Now that the semester is over here in our Sport & Society class, there are some things I'd like to end with.
I think a lot of my personal experiences have had some serious connections to many of the topics and issues that we discussed over the 15 weeks. The list of my experiences includes, but is not exclusive to, coaching girl's/women's sports, growing up in a racially and economically diverse city, having a gay head coach in college, and starting kindergarten in a bilingual classroom near Los Angeles. Does this make me an expert on these topics? No, but I feel that I have a pretty broad range of knowledge circulating around the issues in class. This is also probably why many of the topics were extremely interesting to me.
One of my favorite things to do with my friends is to have "friendly" arguments about almost anything I feel I can talk a little bit about. One reason is I love hearing other people's thoughts about a topic. Another reason is I like to see how people respond to what I think (or how they respond to whatever I'm arguing if I'm playing the Devil's advocate). By doing this, you get people to think about difficult issues, especially if some of the topics of this class were brought up. Now, I don't think I will be starting a social revolution anytime soon to transform the way society thinks, but what I will continue to do is talk with people about issues that need to be discussed. If all i can do is make people think about racial inequalities or equal rights for gay and female athletes, then I am doing a decent job. The first step for people to change their thoughts about issues is to make sure they are informed and that the issue at least crosses their mind.
The one part I liked best about the class was always the discussion topics during class. Just like my previous paragraph mentioned, I love hearing what different people think about different. So much of your beliefs are based on how your life has been previously spent. So by listening to different comments and expressing my own opinions, I am able to gather pieces of what a person believes and how they live their lives.
I also thoroughly enjoy expressing my own thoughts through this blog. I have written one other blog in the past that I posted to for about a year. The feedback from people was both positive and negative. Regardless of what the people said, it was usually hilarious and very entertaining to see what others felt. The comments and discussions that have occurred via our blogging has been beneficial and very interesting.
The one thing I did not enjoy, and will never enjoy, is driving 50 minutes to come to class. That has been such a pain since the round trip driving takes nearly two hours out of my day three days a week. Having to work every day, every weekend, and most nights, on top of being an hour away from school, is not the most ideal of situations. Nonetheless, I did what I could do and did get much out of the class.
Hopefully after about a year hiatus this class had at least got me back to blogging and sharing my thoughts on the internet. I look forward to continuing this in the future.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Paralympics Part 2
As a follow up to my last entry, I wanted to make two more points regarding the Paralympic Games.
When we talked about 'olympism' in the Olympic Games, it seemed like a consensus that the Olympic Games were polluted with ideals outside those of Olympism. I have even mentioned this in a previous blog about how the ideology of Olympism is great in theory, but is almost nonexistent in practice.
If we look at the Paralympic Games, don't these events bring a better understanding of what olympism is supposed to be? These athletes are coming together to compete at a high level while at the same time they are there for the experience of other nations and to simply compete.
So if I am a member of Team USA and I compete in the Paralympic Games, do I even want to have the same media exposure? Do I want to have the same convoluted relationship that Olympians have with the media and the viewers? If I want to stay closer to the ideals of Olympics, I am not sure that I want to have the same exposure. Paralympic athletes compete now for seemingly the same reasons that that the ancient Olympians did. That is to compete at a high level while at the same time bringing together different cultures. The fact that they are competing is way more important than the winner of the event.
The last point I want to make regarding the Paralympics deals with a complete societal change that needs to take place in order for more exposure to occur. The media is not really at fault for this. As quoted by a coworker of mine and a former newspaper editor, "The job of the media is to pick the stories and write about the stories in which they think their audience wants to know about." In essence, everything the media is feeding the public is exactly what the public wants. If the media didn't do this, then people would not consume the news like they do now because there would be severe disinterest.
In my opinion this is very comparable to another large complaint people have with sports. That complaint is that professional athletes are overpaid. I argue that professional athletes are underpaid in some instances because much of society's disposable income goes to watching and attending sporting events. Michael Jordan made the NBA, the Chicago Bulls, and every arena he visited billions of dollars over his career. So when he was paid $33 million during the 1997-98 season, he was probably being underpaid compared to what he was worth. The same can be said for many athletes. The only reason that pro athletes make the money they do, is because society continues to pay for it. Jordan made that money because people paid to watch him play, paid to wear his shoes, and paid to wear his jersey. Is it his fault? Absolutely not.
Just like society is responsible, yet complains, about overpaid athletes, we are also responsible for the lack of media attention the Paralympics receive although many view that as a travesty.
When we talked about 'olympism' in the Olympic Games, it seemed like a consensus that the Olympic Games were polluted with ideals outside those of Olympism. I have even mentioned this in a previous blog about how the ideology of Olympism is great in theory, but is almost nonexistent in practice.
If we look at the Paralympic Games, don't these events bring a better understanding of what olympism is supposed to be? These athletes are coming together to compete at a high level while at the same time they are there for the experience of other nations and to simply compete.
So if I am a member of Team USA and I compete in the Paralympic Games, do I even want to have the same media exposure? Do I want to have the same convoluted relationship that Olympians have with the media and the viewers? If I want to stay closer to the ideals of Olympics, I am not sure that I want to have the same exposure. Paralympic athletes compete now for seemingly the same reasons that that the ancient Olympians did. That is to compete at a high level while at the same time bringing together different cultures. The fact that they are competing is way more important than the winner of the event.
The last point I want to make regarding the Paralympics deals with a complete societal change that needs to take place in order for more exposure to occur. The media is not really at fault for this. As quoted by a coworker of mine and a former newspaper editor, "The job of the media is to pick the stories and write about the stories in which they think their audience wants to know about." In essence, everything the media is feeding the public is exactly what the public wants. If the media didn't do this, then people would not consume the news like they do now because there would be severe disinterest.
In my opinion this is very comparable to another large complaint people have with sports. That complaint is that professional athletes are overpaid. I argue that professional athletes are underpaid in some instances because much of society's disposable income goes to watching and attending sporting events. Michael Jordan made the NBA, the Chicago Bulls, and every arena he visited billions of dollars over his career. So when he was paid $33 million during the 1997-98 season, he was probably being underpaid compared to what he was worth. The same can be said for many athletes. The only reason that pro athletes make the money they do, is because society continues to pay for it. Jordan made that money because people paid to watch him play, paid to wear his shoes, and paid to wear his jersey. Is it his fault? Absolutely not.
Just like society is responsible, yet complains, about overpaid athletes, we are also responsible for the lack of media attention the Paralympics receive although many view that as a travesty.
Paralympics Part 1
From reading different blog entries and the responses, I have found that media exposure in regards to the Paralympic Games has been one of much discussion. Therefore, I've decided to tackle the issue myself and add another perspective.
The issue at hand seems to be whether or not large broadcasting stations should put more coverage of the Paralympics on the air. Some think that the lack of national viewing interest is reason enough not to show the same amount of coverage that the Olympics would receive. Others feel that there is a certain social or moral responsibility that the media has to help publicize the Paralympics.
My view of the situation is that each entity (in this case, media and the Paralympics) has to supports its own interests. The media has to protect its business and air material that they know will generate viewership as well as sponsorship. As with any business, it is important do what you can for as many different people while still earning a profit when everything is said and done. If the major stations are losing a great deal of money by showing something that people won't watch, there will not be the media outlets necessary to inform the public. On the other side, advocates for the Paralympic Games should absolutely be bartering for more media coverage. When you market a product or strongly believe in a product, you will market it to the best of your abilities to have the most people know about it. If the Games could find their niche on network television, they would be able to be covered more. And from my personal perspective, I hope that niche is found so there is more exposure for disabled athletes.
I feel as if another argument people give in favor of more exposure for the Paralympics deals with the effort they put into their sport. People will say, "Well, this wheelchair athlete puts just as much time and effort and energy into being the fastest in the world, just like Michael Phelps does. Why shouldn't this athlete have the same exposure as Phelps?" This is a conundrum not only in the Paralympics but in many sports. For example, NCAA Division III men's basketball players work just as hard as NCAA Division I players do. Does this mean that ONU men's basketball players should be upset that they aren't on Sportscenter every night during the winter? I don't think so. The athletes at ONU understand the reality that the general public is way more concerned with the Division I level as opposed to the Division III level. It is an accepted truth, but the players will still work just as hard.
The issue at hand seems to be whether or not large broadcasting stations should put more coverage of the Paralympics on the air. Some think that the lack of national viewing interest is reason enough not to show the same amount of coverage that the Olympics would receive. Others feel that there is a certain social or moral responsibility that the media has to help publicize the Paralympics.
My view of the situation is that each entity (in this case, media and the Paralympics) has to supports its own interests. The media has to protect its business and air material that they know will generate viewership as well as sponsorship. As with any business, it is important do what you can for as many different people while still earning a profit when everything is said and done. If the major stations are losing a great deal of money by showing something that people won't watch, there will not be the media outlets necessary to inform the public. On the other side, advocates for the Paralympic Games should absolutely be bartering for more media coverage. When you market a product or strongly believe in a product, you will market it to the best of your abilities to have the most people know about it. If the Games could find their niche on network television, they would be able to be covered more. And from my personal perspective, I hope that niche is found so there is more exposure for disabled athletes.
I feel as if another argument people give in favor of more exposure for the Paralympics deals with the effort they put into their sport. People will say, "Well, this wheelchair athlete puts just as much time and effort and energy into being the fastest in the world, just like Michael Phelps does. Why shouldn't this athlete have the same exposure as Phelps?" This is a conundrum not only in the Paralympics but in many sports. For example, NCAA Division III men's basketball players work just as hard as NCAA Division I players do. Does this mean that ONU men's basketball players should be upset that they aren't on Sportscenter every night during the winter? I don't think so. The athletes at ONU understand the reality that the general public is way more concerned with the Division I level as opposed to the Division III level. It is an accepted truth, but the players will still work just as hard.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Who Should Take the Blame?
The way that male and female athletes are portrayed in the media is definitely different. We discussed how men are often time perceived as bigger, stronger, and faster with the intent of the pictures to show these characteristics. Female athletes, on the other hand, are very rarely portrayed performing their sport. They are usually shown in posed positions that accentuate their sexuality, beauty and other feminine qualities. The only picture that instantly comes to my mind of a female athlete on the field of play is when Brandi Chastain got the cover of Sports Illustrated. However, the famous photo was one that was taken right after the game, right after she scored the game winning goal, and right after she took off her shirt. The way that female athletes are depicted in photographs is very different from this. Athletes like Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova have embraced their beauty and used it to pose for magazines or act in commercials. Some other female athletes have posed in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (Which happens to be the only time I've seen photos of male athletes that are designed to show off their physical appearance. I remember it happening when athletes' wives would pose in their swimsuits along side their more famous husbands).
Now, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It is just the fact of the matter. Should a female athlete be able to endorse her body to make money? I don't have a problem with that. Any person should be able to do the same thing if the opportunity were to arise. Where I'm not necessarily sold is the fact that many people blame the media for this happening. I understand that sport consumers (predominantly male) most likely enjoy seeing scantily-clad, very in-shape female figures as opposed to men in the same fashion. Therefore the media will give the consumer what they want to see. However, I think that the female athletes deserve much of the blame/credit for this.
Coming from a household with three younger sisters and a mother (and a father, but he doesn't factor into this situation), having a female student-athlete as a roommate now, and coaching women's volleyball at the high school and college levels, I have come to the conclusion that MOST females care very much what they look like at all times. Some of the most makeup worn by these women have been on game days because a lot of people will be there to see them. Also, at ONU we take head shots of each athlete to post on our Web site. The males will come looking like they would for any other practice. This will be the only practice of the year where the women have their hair done and makeup fully applied. Again, I feel this is because, as a generality, women care way more how they look then men do.
With all of that, I feel that while the media does almost always show women outside of their sport and in a more clean and "sexy" environment, this is the way the many females wish to be portrayed as well. I know this is not true in every instance, but like with everything in life, there are always exceptions to the rule.
Now, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It is just the fact of the matter. Should a female athlete be able to endorse her body to make money? I don't have a problem with that. Any person should be able to do the same thing if the opportunity were to arise. Where I'm not necessarily sold is the fact that many people blame the media for this happening. I understand that sport consumers (predominantly male) most likely enjoy seeing scantily-clad, very in-shape female figures as opposed to men in the same fashion. Therefore the media will give the consumer what they want to see. However, I think that the female athletes deserve much of the blame/credit for this.
Coming from a household with three younger sisters and a mother (and a father, but he doesn't factor into this situation), having a female student-athlete as a roommate now, and coaching women's volleyball at the high school and college levels, I have come to the conclusion that MOST females care very much what they look like at all times. Some of the most makeup worn by these women have been on game days because a lot of people will be there to see them. Also, at ONU we take head shots of each athlete to post on our Web site. The males will come looking like they would for any other practice. This will be the only practice of the year where the women have their hair done and makeup fully applied. Again, I feel this is because, as a generality, women care way more how they look then men do.
With all of that, I feel that while the media does almost always show women outside of their sport and in a more clean and "sexy" environment, this is the way the many females wish to be portrayed as well. I know this is not true in every instance, but like with everything in life, there are always exceptions to the rule.
In Reality...
In class we explored the different newspaper exposure for all different types of demographics. One of the areas in which we were looking was race. Which race or races were getting the most exposure and is this the way it should be. Instead of looking at this issue, I immediately began to think of how Ohio Northern deals with race and diversity. To me, it is a very comical approach.
In my five years at Ohio Northern there has been a steady increase in the desire to promote diversity on campus (at least from my vantage point). As a student it was apparent in the sheer increase in minority enrollment. Every year there was a noticeably greater racial minority population on campus. Now that I work in the office of communications and marketing, it is obvious that this happened because of a conscious effort by the university.
The comical part is that even though there was been an increase, Ohio Northern is absolutely not a place were diversity is flourishing. From what I see on campus, and without hard data in which to base this judgment, the overwhelming population is still middle- to upper-class white people. So instead of promoting what we are and giving an accurate representation of the school, we still promote that we are a diverse institution.
Here is a funny example to make my point. Last year Ohio Northern won the All-Sports Trophy for both the men's and women's programs for the second consecutive year. Accomplishing this the first year was notable, but doing this the second time in a row was unprecedented (Note: we have all but won this trophy on both sides again this year for the third straight time). About this time last year, the decision is made to take a picture with all the team captains (or important members) from our 21 sports. We take the picture, and people who make decisions at the school reviewed it. Well, we were not going to be able to use the picture anywhere on our Web site or in any of our publications because the picture did not show diversity. Of the 21 sports at ONU, maybe two were of a racial minority. In the end, we took a picture of four student-athletes who happened to be around during the summer, with one of them being of color. I guess when you have 1-of-4, it better demonstrates diversity than 2-of-21.
This is a good example of how media can show you EXACTLY what it wants to portray regardless if the information is accurate or credible.
In my five years at Ohio Northern there has been a steady increase in the desire to promote diversity on campus (at least from my vantage point). As a student it was apparent in the sheer increase in minority enrollment. Every year there was a noticeably greater racial minority population on campus. Now that I work in the office of communications and marketing, it is obvious that this happened because of a conscious effort by the university.
The comical part is that even though there was been an increase, Ohio Northern is absolutely not a place were diversity is flourishing. From what I see on campus, and without hard data in which to base this judgment, the overwhelming population is still middle- to upper-class white people. So instead of promoting what we are and giving an accurate representation of the school, we still promote that we are a diverse institution.
Here is a funny example to make my point. Last year Ohio Northern won the All-Sports Trophy for both the men's and women's programs for the second consecutive year. Accomplishing this the first year was notable, but doing this the second time in a row was unprecedented (Note: we have all but won this trophy on both sides again this year for the third straight time). About this time last year, the decision is made to take a picture with all the team captains (or important members) from our 21 sports. We take the picture, and people who make decisions at the school reviewed it. Well, we were not going to be able to use the picture anywhere on our Web site or in any of our publications because the picture did not show diversity. Of the 21 sports at ONU, maybe two were of a racial minority. In the end, we took a picture of four student-athletes who happened to be around during the summer, with one of them being of color. I guess when you have 1-of-4, it better demonstrates diversity than 2-of-21.
This is a good example of how media can show you EXACTLY what it wants to portray regardless if the information is accurate or credible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
