Sports News Crosses Too Many Lines
| 17
|
by Kayos
I grew up the daughter of an ex-high school basketball coach and a college football referee. My house personified sports. I played Softball for 20 years. So to me, it was kind of natural that I would eventually find a way to direct my career towards sports. I chose becoming part of the radio air waves. I'm one half of the talk show duo that air every Saturday afternoon on http://mediumrare.com/ where radio isn't done well (cheap plug). Moving on, I noticed that being part of the media gives me a responsibility to report fact and steer away from biased opinion. With that being said, when does sports news cross the line?
Watching ESPN growing up, the station provided its watchers with everything they needed to know. Their favorite team status, the standings in their perspective league, the team strategy, and all the good stuff that comes with watching sports. Yet, sports news has taken on a slightly negative turn. Now, ESPN is more concerned with Michael Vick's personal indictment, Barry Bonds' alleged steroid abuse, Pacman Jones' off-the-field antics, and NBA official Tim Donaghy's admittance of game tampering. These storiesd are all worthy of news but should they be covered by stations such as ESPN, Fox Sports, Comcast Sports, Yes Network, etc? Below are 5 things Sports Networks should consider before doing a story.
1. Any performance enhancing drug usage or allegations of performance enhancing drug usage should be covered by major network sports media. The issue of steroids has become a big deal because it directly affects the game. Regardless of what sport, the performance enhancing drugs do to a certain extent change the numbers and the stats. Was Barry Bonds hitting like that 15 years ago as compared to today? No. This does reflect a change for the better in his statistical data. Do I think he took them? As a fan of baseball, I can say there is a definite possibility. Any story that has a direct impact on the game and how it's played should be covered.
2. Any situation involving an athlete off their field of play should be off-limits to major network sports media. Listen, I'm just as curious as anyone about the whole Michael Vick saga. However, I don't want to see his off-the-field, personal business on ESPN or Fox. Why? It has nothing to do with the game. Report the situation between his status and the NFL. Will he be suspended or not? What is this gonna do to the Falcons? Will they or have they already made any changes or acquisitions to recoup the loss? This is stuff people go to ESPN for. I don't want to see nor do I care what he did off the field and it should be left to Fox News, MSNBC, or CourTV. Leave it to the commissioner to determine where Vick's professional career will go and report that. The fact of him taking a plea is being covered by enough media outlets for me to have to be subjected to it every which way I turn. The same goes for Pacman Jones. If he isn't playing on the field, I care less what he's gonna do with his life outside of the sport. If he chooses to be a wrestler, rapper, or candlestick maker. I DON'T CARE. Leave it to the other media outlets that do.
3. Any major crime going on within the sport itself should be covered. Tim Donaghy's gambling actions on the court should be covered because the public has a right to know if their team was screwed out of a potential championship win. This nonsense of betting and gambling on the game should be covered because that is sports news. This man changed the games he was only involved in and that affects 30 teams. Report it. Put it all over ESPN. It has to do with sports and it needs to be reported. There is an exception. We already know Pete Rose bet on his games. The ones he played and the ones he managed. Let it go. If his story changes we will still get the same outcome which always leads to the fact that he did gamble on his games. Move on. The man isn't going into the Hall of Fame. His story is still the same. He gambled. He got caught. No matter how many times he did so. Whether it was every game or every other game, he did it. Move on people. If Pete Rose even remotely tries to open his mouth to say anything that involves gambling, walk away...the story isn't changing just the details.
4. Any story involving a sport that isn't being covered on a regular basis shouldn't be covered on ESPN, FOX, MSNBC, or any Major News Network. Period. End of sentence. Professional Wrestling has always been considered to be a sport that no one wants anything to do with. At all. Yet, when the tragic story of the murder-suicide of Chris Benoit and his family hit, there was a brush fire of news headlines hitting places that don't give wrestling a time of day let alone interviews. Let me rephrase because there are some networks that has covered wrestling. It was brief to say the least. Let those stations cover the story. When I saw ESPN cover the Benoit Tragedy, I was shocked and upset because it doesn't consider WWE, TNA, UFC, or MMA any type of sport worthy to be covered at all. Forget about daily coverage. If it isn't worthy on an everyday basis then don't cover it when tragic news hits. Regardless if your station is looking for an aspect that would pertain to something else newsworthy, don't demean yourself by trying to cover something you don't ever cover just so you can be part of the circus. I can't stand this. People don't care and if they do then they can use the Internet to find out anything they themselves want to know.
5. Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Hilary Duff, Britney Spears are not sports figures! Look, I understand that you want to appeal to a certain demographic of people when reporting news but I could care less who is doing what on the red carpet. Kim Kardashian was dating or is dating Reggie Bush. I don't care. I don't care if Paris Hilton is a skank or was, she doesn't play a sport. I don't care that Carrie Underwood is dating Tony Romo. I don't particularly care for Beyonce and her screaming on key voice either. It isn't worthy of ESPN, FOX Sports, or SI. People who are true sports fans want to read and listen to sports. If we want entertainment, it's called People. It's called E Online or the E channel. We have enough stations that cover the red carpet. ESPN isn't one of those stations. Please let it go.
If sports networks would stick to the premise they had when they were creating the channel, I guarantee you they won't lose any listeners. They just might gain a few. Negative publicity is always news but it isn't always wanted.
