| One big issue of sports, whether it is in real life or in books and movies, is the the portrayal of minorities. We have all heard and seen how race can play a part in sports. Just think about recently with Donovan McNabb saying that black quarterbacks get treated differently. Or remember how Gary Sheffield claimed earlier this year that Joe Torre treats the minority players differently than white players. It has always been a sensitive issue in sports, but chapter 11 in the Handbook points out how there has been some progress, at least in movies. Baker did a study in 2003 that found that relatively recent basketball films such as White Men Can't Jump, the Air up There and Above the Rim "emphasize the importance of interracial relationships." He also brought up Cool Runnings and the Rocky films by saying they portray positive relations between Black and White characters. At the same time, though, Baker and others have argued there is still a way to go. There is the movie Major League, in which a Cuban-born Black player "shaves his head clean with a hunting knife and communicates mostly by grunting and glaring." This shows how minorities can still be portrayed in typical, negative manners. My question is where do you think we are when it comes to portraying minorities in sports movies, and even books? I think Hollywood has made a move in the right direction, but the Major League example shows there is still room to go. The weird thing is that when I read about Major League I had never realized how negative that portrayal of the player really is. So, do you think race will always be an issue in sports movies, like it seems like it will always be in sports? Another question that comes up with sports movies and books is why do viewers get attached to these fictional characters. For example, when I went to see the final Rocky, why were people applauding and cheering like little children when Rocky Balboa was training for the fight, and then after his last fight? One theory that attempts to answer this is the disposition theory. According to this theory "viewers form opinions about characters depicted in fictional narratives as they process media messages." Basically, it is saying that the viewer will hope for a positive outcome for characters who have formed a positive disposition (the good guy). Viewers will experience either positive or negative feelings as the movie or book goes on, depending on the actions of the characters. An example the book uses is the movie For the Love of the Game. This movies follows the career of pitcher Billy Chapel to his final pitching appearance. Because we the viewers have seen all the main events in his life and career, we feel attached to him and want to see him succeed. There is still some debate about how much the disposition theory works in sports fiction, but what do you think about it? I had never thought about sports movie characters like this but I think it is true. This works with teams too, as you want to see the underdog teams in movies win at the end Are there any characters or teams in sports movies or books that you found yourself rooting for at the end, and why do you think that happened? Chapter 9 in "Media Sport" was all bout the evolution of sports heroes. It talks about how over time the media has gained power in molding our heroes, especially in sports. This relates to the disposition theory in a way because the movies are making certain characters into heroes, making viewers want to see them do well. Just like the media (newspapers, tv) can make athletes into stars, movie directors know how to make a certain character heroic. A prime example of this is with Rocky. His character, courage, and family values make him feel like the everyman. At the same time his good performances in big fights make him what is known as the "modern sports hero." Links: This is a link to a ESPN.com Page 2's list of the top 20 sports movies of all time. A list like this will always cause some debate. http://espn.go.com/page2/movies/s/top20/fulllist.html Always a classic: Rocky I, training scene. This shows his hard-working attitude, and definately makes the viewer want to see him succeed. http://youtube.com/watch?v=cavFoyYJwPQ |
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sports fiction (books and movies) 2
Sports fiction
Ron and I both have the same knowledge when it comes to sports movies and books so we decided to just split up the issues in sports fiction as a whole, rather than by each medium.
One big problem with sports ficiton is that the lines are blurred as to what the criteria are for making a literary work "sports fiction". Some authors from the book say that sports must "play an integral part." But even that definiton is unclear, as the term "integral' is up for debate. Another author said that a sports novel "is simpy one in which sport plays a dominant role." What do you think? What makes a novel a true sports novel, or a film a true sports movie? Does the theme and idea have to be based solely around the sport itself, or can sports just be a backdrop in order to be called sports fiction? Also, does the sport involved matter? For instance, many of us have seen Any Given Sunday and consider that to be a decent sports movie. But what about Bring It On, or Searching for Bobby Fischer? Those movies deal with cheer leading and chess, respectively. Do we consider those to be sports movies? Another debate I found interesting from the reading was about which medium is better suited to tell a sports story; books or film. One author said that "literary works involvoing sports are vastly more complex than their cinematic counterparts." Many books have been turned into movies or shows, and vice versa. Friday Night Lights, the Legend of Bagger Vance, Seabiscuit, etc...are all examples. I happen to be more a fan of sports movies than books, but that could just be because I dont really like reading. I am a visual person and feel that the action and drama is better captured on the screen, expecially with todays techonlogy, than in a book. If any of you guys have read sports novels, which do you prefer, books or movies? Do you think the two mediums change the story?
Another issue I think worth talking about is gender and sports fiction. We have discussed this topic in previous classes when talking about TV and radio. But the trend seems to carry over to sports literature. Women are not there. For the most part. Women are usually just cheerleaders and temptations for the macho male athlete. One author says that "women are ultimately portrayed as subservient to men." Of course there are some exceptions, like Million Dollar Baby and A League of Their Own, but they are usually the exception, not the rule. So that raises the obvious question...why? Even in modern times when women are equal to men in so many regards, why are women still the minority in sports fiction? I happen to think that it deals with the idea that sports in general are more of a masculine activity. The sports that men play are often more entertaining and contain more action that female sports, so naturally they are better suited for the big screen.
This is a YouTube "movie" containing clips from sports films about heroes. The song is a little fruity but its fairly entertaining. Are these figures really heroes?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYfET45Q7I8
This is a clip from my favorite movie "He Got Game." It shows the lifestyle of a star high school athlete, dealing with all of his temptations and the decisions he must make. Some material is not suitable for children under the age of 18, but were all 18 so enjoy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uw3PkZBzvnM
One big problem with sports ficiton is that the lines are blurred as to what the criteria are for making a literary work "sports fiction". Some authors from the book say that sports must "play an integral part." But even that definiton is unclear, as the term "integral' is up for debate. Another author said that a sports novel "is simpy one in which sport plays a dominant role." What do you think? What makes a novel a true sports novel, or a film a true sports movie? Does the theme and idea have to be based solely around the sport itself, or can sports just be a backdrop in order to be called sports fiction? Also, does the sport involved matter? For instance, many of us have seen Any Given Sunday and consider that to be a decent sports movie. But what about Bring It On, or Searching for Bobby Fischer? Those movies deal with cheer leading and chess, respectively. Do we consider those to be sports movies? Another debate I found interesting from the reading was about which medium is better suited to tell a sports story; books or film. One author said that "literary works involvoing sports are vastly more complex than their cinematic counterparts." Many books have been turned into movies or shows, and vice versa. Friday Night Lights, the Legend of Bagger Vance, Seabiscuit, etc...are all examples. I happen to be more a fan of sports movies than books, but that could just be because I dont really like reading. I am a visual person and feel that the action and drama is better captured on the screen, expecially with todays techonlogy, than in a book. If any of you guys have read sports novels, which do you prefer, books or movies? Do you think the two mediums change the story?
Another issue I think worth talking about is gender and sports fiction. We have discussed this topic in previous classes when talking about TV and radio. But the trend seems to carry over to sports literature. Women are not there. For the most part. Women are usually just cheerleaders and temptations for the macho male athlete. One author says that "women are ultimately portrayed as subservient to men." Of course there are some exceptions, like Million Dollar Baby and A League of Their Own, but they are usually the exception, not the rule. So that raises the obvious question...why? Even in modern times when women are equal to men in so many regards, why are women still the minority in sports fiction? I happen to think that it deals with the idea that sports in general are more of a masculine activity. The sports that men play are often more entertaining and contain more action that female sports, so naturally they are better suited for the big screen.
This is a YouTube "movie" containing clips from sports films about heroes. The song is a little fruity but its fairly entertaining. Are these figures really heroes?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYfET45Q7I8
This is a clip from my favorite movie "He Got Game." It shows the lifestyle of a star high school athlete, dealing with all of his temptations and the decisions he must make. Some material is not suitable for children under the age of 18, but were all 18 so enjoy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uw3PkZBzvnM
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Sports and the Internet
For this week’s blog I will be talking about sports on the internet. Raney and Bryant bring up a lot of good points about fantasy sports, gambling, advertising and sports on the internet all together.
Fantasy leagues are clearly one of the more popular online attractions for people. The majority of people involved in fantasy leagues are young men ages 18-35. How many of you are currently subscribed to a fantasy league? Why do you think women are not as involved in either fantasy sports or online sports gambling? Now, because of the rise in fantasy leagues, fans are routing for individual players instead of teams. I think it’s funny that fantasy has become so popular that on their websites (sports.yahoo.com/fantasy) they have ‘expert analysis’ with sports buffs giving their insights. Spinning off of fantasy, comes the sports gambling issue. Currently, the U.S. is fighting major casinos that have their own sports gambling on offshore websites, i.e. the Mirage. I thought it was interesting that the majority of the gambling comes from college athletes, who actually bet on their own games. It makes you wonder if there is any underlying intention of them purposely doing badly in order to make money off their bets. Why is it that you think that women don’t get into sports gambling either?
Another topic that was covered in the book was about the demise of sports on television because of the advancements in the internet. Companies now have entire websites dedicated to sports. Now fans are able to go online and watch their favorite teams in games that they would otherwise not be able to watch. The internet is a great way for fans that don’t live in the city that their favorite team plays in to watch the game. March Madness is a perfect example. People commonly root for teams who are no where near where they live. There are so many games going on at one time that it is impossible for every single game to be broadcast on television...therefore it makes the most sense to put all the games online and let fans pick what games they want to watch. The Olympics and World Cup falls into the same category because there is usually a time change. People are unable to watch the games because they are on at awkward times, so because of the internet they able to see what happened in their favorite event or if Manchester United beat Liverpool.
Blogs, like sports radio from last week, are a vehicle for getting fans together to voice their opinions. However, blogs, different than radio are an easier medium for fans to get into contact with one another. Also unlike radio, if you don’t like what the person is discussing you don’t have to read the rest of their post; with radio you have to listen until the caller is done saying what they have to say.
The internet could however potentially hurt advertisements. Watching games on TV, you are forced to sit through plenty of commercials, however, watching the games online, there is only one ad that is played over and over again (usually, I’m not an online sports aficionado). And they also have banner ads on the sides but it’s not like anyone ever clicks through the pages to look at the ads. I really don’t think that the internet is going to be the end all of sports on television though. Would you all rather watch sports on TV or online? The other issue that came up in the book with regards to ads is TiVo. Because people are able to record games and watch them later, they can skip the commercials or fast-forward through them. That means the ads are not getting to the consumer and it makes the ads worth less. Do you think that companies will be less likely to advertise because of DVR?
Think of it this way, if we didn’t have sports on the internet none of us would be able to post on this blog every week and that would be a damn shame. I hope everyone had an eventful weekend….see you Tuesday!
Fantasy leagues are clearly one of the more popular online attractions for people. The majority of people involved in fantasy leagues are young men ages 18-35. How many of you are currently subscribed to a fantasy league? Why do you think women are not as involved in either fantasy sports or online sports gambling? Now, because of the rise in fantasy leagues, fans are routing for individual players instead of teams. I think it’s funny that fantasy has become so popular that on their websites (sports.yahoo.com/fantasy) they have ‘expert analysis’ with sports buffs giving their insights. Spinning off of fantasy, comes the sports gambling issue. Currently, the U.S. is fighting major casinos that have their own sports gambling on offshore websites, i.e. the Mirage. I thought it was interesting that the majority of the gambling comes from college athletes, who actually bet on their own games. It makes you wonder if there is any underlying intention of them purposely doing badly in order to make money off their bets. Why is it that you think that women don’t get into sports gambling either?
Another topic that was covered in the book was about the demise of sports on television because of the advancements in the internet. Companies now have entire websites dedicated to sports. Now fans are able to go online and watch their favorite teams in games that they would otherwise not be able to watch. The internet is a great way for fans that don’t live in the city that their favorite team plays in to watch the game. March Madness is a perfect example. People commonly root for teams who are no where near where they live. There are so many games going on at one time that it is impossible for every single game to be broadcast on television...therefore it makes the most sense to put all the games online and let fans pick what games they want to watch. The Olympics and World Cup falls into the same category because there is usually a time change. People are unable to watch the games because they are on at awkward times, so because of the internet they able to see what happened in their favorite event or if Manchester United beat Liverpool.
Blogs, like sports radio from last week, are a vehicle for getting fans together to voice their opinions. However, blogs, different than radio are an easier medium for fans to get into contact with one another. Also unlike radio, if you don’t like what the person is discussing you don’t have to read the rest of their post; with radio you have to listen until the caller is done saying what they have to say.
The internet could however potentially hurt advertisements. Watching games on TV, you are forced to sit through plenty of commercials, however, watching the games online, there is only one ad that is played over and over again (usually, I’m not an online sports aficionado). And they also have banner ads on the sides but it’s not like anyone ever clicks through the pages to look at the ads. I really don’t think that the internet is going to be the end all of sports on television though. Would you all rather watch sports on TV or online? The other issue that came up in the book with regards to ads is TiVo. Because people are able to record games and watch them later, they can skip the commercials or fast-forward through them. That means the ads are not getting to the consumer and it makes the ads worth less. Do you think that companies will be less likely to advertise because of DVR?
Think of it this way, if we didn’t have sports on the internet none of us would be able to post on this blog every week and that would be a damn shame. I hope everyone had an eventful weekend….see you Tuesday!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sports on TV
Hey all, hope everyone had a great weekend. Like Manning said I will be talking about sports and television.
As I was reading the chapters, I noticed that sports on television are one of the main out sources for sports, entertainment and advertising. Not only does TV celebrate main sports events but TV has shows that constantly talk about sports an example including SportsCenter on ESPN. Truly believe that sports would not be what they are today without television. The chapters discuss they evolvement of sports on television. It always has a steady audience and racks in ratings.
Sports channels have become standard channels in the American household today. At any given time a viewer can find basically any sport on TV. ESPN is a major channel broadcasting every sports from curling to poker. Cable and Satellite TV have now brought many channels to American homes. There is now channels like the YES Network, the Football channel and the Tennis Channel. So the question I bring to the class is, where would sports be today without television? And what do you think our culture would be like if sports was not an everyday occurrence on TV? There is never a time when there is not a season for a popular sport. At any given time there is a major league sport broadcast over television.
Not only are we interested in American sports but there has become a global marketing strategy to bring international teams to our country and American teams to foreign countries. A prime example is David Beckham coming to the LA Galaxy soccer team. As we have talked about in class, soccer is not a popular sport in America. Bringing a star like David Beckham to the US has sparked an excitement in our society. Below are articles I have found about the Beckham’s coming to America and sports ratings and how they have grown.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=399465&cc=5901
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-06-15-weekend_x.htm
http://wordpress.com/tag/cable-tv-ratings/
As I was reading the chapters, I noticed that sports on television are one of the main out sources for sports, entertainment and advertising. Not only does TV celebrate main sports events but TV has shows that constantly talk about sports an example including SportsCenter on ESPN. Truly believe that sports would not be what they are today without television. The chapters discuss they evolvement of sports on television. It always has a steady audience and racks in ratings.
Sports channels have become standard channels in the American household today. At any given time a viewer can find basically any sport on TV. ESPN is a major channel broadcasting every sports from curling to poker. Cable and Satellite TV have now brought many channels to American homes. There is now channels like the YES Network, the Football channel and the Tennis Channel. So the question I bring to the class is, where would sports be today without television? And what do you think our culture would be like if sports was not an everyday occurrence on TV? There is never a time when there is not a season for a popular sport. At any given time there is a major league sport broadcast over television.
Not only are we interested in American sports but there has become a global marketing strategy to bring international teams to our country and American teams to foreign countries. A prime example is David Beckham coming to the LA Galaxy soccer team. As we have talked about in class, soccer is not a popular sport in America. Bringing a star like David Beckham to the US has sparked an excitement in our society. Below are articles I have found about the Beckham’s coming to America and sports ratings and how they have grown.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=399465&cc=5901
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-06-15-weekend_x.htm
http://wordpress.com/tag/cable-tv-ratings/
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Sports on the Radio
First I just want to let everyone know that I’m going to be posting about radio, and Justine will be posting on TV so that we don’t talk about the same things.
Second, I wanted to mention that, unlike some of my classmates, this topic is kind of hard for me to write about. I’ve never been a big sports radio fan (I like visuals, I learn more), but this summer I got a chance to work at Sirius Sports Central channel 123 when my boss started hosting his own show, and I gained a lot of respect for sports radio. I now listen to “Movin’ the Chains” with Pat Kirwin, Tim Ryan, and others because those guys crack me up. I’m curious to know how many of us actually listen to sports on the radio (I can just hear Jared now). So, if you do listen to sports radio, why? What shows? The chapter mentions sports radio personalities (or just Jim Rome) and the loyalty that some fans have… is there anyone you have devotion towards? Why is sports radio so popular? Is it because, as Ron Barr said, “We can relate to sports because sports is a reflection of life itself. We all compete every day; sports is that release.”
I have to say the end of the chapter poses some interesting questions. The lack of research on sports radio is amazing. A Google search of the terms just brings up stations websites. I couldn’t find much to talk about via the internet (probably because if there are issues concerning sports radio, I just don’t know about them). So, here’s my experiment. I’m going to post a link to a youtube video. The video is of the last play of the ending of the Appalachian State vs. Michigan game from 9/1. The first time it plays, the announcer is Thom Brennaman from the Big Ten Network and the second is the radio call from the Appalachian State radio network announcers David Jackson and Steve Brown (he’s the one who just screams). Try to close your eyes during the second call so that you can pretend it actually is radio. So, which call do you think is the better one? Why do you think the radio call is the one getting more attention? Does this clip illustrate anything about sports coverage on the radio as compared to television?
The clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLE_bT_Zn7U
The chapter does touch on the masculinity of sports radio as a whole. While it is true that majority of sports radio shows are hosted by men, talking about male sports, shows with and about women are out there. Sirius has "The Fantoo Girls" who I have listened to before. They offer a female point of view on the world of sports thats usually pretty funny and insightful. We've discussed the inequalities of women's sports in the media with our discussion on newspapers. But I want to know if anyone sees female sports radio personalities as just a novelty or could the profession be changing?
As a kind of last point there’s a quote in the chapter that I wanted to bring up, Goldberg writes “Supporting one’s team has taken the place of what it was like supporting one’s country, right or wrong. Sports talk radio is the propaganda machine of the new fan-aticism.” Sports on the radio truly has evolved from just straight coverage of games to now channels on satellite devoted to individual sports to podcasts devoted to anything and everything sports. But why? Does anyone truly have the time to sit and listen to all of these sports shows? I was overwhelmed just looking at the ESPNradio website. Why is it so entertaining to listen to hours of content containing some stats and someone else’s opinion?
-- Lauren
Second, I wanted to mention that, unlike some of my classmates, this topic is kind of hard for me to write about. I’ve never been a big sports radio fan (I like visuals, I learn more), but this summer I got a chance to work at Sirius Sports Central channel 123 when my boss started hosting his own show, and I gained a lot of respect for sports radio. I now listen to “Movin’ the Chains” with Pat Kirwin, Tim Ryan, and others because those guys crack me up. I’m curious to know how many of us actually listen to sports on the radio (I can just hear Jared now). So, if you do listen to sports radio, why? What shows? The chapter mentions sports radio personalities (or just Jim Rome) and the loyalty that some fans have… is there anyone you have devotion towards? Why is sports radio so popular? Is it because, as Ron Barr said, “We can relate to sports because sports is a reflection of life itself. We all compete every day; sports is that release.”
I have to say the end of the chapter poses some interesting questions. The lack of research on sports radio is amazing. A Google search of the terms just brings up stations websites. I couldn’t find much to talk about via the internet (probably because if there are issues concerning sports radio, I just don’t know about them). So, here’s my experiment. I’m going to post a link to a youtube video. The video is of the last play of the ending of the Appalachian State vs. Michigan game from 9/1. The first time it plays, the announcer is Thom Brennaman from the Big Ten Network and the second is the radio call from the Appalachian State radio network announcers David Jackson and Steve Brown (he’s the one who just screams). Try to close your eyes during the second call so that you can pretend it actually is radio. So, which call do you think is the better one? Why do you think the radio call is the one getting more attention? Does this clip illustrate anything about sports coverage on the radio as compared to television?
The clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLE_bT_Zn7U
The chapter does touch on the masculinity of sports radio as a whole. While it is true that majority of sports radio shows are hosted by men, talking about male sports, shows with and about women are out there. Sirius has "The Fantoo Girls" who I have listened to before. They offer a female point of view on the world of sports thats usually pretty funny and insightful. We've discussed the inequalities of women's sports in the media with our discussion on newspapers. But I want to know if anyone sees female sports radio personalities as just a novelty or could the profession be changing?
As a kind of last point there’s a quote in the chapter that I wanted to bring up, Goldberg writes “Supporting one’s team has taken the place of what it was like supporting one’s country, right or wrong. Sports talk radio is the propaganda machine of the new fan-aticism.” Sports on the radio truly has evolved from just straight coverage of games to now channels on satellite devoted to individual sports to podcasts devoted to anything and everything sports. But why? Does anyone truly have the time to sit and listen to all of these sports shows? I was overwhelmed just looking at the ESPNradio website. Why is it so entertaining to listen to hours of content containing some stats and someone else’s opinion?
-- Lauren
Friday, September 7, 2007
Men Women Children and Newspapers
Since there will usually be two or three posts a week offering people different things to respond to, I decided I’d touch on a few things just so that people could choose from some different ideas to respond to.
I was very interested to see some of the research figures about the sports section near the end of the chapter. According to a 2000 ASNE survey, readers are more satisfied with the quality of the sports section than most other parts of the paper. As an observation just from taking a train into the city every day this summer, I saw many people who bought either the New York Post or the Daily News every day just for the local sports section. So I guess I wanted to pose a question to the class: What do you think makes the local sports section often times the most popular part of the paper? I will try to spark the discussion by saying that our country’s news coverage wildly varies from day to day ranging from a war often ignored by the media to the never say die Anna Nicole Smith coverage. Perhaps sports coverage is incredibly popular because like sports itself, the coverage is consistent. If your team wins, you read about why they won; if they lose you read about why they lost. The ease of the sports section actually leads me to my next mini topic.
It is really important that Raney and Bryant touched on the fact that the sports section is often what attracts kids to the news paper. With the prominence of the internet, this is not as big of a deal as it used to be, but nonetheless if a parent encouraged a child to read a newspaper, the sports section counted. And as a child, I remember the sports section of the New York Times being a lot more bad-ass than the world section. The sports section is an important tool for helping kids and teenagers get used to reading about current events, and often times the sports section is the gateway to the rest of the paper. So another question is: What would the newspaper look like without the sports section; and how do you think would it affect a paper’s popularity?
Obviously, the biggest topic of debate from this chapter is the Male Athlete’s domination of the sports section headlines. Stories about male athletes outnumbered that of females 23:1. In what was referred to as “symbolic annihilation,” in the book, this can create the notion that women’s athletic feats were irrelevant. So another question I will raise is: Why do you think that female athletics go so unnoticed? The only thing I could think of is that the news papers are working under the same guidelines as the rest of the news media. Go with what you know people will watch, listen to, read. These next two links should point out how minimal coverage of female athletics are. These are the front pages to espn.com and Sports Illustrated. As I type this at 11:00pm on Friday night (due to my being on RA duty). There are no stories or pictures about women on the front page of ESPN.com; and on SI.com the only picture of a female is a swimsuit edition model. Is sports media really becoming man’s answer to glamour and fashion?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/
http://espn.go.com/
Lastly; I love sports writing because it allows you to read a writer’s material and completely imagine their personality. The following two links are from my favorite sports writer Bill Simmons, who mixes tons of pop culture references into his “semi-professional” quality writing. Enjoy.
Part1: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonspreview/070906&sportCat=nfl
Part2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonspreview/070907&sportCat=nfl
I was very interested to see some of the research figures about the sports section near the end of the chapter. According to a 2000 ASNE survey, readers are more satisfied with the quality of the sports section than most other parts of the paper. As an observation just from taking a train into the city every day this summer, I saw many people who bought either the New York Post or the Daily News every day just for the local sports section. So I guess I wanted to pose a question to the class: What do you think makes the local sports section often times the most popular part of the paper? I will try to spark the discussion by saying that our country’s news coverage wildly varies from day to day ranging from a war often ignored by the media to the never say die Anna Nicole Smith coverage. Perhaps sports coverage is incredibly popular because like sports itself, the coverage is consistent. If your team wins, you read about why they won; if they lose you read about why they lost. The ease of the sports section actually leads me to my next mini topic.
It is really important that Raney and Bryant touched on the fact that the sports section is often what attracts kids to the news paper. With the prominence of the internet, this is not as big of a deal as it used to be, but nonetheless if a parent encouraged a child to read a newspaper, the sports section counted. And as a child, I remember the sports section of the New York Times being a lot more bad-ass than the world section. The sports section is an important tool for helping kids and teenagers get used to reading about current events, and often times the sports section is the gateway to the rest of the paper. So another question is: What would the newspaper look like without the sports section; and how do you think would it affect a paper’s popularity?
Obviously, the biggest topic of debate from this chapter is the Male Athlete’s domination of the sports section headlines. Stories about male athletes outnumbered that of females 23:1. In what was referred to as “symbolic annihilation,” in the book, this can create the notion that women’s athletic feats were irrelevant. So another question I will raise is: Why do you think that female athletics go so unnoticed? The only thing I could think of is that the news papers are working under the same guidelines as the rest of the news media. Go with what you know people will watch, listen to, read. These next two links should point out how minimal coverage of female athletics are. These are the front pages to espn.com and Sports Illustrated. As I type this at 11:00pm on Friday night (due to my being on RA duty). There are no stories or pictures about women on the front page of ESPN.com; and on SI.com the only picture of a female is a swimsuit edition model. Is sports media really becoming man’s answer to glamour and fashion?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/
http://espn.go.com/
Lastly; I love sports writing because it allows you to read a writer’s material and completely imagine their personality. The following two links are from my favorite sports writer Bill Simmons, who mixes tons of pop culture references into his “semi-professional” quality writing. Enjoy.
Part1: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonspreview/070906&sportCat=nfl
Part2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonspreview/070907&sportCat=nfl
Monday, September 3, 2007
Welcome to the Sports & Media class blog!
Welcome everyone to our blog! If you have something to say about sports & media, this is the place to post. Class members - please check in by responding to this message.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)