Should athletes be compelled to talk to the media?

The Game Room
101

This reminded me that pre-covid I started to really dislike sports talk radio. It’s unrelentingly negative, yes they talk about the wins and the good things that happen, but it’s always back to the negative, because that’s what sells. It’s easier to complain about a player for an hour than applaud him for an hour.

Conflict, failure, and scandal are more interesting than nice people who sportsball really good. The best result of these press conferences for the player is to give them nothing interesting to write. If the reporters leave really happy, the player is screwed.

102

Which she does by being really, really awesome at tennis.

I am confused by people saying they’d rather see people who aren’t as good, but answer 10 minutes of questions post game over the top players who don’t. I’d prefer the better game. Especially when those top players also talk directly to fans through twitter, instagram, and tiktok all the time.

Also, everything that Banquet_Bear said in post 96.

103

In the NRL, they bail up the players during the match i.e. as they’re walking off to the sheds at half time. I’m sure they love it and are asked insightful questions and give insightful answers.

104

The AAF (a short-lived American Gridiron Football league) tried interviewing players during the game.

It was predictably awful.

105

One of the big reasons for the forced media is the reaction to a loss. Very few highly competitive people will want to go through their failure step by step with the media. “Why did you miss that last shot” is entertaining and helps construct reasons to root for or against a player.

One of my favorite baseball players has a narrative about how he is horrible in the playoff and hearing him talk about his successes and failures is very interesting to me and it was one of the reasons him winning the world series last year was so great.

Maybe this tennis player deconstructs her losses on Twitter after each match and so there is no reason for the media to ask her questions but from a tournament prospective it makes sense to set it up in advance that everyone has to talk about it and allowing one person to skip the grilling just gives other the excuse to do it too and in the end only the champion will talk while everyone else will have depression about their loss.

106

That Guardian article conveyed a problem very well: A lot of the media - not just sports media, but media as a whole - is all about bloodthirsty “gotchas.” Relentlessly attempting to trap and bait someone, whether it’s an athlete, celebrity or politician.

107

Your post seems to exhibit a great deal of anti-media bias. It’s also rather odd that after bashing the media, you quote two media pieces that strenuously defend Osaka. The fact is that responsible media are, indeed, neutral actors. The perception of an adversarial relationship with an interviewee is most often simply the result of seeking factual truth in the face of what is often self-serving bullshit, especially from politicians. A good example was Katie Couric’s famous interview with Sarah Palin, in which Couric was accused (mostly by conservatives) of being “hostile” to Palin. As Couric later patiently explained, she was just trying to get Palin to substantiate the claims she had been making.

And therein lies the problem with the idea that some here have been trying to advance that in the era of social media, athletes and other celebrities no longer need to rely on conventional media to communicate with their fans. Perhaps not, but what you get from that kind of unchallenged monologue is, by definition, entirely one-sided, and is therefore potentially self-serving bullshit. The role of responsible media continues to be what it has always been: to provide balanced facts. To do that, sometimes they do have to be respectfully adversarial, and not just a fawning echo chamber for their subject. And I think that major celebrity athletes pulling in millions of dollars, which ultimately comes from their fans, have a responsibility to participate in that process. If they don’t want the responsibility that comes with fame and influence, no one is stopping them from stepping down from that role.

108

…that probably was because I was critiquing the media.

Not that odd at all if you read for context.

Even responsible media are not neutral actors. The two articles I cited were not neutral. They were far from neutral.

There is a difference between an interview with someone who wants to be Vice President of the United States and a 17-year old who just wants to play tennis. I’ll quote what was asked of a player just a couple of days ago again:

What possible reason could there be for a seasoned, experienced journalist to ask such an adversarial question to a 17 year old?

“Perhaps not” is really is all that probably needs to be said.

What do you mean unchallenged?

Here is her twitter account.

https://twitter.com/naomiosaka

Do you have any questions? You can ask her yourself. What do you think she should be challenged on? Feel free to challenge her.

The media landscape is changing. I’m a photographer and I’ve been having to deal with it over the last few years. I’m adapting. It’s the way of the world. But these player press conferences aren’t a matter of life or death. Its public relations for the tournament, it’s a hunt for a headline for the media. This isn’t deep journalism. Nothing ground-breaking gets revealed unless you want video of a sportsperson crying or breaking down. And arguably the social media interactions by players will bring more eyeballs onto the sport than any amount of traditional press coverage. That is free labour from the players. It should be embraced by the tournaments.

It doesn’t need to be adversarial at all. It’s tennis for goodness sakes.

Those major celebrity athletes pulling in millions of dollars have more engagement from their fans on social media than they ever will through traditional media. Most fans are happy to follow them on Twitter or Instagram and are over the moon when they post funny videos or respond to a comment. You don’t need to worry about the fans. It is absolutely crystal clear that Naomi Osaka has the utmost respect for them.

And those major celebrity athletes pulling in millions of dollars are also human beings. And we shouldn’t treat them to humiliating sexist misogynistic rituals just because that is always the way we have done it. There is nothing wrong with change.

In doing what she has done here Naomi Osaka has shone a big huge light on how depression and anxiety are treated not only in the sporting arena, but the workplace in general. And she made a huge sacrifice to do so. It looks to me like she is using her platform perfectly. I think one of the responsibilities of people with fame and influence is to use that fame and influence to try and make the world a better place. And if that means attacking institutional and systematic issues in the nicest most polite ways possible (you couldn’t have worded her two messages in a nicer way than she did) then all power to her.

109

I’m confused by that as well, as that is not something that I’ve seen anyone say. I have mentioned that maybe the athlete in question would be happier playing as an amateur, without the responsibilities or the money that comes with it. But yes, I would rather watch people who are not as good, but have better sportsmanship, than watch someone a bit better who doesn’t respect the game, their team, their opponents, or their fans

Personally, my favorite games to watch are amateur games. I used to go to high school state tournaments for basketball. There was some talent there, for sure (I actually watched LeBron James his junior and senior years) , but there was also sportsmanship, which made the game more interesting. I think that money ruins sports, and I’d far rather watch people playing for the love of the game than for a massive paycheck.

These people are not paid millions of dollars because they hit a ball well, they are paid millions of dollars because people are interested in watching them hit a ball well. They are paid by sponsors for products because they cast a positive image for the products they endorse. They are paid for playing at the venues for the media attention and sponsorships that are gained by having them participate.

It doesn’t matter how well you sportsball, if you are an ass off the field, you are going to have a hard time getting sponsors. The tournament will have difficulty getting sponsors to pay you to play.

As long as they are taking the money, they are part of the system. They chose to do so (or the path was chosen by their parents, which is a whole different topic). They could have gone out and gotten a job like the rest of us and played the game with their friends on the weekends. Instead, they are taking tons of money for playing the game professionally, and playing professionally comes with responsibilities.

It’s great that they have the ability to communicate directly with their fans through social media, but that just means that they talk about what they want to talk about. They should actually talk about the things that others want them to talk about as well.

In some ways, the fact that they are so active on social media means that the press is going to be harder. Why ask a softball question that they have already answered? You ask them the questions that they have not already volunteered the answers to.

But ultimately, she, and other athletes like her, have signed up to receive quite a sum of money in exchange for the services asked for in the contract. They don’t have to agree to that contract. Sometimes there will be hard questions, and as long as asked in good faith, should be respected. Athletes don’t get to choose their competitors to ensure that they always win, even if a loss would cause them mental trauma, and they don’t get to choose the questions that they are asked either to ensure they get nothing but the things that they want to talk about.

Now, just as there are rules against unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe there should be rules against the press acting in bad faith in these press conferences.

If we want to talk about a toxic media environment, and what can be done on that front, that’s a worthwhile discussion. Maybe there should be some level of vetting of questions, and media outlets that are just trolling can be disinvited from the press conferences.

110

Does the Guardian not consider itself a part of the media? What bloodthirsty “gotcha” are they all about?

111

…this is the discussion.

112

She was fined $15,000.

She made $37.4 million last year.

Keep in mind that she “only” made $3.4 million from actually playing the game, the rest was due to endorsements. 90% of her fiscal worth comes from people being interested in her as a person, not just how well she hits a ball.

113

No, the discussion has been that she shouldn’t have any responsibilities towards going to press conferences. That her contract should be allowed to be unilaterally breached without repercussion.

No one has said that the media should be held accountable, and should be shut out if they can’t act in good faith.

114

…why are you associating “sacrifice” with money?

This isn’t a new problem. This has been going on for decades. Players don’t speak out because it could end careers, and this may well have ended Osaka’s career in tennis.

It isn’t just about the money.

115

It’s sports. Why does it need to be challenged?
I need my politicians challenged. I want academics and scientists challenged. Their ideas, policies, etc. may have an impact on my life, my future, the world stage. I can even go so far as to extend that to content creators and producers - who do/can use media to shape public opinion and discourse.

I don’t need my sports stars challenged. There is no answer to “How did you feel when you lost?” that matters.

Here’s a recent press conference of hers. What “balanced facts” did that give anyone?

116

Because this is all about the money.

She chose to make millions of dollars playing tennis, when she could have had more fun playing with her friends for free.

She said, “I’m not just going to subject myself to people that doubt me”, on her social media platform, where she doesn’t have to subject herself to anyone who would ask her a tough question.

If it’s not about the money, then her withdrawal isn’t a sacrifice at all. It’s just her choosing that she’d rather be a private individual who happens to be really good at tennis.

117

Sure there is. It is an opportunity to be inspirational to others who have lost and are trying to find their way. It is an opportunity to show their sportsmanship and their respect for their opponent. It is an opportunity for them to show their perseverance in the face of adversity.

Personally, I find, “How did you feel about winning?” to be a far more banal question. And if given the choice, it is the only question they would answer.

118

…the “why” she didn’t want to go to the press conferences is a significant part of this discussion. It gives us context. It isn’t some part of another discussion. You can’t ignore it.

Nobody is arguing this. Everyone, including Naomi Osaka, thinks she should have had to have paid the fine. It was when they decided to change the rules and threaten her career, when Roland-Garros starting posting memes like this that have made the difference.

119

I disagree. Somebody can be the greatest athlete who ever competed in a sport and that doesn’t mean there will be an audience for that sport. And without an audience, nobody has a career in that sport.

Tom Brady doesn’t get a fifteen million dollar salary because he’s a great quarterback. He gets a fifteen million dollar salary because people will pay to watch professional football. Publicizing the sport is as much a part of a professional athlete’s job as playing is.

Somebody who wants to receive the rewards of having a career in professional sports without doing the work is a free rider. They’re expecting other athletes to do the extra work.

120

…except it isn’t.

You can read her words for yourself.

She has suffered long bouts of depression since 2018. She has struggled to cope.

You seem to have zero awareness of depression, social anxiety, and how painfully debilitating it can be, on how hard it can be to function, to even get out of the bed in the morning.

This is just so incredibly and unbelievably tone-deaf.