Has Television Taken The "Hero" Out Of Sports?

In the earlier years of sports, athletes were viewed as idols, heroes, and saviors. To some, a baseball player was their sole inspiration. A football player gave them reason to hope. A basketball player gave them an example of greatness. In today's society however, athletes are scrutinized more fiercely than ever. One reason for this, is television. Television has given the world access to the inner details of the lives of virtually every major athlete in the country. You can't go on espn.com to look for stats without also seeing articles that are in some way related to an athlete's personal life or general human character.

Athletes from the pre-television era were certainly not perfect. Babe Ruth would show up drunk to Yankee Stadium. Mickey Mantle, Billy Martin and Whitey Ford would go out partying until 7 in the morning the day before an afternoon game. There was illegal gambling (especially in boxing, and notably the Black Sox of 1919), and racism (who could ignore Ty Cobb?), and womanizing (too many to list) all throughout sports, but without the constant eye of TV cameras and constant media coverage, the public was never exposed to the reality of their "heroes".

Here is an excerpt from "A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication" by Richard Harris: "Media coverage of sports has enhanced, or at least altered, the perceived reality of the hero. Sports stars have long been heroes emulated by youth, but the age of television, and to a lesser extent other media, has changed this role somewhat. On the one hand, a superstar such as Michael Jordan may be seen by many more people on television than was previously possible. On the other hand, the close scrutiny of television shows the faults as well as the nobler aspects of a potential hero."

Had there been an ever-watchful eye following the superstars of that era, hero worship may not have been as common. It would have been more likely to see an athlete, like many of those who play today, get picked apart for the little things they've done wrong - or thrown to the wolves for, slightly bigger, um, issues?

Some examples: let's look at Alex Rodriguez, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Vick.

These three athletes are (or in Vick's case, used to be) all superstars in their individual sports. However, they were also caught up in some messy and scandalous situations. Michael Vick was once considered to be the most exciting, and certainly one of the most talented players in the National Football League. However his career as the stunningly quick Quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons came to a screeching halt when he was arrested for torturing and murdering dogs, for fun. Who could forget the constant media coverage, not only on ESPN but on national news channels? It was all anyone could talk about for weeks. Television allowed the public to watch all the details of the step-by-step self-destruction of Michael Vick's promising career. We all got a front row seat to see the media and the rest of the football world tear Michael Vick down from his pedestal (and rightfully so).

"Reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson case, sometimes sports figures dominate news outside their sporting environs. Jessell (2003) criticized the media for overemphasizing the rape trial of Kobe Bryant because the story lacked meaning for people not directly connected to the case, writing that "the media has a role in this as it does all trials: to bear witness and make sure that justice is done. That's it. Anything else is pandering and sensationalism."" (Brown & Bryant, 97) Now, whether or not you agree that the Kobe Bryant rape scandal should have been publicized the way it was, that's just the reality of what happened. Kobe's reputation took a nose dive at the time this story leaked. People were shocked and caught off-guard that their superstar basketball hero could do something so horrible. So of course, the media, especially television media, followed Kobe's story around for weeks on end, exposing a darker side to the Laker legend.

And of course, I must include Alex Rodriguez. For those of you who missed the February 16, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated, the headline of the feature story was "The Latest and Greatest to Fall". The story was a nearly 2,000 word expose by Selena Roberts on Alex Rodriguez's positive drug test from 2003. The test, which was supposed to be anonymous (I won't even get into that issue, I could rant all day), revealed that Alex Rodriguez had tested positive for two anabolic steroids while a member of the Texas Rangers. Now, in the days and weeks following the news, we've seen a one-on-one interview between Rodriguez and ESPN's Peter Gammons, a Nationally televised press conference (aired on FOX, as well as YES, and ESPN), and countless hours spent on countless TV stations talking about A-Rod, A-Rod, and oh yeah, A-Rod. In fact, if you turn on Sports Center - look at the bottom of the screen at the "sports ticker". It gives brief game recaps and breaking news of each sport covered by the ESPN network. But now there's a new category. There's MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA ..... and AROD. He's got his own category! He's ONE person. The media, especially television media has been all over this story like nothing I've ever seen before. He's on ESPN everyday. He's on local New York Media everyday. I heard him being talked about on Connecticut's Channel 8 local news - this morning. It's ridiculous. Television has given us a gigantic telescope aimed directly at Alex Rodriguez's life. (And it wouldn't be the first time - the stripper, the divorce, broken friendship with Derek Jeter, affair with Madonna, need I continue?)

It's human nature for people to want to know about the lives of those they admire, such as sports athletes. "Enjoyment "depends not so much on conflict as on its resolution and what the resolution means to the parties involved. It depends on how much those who come out on top are liked and loved, and on how much those who come out on the short end are disliked and hated." (Bryant and Miron, 2002) Predispositions and dispositions, then, toward personalities, players, teams, and other stimuli in a sporting event, are critical to the viewer's enjoyment of that mediated experience. How does this theoretical perspective of the television audience advance our current discussion of sports coverage on cable television? Certainly, the ongoing efforts of sports cable programmers to provide additional coverage, information, and analysis of teams and their cast members contribute to the viewer's development of sentiments toward the very characters portrayed in these growing number of television contests." (Wood and Benigni, 154) This basically states that the media is just trying to serve the human desire to seek out all of this information - the information we feel is necessary for us to know both on a social and psychological level. Thus, the media goes out and finds every little piece of information possible that could expose an athlete and shred some light onto who they really are - and not just the pretty image we've made for ourselves in our heads. it is because of this need, this drive and desire to know it all - that maybe, we've heard too much, seen too much. Would we have been better off left in the dark? Left to continue believing the best in our sports idols - that they're not all steroid-using, dog-killing, rapists? Television has taken off our blinders - and for that, should we be thankful? Maybe we should ask for them back ...

Does the star make the ratings?

While the greats of sports have always been viewed as heroes and notable people, television has taken their status to a whole other level. These days many sports stars have also taken on the role of celebrity due to the nature of broadcast television, and celebrities just happen in to pull in more ratings, making games more profitable for networks. In chapter 5, The Handbook talks about the positive and negative nature of how celebrity’s effect ratings.

While players like LeBron James increase game ratings for their team even when they were losing, other sport content is getting cut when the major players are not on the field or court. The book specifically notes that ABC ditched part of the PGA tour for America’s Funniest Home Videos because Tiger Woods was not on the green. (96). Chapter 9 of The Handbook also takes note of Tiger’s affect on ratings: “cable stations and networks have seen a dramatic drop in golf ratings…coinciding with Tiger Woods’ relative slump in 2003” (157).

Michael Phelps has brought much attention to the sport of swimming, increasing ratings and making people even more aware of the sport. I know of many people who are not fans of swimming but they will specifically watch swim meets because of Michael Phelps’s star power. Recently Phelps has gotten in trouble with the media because of the picture that was released of him taking a hit from a bong. Do you think that his actions will play a role on swim ratings in the future? Some of his sponsors seem to think so and have already dropped him from his contract, but others have not such as Hilton Hotels: "We continue to support Michael Phelps as an athlete whose numerous athletic feats outshine an act of regrettable behavior" Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3878675


Is it a good or bad thing when star power is able to dictate what gets aired and what doesn’t? Are celebrity sports stars having a negative impact on network and cable scheduling? Are celebrity athletes taking the focus away from the game? Take Phelps for example, is their more focus on his personal life than his athletic abilities at this point in time? Also comment on other effects of the celebrity athlete and how they have changed the way in which sports are viewed and scheduled on broadcast television.

Highlights of Sports Programming

For 25 years fans have watched sports programming on cable and satellite television.
Fans who watch sports on television get more than just the video clips and highlights of the game; they get to know the athletes on a more personal level. ESPN and Fox are the two largest providers for sports news and talk. SportsCenter is also a popular sports program devoted to highlights. Sports radio is a great outlet to get your fix on sports talk but video clips are what have defined sports. Fans watch sports on TV to escape from their daily stresses while also allowing fans to watch their favorite teams in the comfort of their own homes. Advances in television such as high definition and sharper images can make a fan feel like they are actually in the stands, a more realistic viewing.

Fans views these programs for the entertainment and love of the game, sports announcers don’t just provide the stats but also present the inside news on the athletes. Such as Kobe Bryant and his sexual assault charges. Should the entertainment industry and sports industry collaborate, or should they stay separate? Or is sports part of the entertainment industry?

Because of such realistic viewing from big screen TVs and HD, do you think that fans are less likely to attend actual games and avoid paying rising ticket prices? Or does the atmosphere of screaming fans, hot dog vendors and personal viewing still have the same effect it did in the past?

“There is no denying the power of HD sports: Shaper images neatly transplant the viewer out of the living room and into the stadium, minus obnoxious drunks.”(Raney and Bryant 101)

Cable television networks and programs have more power today than before in the sports industry. But who decides what games are covered and what don’t? Networks like FOX who are affiliates with MLB decide the content, “the line between content and coverage is continually blurred when professional teams venture beyond the boundaries of media and partnership and into the realm of media ownership, and vice versa-when media properties invest or retain ownership in sports teams”(Raney and Bryant 157). Is it fair coverage for professional teams to have pull in coverage and has this made for less of a variety of coverage for other teams?

Have sports surpassed sitcoms?

We live in an entertainment driven culture, where most people pay more attention to sports and reality TV than important news. Due to the evolution of cable TV, and channels like ESPN, MSG, and NESN to name a few, sports can now be seen at nearly every hour of every day. In a study done in 2004 tracking sports broadcasting in Asheville, NC, 532 sports programs were aired during one week, for a total of 645 hours of content (Bryant, 76). A week only has 168 hours, so this means that many sports programs air simultaneously very often.

The more I read about how many sports programs actually air, I started to think about the evolution of cable TV and how this has affected programming. I believe that sports programs and sporting events have surpassed sitcoms in our culture, and that viewing of sporting events will only increase over time.

When I think of TV in the past, I think of all of the sitcoms that were popular. Each decade had its popular shows that nearly everyone watched and everyone talked about. But as the first decade of this millenium winds down, I fail to see any sitcoms of worthy note that are on TV. In fact, I can't think of many that have been long running and successful.

Reality TV and sports have changed the way people view TV and what viewers expect to see. I believe that creativity has nearly disappeared from TV altogether. Writing on sitcomes is not what it used to be, and we see many shows being cancelled after just one or two seasons.

Plus, sporting events come with much less risk. The stations know that people will watch the games, that more often than not the games will be exciting. There are no actors that need to be paid. And with ticket prices in nearly every sport rising, ratings will probably continue to go higher and higher.

There are so many options for people to find what they're looking for in their niche of sports. Early in the morning, there's Sportscenter and First Take, to mention a few. In the afternoon, we see sports talk radio like the Mike Francesa show, and other programs with sports banter like the Jim Rome Show, Around the Horn, and PTI. And in the evenings, whether its on ESPN or a local cable station, there's almost always a professional sporting event. How can sitcoms possibly expect to compete?

It's just that much easier to air a sporting event or a reality TV show than for someone to put effort into writing a script. Creativity is dwindeling, and I don't see any reason for the trends to change. The days of sitcoms are fading quickly, and sports programming has solidified its spot in our culture.

-Jamie Palatini

Bob Papa

Alright, so I'm going to just go ahead and throw it out there, I'm die-hard Giants fan. Last year was an awesome season and the most recent one had its highlights, but no back-back Lombardi trophies for Big Blue.

Anyway, Bob Papa has been the voice of the New York Giants on 660am WFAN for as long as I can remember. Everyweek during the football season any Giants fan or football fan for that matter can tune and listen to one of the purest voices on the airwaves. Here is a quick clip of Bob Papa, in it he is discussing Michael Strahan's retirement with colleague Steve Somers.
http://www.wfan.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=2567195

The reason I bring so much attention towards this guy, is because Bob was recently hired by the NFL network to give the play-by-play for the leagues game being broadcasted on their new network. "The NFL has long been regarded as the preeminent television sport, a position attributed to the number of games that enhances the value of each contest and the league's position as the pioneer in using national television as an instrument of growth and influence (Wenner, 81). Someone in the front office of the NFL threw Papa's name out there during a meeting and the collective decision was to hire the man with the most authentic voice in the industry. The weight placed on his shoulders would be tremendous considering the league wanted this man to represent their product. The league picked a guy whose roots are secured in radio history, not one of the John Madden types as I would call them.

So from what I have mentioned above it is clear that executives in the NFL think highly of radio announcers and their ability to bring a sense of realism to the games. Here is a link to show you what some of the fans are thinking: http://www.fangsbites.com/2008/11/bob-papa-is-way-better-than-bryant.html.

Accoridng to John W. Owens, Emmis Broadcasting created WFAN more than 20 years ago. "The station's call letters were changed to WFAN and with that Emmis brought 24-hour, all-sports radio to the Big Apple (Raney, 123)." Not to toot my own horn, but if there is anyplace in the world where a 24-hour sports radio station could thrive it would undoubtly be New York. The city never sleeps so why would their sports fans! Sports talk radio has evolved into a huge commercial enterprise with radio shows now recieving significant television coverage and also the expansion of this format into the satellite arena. Emmis Broadcasting was taking on a huge risk when they decided to pursue this route and in time they quickly revolutionized the sports world. "Sponsors were attracted to the loyal nature of the all-sports audience and the fact that a majority of listeners represented the ever-elusive male demographic (Raney, 123).

ESPN came first, then it was WFAN leading the way in radio and now technology has evolved so greatly that it has become harder to pin-point where the loyal sports fan goes in their quest for knowledge. My guess would be the radio, even though it is considered old-school there is no place better to learn about the inner spectrum of the sports world then this medium.

Dan Huvane

Television and the Internet don’t have a prayer in defeating sports talk radio.

I think it is safe to say sports talk radio will always thrive in the sports world due to pure fact every sports fans enjoys discussing sports. Sure the fan enjoys highlights and surfing the web, however the idea of actual discussion of what is taking place in the sports world will never be overmatched.

 Today’s sports fan is aware of the final score in last nights ball game, what they want to know is why is player A is slumping this season and when is my favorite team going to sign that over priced free agent. These questions are solved in sports talk radio and allowing for discussion brings the fan into the picture, something that TV and internet don’t do as well.

 The ability to build an audience with radio is what allows it to be so successful. The average sports fan is heading to work tomorrow morning and he/she wants to know about what took place in the sporting world last night. John W. Owens from a piece in the Handbook of Sports and Media says “ Many fans have developed strong emotional ties to their sports teams by listening to old fashioned AM radio.” (Raney and Bryant, 123). Owens understands the bond people have with sports and radio and how it allows for fans to voice their opinion on all subjects.

 Sports on TV are obviously very popular; however forming any kind of emotional tie with a television program is very hard to do. Really the only bond we have with any show is the ones that are discussion based. Programs like PTI and Around the Horn have discussion and opinions allowing for the viewer to get a better understanding of the sports world. You can say you are dedicated to Monday Night Football, however the only reason you are watching is for the game, you really have little interest in what the announcer are saying. Robert Bellamy, Jr. chapter titled “The Evolving Television Sports Marketplace” looks into televisions dominates of sports for the viewing pleasure and ability to build revenue. He says, “ The live event nature of sports creates an exciting atmosphere that is difficult to replace with other programming.” (Wenner, 86) The idea of sports on TV is all about the viewing pleasure and fans want to be entertained. When you listen to sports on the radio you have given yourself the chance to imagine it and I think the sports fan cherishes this more. 

It is interesting to see sports talk radio aired live on TV and this shows us the power of sports talk radio. The actually fact that a person sits down and turns the channel to watch another man sit down and talk sports all day tells us everything. Everyone has an opinion and sports talk radio answers are questions and allows for us to be experts on all situations.

 

Chris Myers

Sports Talk--Entertainment & Advertising

Sports talk. One would assume from these two simple words that whatever will be discussed on the radio station you tuned into will be about sports. Right? Wrong.

In the Handbook of Sports and Media, Haag is quoted saying “sports talk demonstrates an older function of communication, that of concretizing social rather than economic communities.” (125) I agree that sports talk radio is an excellent avenue for fans to express their opinions about sporting situations. Personally, I like that there is a means for us avid followers of a particular team or sport to include our positions. It creates a sense of community and brings together those sharing similar interests. However, as David Theo Goldberg writes in Sports, Talk Radio, and the Death of Democracy, ( http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/22/2/212 ) past sports radio was mainly concerned with play-by-play, player and team statistics, and the season’s progress, now it seems to center around entertainment and advertising. ESPN radio is filled with so many commercials that you’re only getting about 15 minutes worth of “sports talk” and by sports talk, I mean opinions about politics, religion, or business. Personally, I could care less about anything unrelated to sports. There are too many interruptions and too many reminders that I’m listening to so and so.

It’s not only radio either. According to MediaSport, “The US sports industry is a media-made phenomenon.” (74) Bellamy proceeds to say how television utilizes sports as a way to promote buying and selling. For instance, when ESPN, ABC, and Disney are all under one roof, it becomes a perfect chance to get the word out about your product.

Whether I’m listening to a sports talk show on the radio or watching one on television, I want to hear about the information relevant to the sporting world. Cut back on commercials. Reduce the amount of time used to promote your own show. The hosts don’t need to play the role of stand-up comedian to make the show interesting. I am a sports fan—sports are enough to hold my attention.

Sports Talk Radio: Dying Out or Just Evolving?

Sports talk radio. It seems like the only time you hear about it is when somebody says something crass or offensive (read: Rush Limbaugh). Basically like vocal blogging (only with FCC regulations), it’s an opportunity for sports fans to hear opinions and share opinions on the current events of the sports world. According to a Sports Business Journal article, “Credibility Helps Esiason Establish Broadcasting Career,” Rick Reilly once said that “It’s delivered to people who are holding down couch springs by people who should be holding down couch springs” (Kavanagh 38). (http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58094)

That is one opinion, but it got me thinking. Sports radio provides opportunity for fans to agree and disagree with the host and each other, an interactive medium of sorts. Reilly’s stereotype of the average sports talk listener may seem unfair, but with so few of my friends listening to sports talk at all, it’s difficult to make an assumption either way. A lot of people these days seem to be getting their news online or from TV, so is sports talk dying out?

Chapter 5 of Wenner’s “MediaSport” talks about television and the changing scope of the relationship of sports and the media. Sports and television were made for each other, as we like to see the amazing plays, again and again, not just hear about them. Not only that, but it is a monumental revenue source for every sport, star athlete, and TV network itself. As supported from Chapter 5, “Television through its power to manufacture ‘stars,’ sell products, alter lifestyles, and most importantly, commodify audiences made spectator sports an element of mainstream culture” (Bellamy, Jr. 74). Radio can only offer this on a small level, and really has to have a loyal following to have any sort of success, it just seems a little flat compared to full screen video play-by-play.

From Raney and Bryant’s “Handbook of Sports and Media,” Owens has an entirely different view. He thinks that radio can only continue to expand, “…as radio reshapes itself through the advancement of alternative delivery methods” (28). Though I don’t doubt that satellite radio, and its sports talk channels, have a loyal following, doesn’t this “reshaping” takes away the essence of participating and listening to sports talk radio? It is no longer a medium for everyone like it was before.

With new technologies like blogging and podcasts, the Internet and 24/7 coverage at your texting fingertips, it feels like sports talk radio is more of a dying breed than an advancing medium. Do you agree or disagree? Are you a sports talk listener, or have you been in the past? Do new media take away the interactivity of sports talk radio, a major selling point of its success in the first place?