sports are covered. They may also be pulling fans out of the stadium and keeping them in their living rooms during games -- an unintended consequence of fantasy sports. Ravitz said a risk is "creating an environment where fans would rather sit at home and watch the Red Zone channel with their computer in front of them than sit in a football stadium."
There are likely other factors contributing to the decline of fan attendance at some pro events. Fantasy sports participation certainly does impact the way fans consume sports, though, as the panelists pointed out.
Fantasy participation may also encourage more cultural acceptance of gambling on sports. The line can be pretty thin. With professional athletes and journalists both participating in fantasy even as they play or cover the "real thing," the ethical quandaries (and missteps) could be significant.
For more on our online chat, see the transcript.
--M. Hardin
One of the most interesting assertions about fantasy sports is that they were the catalyst for the NFL's rise during the past decade. Alex Simon, senior director of digital media for the NHL, said that fantasy "may be the single biggest explanation behind the NFL's success over the past 15 years" because of its power to turn casual fans of a given team into passionate fans of the game without specific team allegiances. Nate Ravitz, who writes and edits about fantasy sports for ESPN, said that overall, though, fantasy players aren't a large segment of NFL fans.
Even so, the chat reminded us of the power of fantasy sports to dictate how sports are covered. They may also be pulling fans out of the stadium and keeping them in their living rooms during games -- an unintended consequence of fantasy sports. Ravitz said a risk is "creating an environment where fans would rather sit at home and watch the Red Zone channel with their computer in front of them than sit in a football stadium."
There are likely other factors contributing to the decline of fan attendance at some pro events. Fantasy sports participation certainly does impact the way fans consume sports, though, as the panelists pointed out.
Fantasy participation may also encourage more cultural acceptance of gambling on sports. The line can be pretty thin. With professional athletes and journalists both participating in fantasy even as they play or cover the "real thing," the ethical quandaries (and missteps) could be significant.
For more on our online chat, see the transcript.
--M. Hardin
Monday, November 08, 2010
PSUers at NASSS: Research Review
Presentations at the 31st annual NASSS conference wrapped up this weekend, highlighted by a handful of Penn State College of Communications alumni and current students. Alumna Erin Whiteside and graduate student Jason Genovese began the final day of presentations before students Laura Caldwell and Melanie Formentin also presented their current research.
Genovese, currently teaching at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, kicked off an early morning session with his presentation The Complexity of Sports Television Reporting in the Modern Sports-Media Complex. He highlighted the factors that complicate the reporter-source relationship in sports television media production. Using ethnographic techniques, Genovese outlined how reporters are adapting to the changing nature of contemporary reporter-source relationships. Reporters are feeling a push to adapt to new technologies, becoming more versatile and multi-skilled to work with changing technologies. Reporters also face conflicts of ownership; one group often owns the media outlet and the team being covered, meaning reporters must consider the wants of the ownership group when reporting on an issue.
Whiteside, currently teaching at the University of Tennessee, presented her work “I Repeat: I am Not a Lesbian!” Sexuality and Heteronormativity in the Sports Media Workplace. Using discourses of sexuality she analyzed underrepresentation and marginalization of females in sports media. Through interviews with female SIDs, Whiteside found that sexuality is an overwhelming part of the sports media workplace environment. Female sports media practitioners are consciously and constantly fighting the notion of being a lesbian simply because of their choice of profession. Experience playing sports, marital status, and working with women’s sports enhanced these feelings, making these professionals feel as though they needed to defend their sexuality in the work place, whether they were heterosexual or not.
Caldwell’s research, ESPN’s “Body Issue” and the Limits of Liberating Gendered Bodies, used textual analysis to assess that the images presented are both positive and negative. Caldwell analyzed both ESPN “Body” issues to determine if they explored and celebrated athletic form or simply sexualized the athletes photographed. Although the 2010 issue was more sexualized than the original issue, stereotypes of athletic beauty were challenged through the presentation of females engaged in sport and the inclusion of disabled athletes. Male figure skater Evan Lysachek also challenged athletic stereotypes by being shown in a graceful pose. She suggested that, ultimately, interpretations of the images are likely to be dictated by audience perceptions.
Finally, Formentin presented her work Moving Beyond the 2004-05 NHL Lockout: A Fan Survey. In this study, she looked at the 2004-05 lockout as an organizational crisis and attempted to gauge perceptions of the NHL’s reputation five years after the event. Using Situational Crisis Communication Theory, she surveyed 140 fans to assess whether variables of the theory can predict or be attributed to reputation following a crisis. A survey of 140 fans suggests that the league’s reputation has marginally improved. Additionally, Formentin found that it may be possible to deconstruct the notion of reputation to assess both organizational and industry reputation when developing crisis management strategies.
- Melanie Formentin
Genovese, currently teaching at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, kicked off an early morning session with his presentation The Complexity of Sports Television Reporting in the Modern Sports-Media Complex. He highlighted the factors that complicate the reporter-source relationship in sports television media production. Using ethnographic techniques, Genovese outlined how reporters are adapting to the changing nature of contemporary reporter-source relationships. Reporters are feeling a push to adapt to new technologies, becoming more versatile and multi-skilled to work with changing technologies. Reporters also face conflicts of ownership; one group often owns the media outlet and the team being covered, meaning reporters must consider the wants of the ownership group when reporting on an issue.
Whiteside, currently teaching at the University of Tennessee, presented her work “I Repeat: I am Not a Lesbian!” Sexuality and Heteronormativity in the Sports Media Workplace. Using discourses of sexuality she analyzed underrepresentation and marginalization of females in sports media. Through interviews with female SIDs, Whiteside found that sexuality is an overwhelming part of the sports media workplace environment. Female sports media practitioners are consciously and constantly fighting the notion of being a lesbian simply because of their choice of profession. Experience playing sports, marital status, and working with women’s sports enhanced these feelings, making these professionals feel as though they needed to defend their sexuality in the work place, whether they were heterosexual or not.
Caldwell’s research, ESPN’s “Body Issue” and the Limits of Liberating Gendered Bodies, used textual analysis to assess that the images presented are both positive and negative. Caldwell analyzed both ESPN “Body” issues to determine if they explored and celebrated athletic form or simply sexualized the athletes photographed. Although the 2010 issue was more sexualized than the original issue, stereotypes of athletic beauty were challenged through the presentation of females engaged in sport and the inclusion of disabled athletes. Male figure skater Evan Lysachek also challenged athletic stereotypes by being shown in a graceful pose. She suggested that, ultimately, interpretations of the images are likely to be dictated by audience perceptions.
Finally, Formentin presented her work Moving Beyond the 2004-05 NHL Lockout: A Fan Survey. In this study, she looked at the 2004-05 lockout as an organizational crisis and attempted to gauge perceptions of the NHL’s reputation five years after the event. Using Situational Crisis Communication Theory, she surveyed 140 fans to assess whether variables of the theory can predict or be attributed to reputation following a crisis. A survey of 140 fans suggests that the league’s reputation has marginally improved. Additionally, Formentin found that it may be possible to deconstruct the notion of reputation to assess both organizational and industry reputation when developing crisis management strategies.
- Melanie Formentin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
