I watched a pre men's final discussion yesterday on ESPN about the women's final. Chris Everett, and John and Patrick McEnroe were being interviewed. They all seemed to support Serena's behavior and mistreatment by the umpire. Patrick McEnroe even said that the umpire should use his discretion to control the match and apply warnings according to the moment and who was playing. He suggested that the umpire should actually take into account Serena's past and the challenges she faced coming up in the sport. He said that she was called names etc as a young player, and basically faced different issues growing up. He was arguing that she should be treated differently because of where she came from and that the rules should not be applied equally in all circumstances. At least that is how I interpreted what he was saying.
I though professional sports was the last remaining place were true meritocracy was celebrated and that one should be judged solely on his or her athletic ability and sportsmanship. Period. I was shocked at the discussion I was watching on ESPN.
don't be shocked. it's like watching CNN or MSNBC. once an event crosses over into the 'news' category then the rules change and protecting the network comes into play. especially after the social media spin creates a narrative. any other direction by ESPN would create an uproar. and any other position by those people would expose them to lots of heat.
I hear it on my local sports radio too. people I know personally temper their personal views to protect themselves and their stations on social issues.
don't be shocked.
i'm not even saying this particular event is without shades of grey on both sides. I am not involved enough in watching tennis to even really know about that. only that the facts are secondary to being safe for the networks.
After I've read your reply to Peter it made me pause for a serious moment.
By the way Mike, you did not include FOX news media? Just curious that's all.
I can understand the problems it would create if they were to say the real truth, and it's a shame. IMHO
It's a shame because they put their own interest first and foremost, going against the current of the real true news of actuality. Why bother doing a job that is not what the real job is?
We have the answer; protection of their own interests, not in the public's interest.
Thanks Mike for that answer, it makes total sense, and it's unfortunate but it's a reality of the world we live in, in the world of news sport media in many similar situations like this one right here.
The smart public they know that, but it's a disservice for the rest and it creates even more conflicts and more serious questions on integrity and professionalism with dire consequences in the overall grand scheme of it all, in my sincere opinion.
Also, that's one more good reason for everyone to have access to a good education, everywhere.
Still, in my book of common sense the medias have an obligation to inform truthfully and thoroughly.
We all know that it's not the case, so we have to look elsewhere, a more neutral news media...Reuters, BBC, The Telegraph, Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian.
Am I right?
P.S. Smooth sailing today, everything works great @ WBF, zero issues.
