Jock-arazzi

I was watching SportsCentre today and there was an E:60 special on the increase in paparazzi attention on professional athletes. I found it particularly interesting given my last two posts have been focused on sensationalism and its prevalence in today’s media.

The segment offered a lot of insight into just how much time, money and man power is involved. During the Tiger Woods debacle celebrity news blog Splash had a team of 50 photographers and reporters on the Tiger Woods story. This team, in pursuit of Tiger, was flown all around the world at an estimated expense of $10,000-$20,000 a day. As ridiculous as those figures are when you consider that photos of Tiger were generating upwards of $500,000 in sales you can see how those expenses are justified.

But I ask again what does this say about our society?

When Tiger Woods stood in front of the media at a press release and made the plea “please leave my wife and kids alone” no one cared. An Interviewed photographer in response to that plea dismissed it entirely saying that it was Tigers fault that his wife and kids were being hunted by paparazzi, he should have been faithful. The public reacted in the same way, sales didn’t fall, interest didn’t waiver. Everyone still wanted to see how his wife was handling it. They wanted the latest up to date “news”.

Website TMZ is at the foreground of all of this and they are the ones who are looking to set up TMSsports.com a website dedicated to flowing professional athletes and documenting their every move. I went onto their website to have a look at what this new so-called “sports” site might look like. This is what I found (watch the 04/16/10 clip):

http://www.tmz.com/tmz-live/

Now I want you to look at the ESPN site and their story about this increased paparazzi presence.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/e60/news/story?id=5081018

I'll let that comparison speak for itself.

What Happened to Journalism

I don’t know what’s worse, the sensationalist drivel that’s been dominating the media lately or the fact that there’s a demand for it. I touched on it in my last post when I called out CBS sports for referencing an old photo of an intoxicated Ben Rothlisburger in a story about how he was cleared of sexual assault. They added it on the end of the story as if to say, he has been cleared, but he likes to drink so he’s still a bad guy. The reference was out of context and irrelevant, it served no purpose other than to further vilify Big Ben and permeate the scandal. It’s also no different to way that the New Zealand media handled the now infamous “Andrew Williams pee’s on a tree” story.

I challenge you to find a New Zealand man who has not at some point in his life pee’d on a tree. For me it’s an almost ritualistic occurrence whenever I’m out on the drink. It’s a way of life for the vast majority of Kiwi men. Yet when the North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams pees on a tree it headlines TV3 News. If he got naked and ran down the road squirting away like the sprinklers at the cricket then OK, I can understand all of the media attention. But he was behind a tree, behind a building, in an area where he would have been safe to assume no one was looking. Unfortunately of course someone was looking. What’s even more unfortunate is that they worked for The Sunday Star Times, a paper who apparently cares more about scandal and allegations than they do about facts and news.

The Times broke the story with the headline “Call for mayor to quit after night on town”. A headline that was hardly fitting given the allegations were he was drinking during the day. They went on to publish; “Call for North Shore mayor to quit after night on the town”, a story that due to lacking factual evidence relied heavily on past instances of William’s questionable behavior. Since this original story in the Sunday Star Times there have been numerous conflicting accounts of the events that occurred.
On John Campbell’s show Campbell Live, an interview with GPK bar staff revealed that the mayor had not been drinking all day like the Star Times claimed. And that he had in fact been in a meeting from 4-5 and that while at GPK he had shared two bottles of wine with three people and did not look intoxicated when he left. The Sunday Star Times then refuted this saying that they had an interview of the GPK bar staff saying he had 2 bottles all by himself. As if this wasn’t cloudy enough a waitress at neighboring restaurant Portofino said in an interview with Campbell live that Andrew Williams was there with a group of people from 12pm until 6pm. However there was no mention of him drinking. This account also conflicts with the story of how he was in a meeting from 4-5. A story that has since been supported by a document claiming Williams defiantly attended the meeting.

What I’m trying to get at here is that no one knows what happened. The Sunday Star Times original story was based solely on allegations and the events that followed in the media illustrated that they did very little research. Their sensationalist story’s soul objective was to attack the North Shore Mayor’s character. The fact that this was acceptable to a legitimate New Zealand newspaper is deeply concerning. When did scandal become headline news? When did sensationalism become an acceptable replacement to journalism? I thought that the popularity of the E! Channel and the droves of gossip magazines were bad enough. But now these pathetic scandals are dominating the newspapers and the 6 o’clock news.

What does it say about our society?

The Hypocrisy of the NFL

The NFL is fast becoming a joke. As an outsider looking in, all of these "off the field issues" are getting very comical. There are players shooting themselves in nightclubs, trying to carry loaded guns onto planes, beating up their body guards, and we can’t forget getting charged with rape. The NFL news sites are an illegitimate pregnancy away from being full fledged gossip rags, it’s laughable. The problem in my eyes isn’t the fact that all these players are getting in trouble off the field but the reaction of the league, the teams, the fans and the media. There is NO consistency or rationality in the punishments; the Commissioner Rodger Goodell’s no-nonsense policy is absolute nonsense. The team’s draft or sign players with a history of "off field issues" then when the players inevitably get into trouble they vilify the players, avoid all responsibility and act like they didn’t see it coming. The fans proclaim these troubled players are scumbags and filth yet when their team acquires one for a bargain price they are suddenly the missing pieces to the puzzle that will lead their team to the Promised Land. The media write these big pieces that can more accurately be described as sensationalism than journalism, vilifying players for anything that calls into question their morality. I’m not condoning the things that these players do, as a NFL fan I hate what these players are doing to the sport, but everyone is just perpetuating the problem. It’s hilarious.

I recently read an article on the CBS sports website about how Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Big Roethlisberger was cleared of his sexual assault charge. I’m not going to go into the whole guilty vs. innocent debate I’m more interested in the final line of the piece:

“Early in his career, he was photographed -- obviously after drinking -- wearing a T-shirt reading "Drink Like a Champion." “

This is text book yellow/sensationalist journalism. What was this meant to achieve? Other than enhancing the scandal and thus its appeal to readers it has no relevance to the article. There is nothing wrong with drinking a few beers and wearing a novelty T-Shirt, and further more it happened years ago and wasn’t news then. It perpetuates the problem.

If Goodell really wanted to stamp out these issues he’d do better than the 4-week suspensions he typically hands out. The NFL needs to adopt a policy that signals out the repeat offenders and holds not only the players but the teams responsible. As it stands now teams are better of with the players than without them. Sure they might catch a bit of stick from the media and the public but they are better off on the field if they retain these players, or if they acquire them via trades or free agency. The reactions of the Fans enforce this. How many fans are calling for their teams to trade for Michael Vick ? What’s the bet that a big chunk of these guys where calling him the scum of the earth when he was with the Falcons ? I would put money on the fact that if Big Ben got released by the Steelers the same fans who are trashing him on these boards would turn around and say that he's learned his lesson and that their teams should sign him. It's laughable.

If it were up to me and I wanted to stamp all of this out I’d create a three strikes policy. Three offenses and you’re done. For good. Players who have had issues prior to entering the league start on one strike. If a team retains or adds a player after they’ve had a strike they are liable for a fine if that player re-offends, the fines increase if that player has two strikes. A policy like that would show the players, the teams and the sporting public that these issues will not be tolerated.

But that won’t happen; at the end of the day if these players help a team win they are wanted. So I’ll just continue to sit back and laugh at the hypocrisy of the league and the fans whose prime concern is apparently the integrity of the NFL and it's public image.