ESPN's decision to suspend columnist Bill Simmons from Twitter for two weeks [Mediaite] is the wrong move. The suspension wasn't highly publicized, but came out as the result of an investigation by Jason McIntyre of The Big Lead, which prompted ESPN.com editor-in-chief Rob King to write a blog post explaining the decision. Here's King's statement:
"We have internal guidelines designed to inform how we discuss the topic of sports media. These guidelines are important us, because they help maintain the credibility with which ESPN operates.
No one knows the guidelines better than Bill Simmons, and he customarily works within these standards. He also understands, as does everyone else at ESPN, that we regard these guidelines as being equally important when participating in social media.
While it's unfortunate -- and sometimes painful -- that not everyone outside of ESPN chooses to play by such rules, we choose to hold ourselves to higher standards. Regardless of the provocation, Bill’s communication regarding WEEI fell short of those standards. So we’ve taken appropriate measures."
The offending tweet? Mediaite figures it's this one from November 11, "Hey WEEI: You were wrong, I did a Boston interview today. With your competition. Rather give them ratings over deceitful scumbags like you." This is interesting, because WEEI and ESPN have a partnership. It's quite possible that the ESPN policy (described here) would kick in for trashing any media outlet, as that's what its language seems to indicate, but this is not the ideal test case for the subject; even if the partnership has nothing to do with the suspension whatsoever, the optics are not good.
The larger problem here, though, is ESPN's approach to their writers and personalities. It's not that ESPN is necessarily draconian; in fact, King went to great lengths to make that point at the final Blogs With Balls panel in Vegas.
"I’m not trying to run anyone off Twitter," he said. "A lot of the things we’re building up allow people to contribute in the same way they would on Twitter."
To me, that shows the core problem here. It's one that's far from unique to ESPN, as just about every major media outlet has run into this with the rise of the Internet (and even earlier). The problem is that many media organizations, especially those in print, regard their columnists and reporters as invariably associated with them, which is simply not the case these days. Most prominent people in sports media appear on a variety of platforms, from print to radio to television to Twitter. In my mind, it's wrong to think that just because you hire someone to write certain things for you, you're associated with everything they do and need to have control over them.
How can we tell that ESPN approaches their talent this way? As King says in the above interview about the policy, "The second sets out additional guidelines and responsibilities for public-facing employees — those who are easily and commonly associated with ESPN (talent, reporters, etc.). Unfortunately, their relative fame and public personas mean that the way they act and the things they do will be associated with ESPN and its editorial, entertainment and/or newsgathering organization. As such, there are additional responsibilities from a professional standpoint."
I can understand where King is coming from here. Slamming WEEI probably would not look good on ESPN. It should never happen in a news story on ESPN.com or on SportsCenter, and you can make an argument for editing those kinds of references out of the columns of a writer like Simmons; they diminish the reality and the impact of the column, making it a more watered-down version, but it's ESPN's site, so it's ultimately their choice what gets displayed there. The problem, though, is that Simmons criticizing WEEI doesn't mean ESPN is criticizing them. Media outlets all over the place employ columnists for the primary purpose of sharing their views; when such pieces are clearly marked as opinion, it's understood that those are the opinions of the columnist in question, not the larger organization.
The same logic should apply to Twitter even more so. Simmons' tweets (and the tweets of every other ESPN personality) are not published by ESPN. They're published by Twitter, which is a free service. Presumably, he is writing them on his own time, not company time. Thus, there really is no connection to the company.
Now, that doesn't give Simmons or any other employee carte blanche; if they start tweeting about committing crimes or blasting groups along racial or sexual lines, that is a problem. That reflects poorly on them as a person, and poorly on ESPN for hiring them. However, complaining about a radio station does not measure up to that standard; it's a legitimate opinion to have and to express, on his own time, away from company mediums.
The biggest problem with ESPN and other media organizations taking these kind of disciplinary steps is that they insult the intelligence of their audience. No one really thinks Bill Simmons' tweets represent the views of ESPN, just like no one thinks Jay Mariotti's drivel represents the thoughts of FanHouse or Jason Whitlock's views are shared by everyone at Fox Sports. We recognize that columnists and personalities have their own views, which are often poles apart from those of their organization. They should be allowed to express those views, not shut down in the interests of defending their organization from a non-existant wave of bad publicity.
This is rather counterintutive in terms of results, too; I doubt many people cared when Simmons took a shot at WEEI (which he's done before in his books), and I highly doubt that people at WEEI thought ESPN was blasting them. It was a non-story. The heavy-handed approach taken to shut Simmons down is a much bigger story, and it's created a mountain out of a molehill. If I was ESPN, I'd let Simmons back on Twitter ASAP, maybe add a disclaimer that his views don't represent those of ESPN in case there's anyone out there who doesn't get it, and let him get to work. His engagement with fans on Twitter and snappy lines about sports is only further building his brand and helping to promote his column, which coincidentally happens to run on ESPN's website. Take the muzzle off and reap the pageviews.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Physician, heal thy organization
I was glad to hear that International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge decided to take a stand for the good of the Olympics. However, I wondered which of the many available targets he would shoot at. Would it be China's failure to live up to its promises of democratic reforms [Amnesty International]? Perhaps the arrest and sentencing to "re-education through labour" of those people who dared to apply for permits to protest [Deadspin]? The censorship of the Internet [MSNBC] sites available to journalists who had been promised open access? The massive cheat-at-all-costs campaign the Chinese have employed to win the gymnastic events with underage athletes[Juliet Macur, The New York Times]? The rounding-up [Jay Nordlinger, National Review Online] of Falun Gong practioners, disaffected minorities and Chinese writers who dare criticize the regime, probably to be shipped off to secret forced-labour camps [Geoffrey Clarfeld, National Post], where they might even have their organs harvested [The Canadian Press via CTV News]? The forced closure [Richard Spencer, The Telegraph] of air-quality monitoring units? The lingering effects of Andre Guelfi and the ISL types who bribed their way into control of the IOC's corridors of power [Andrew Jennings, All Sports magazine] ?
The felons, fascists, dictators and corrupt officials who currently fill Rogge's own organization [Andrew Jennings, Transparency In Sport]? Nope, all those are trivial. Rogge found a much more significant target than those minor annoyances: the post-race celebrations of Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt[National Post].
It's tough to describe just how out of whack Rogge's priorities are, but Yahoo! Sports columnist Dan Wetzel makes a vailiant effort. "Jacques Rogge is so bought, so compromised, the president of the IOC doesn’t have the courage to criticize China for telling a decade of lies to land itself these Olympic Games," he writes. "All the promises made to get these Games — on Tibet, Darfur, pollution, worker safety, freedom of expression, dissident rights — turned out to be phony, perhaps as phony as the Chinese gymnasts’ birthdates Rogge was way too scared to investigate. One of the most powerful men in sports turned the world away from his complicity. Instead, he has flexed his muscles by unloading on a powerless sprinter from a small island nation. Rogge’s ripping of Usain Bolt’s supposed showboating in two of the most electrifying gold-medal performances of these Games has to be one of the most ill-timed and gutless acts in the modern history of the Olympics."
Wetzel is right on the money. Neate's already pointed out how ridiculous the criticisms of Bolt are [Out of Left Field], so I won't spend too much time on that. Globe and Mail reporter Matt Sekeres added a great point on Vancouver's Team 1040 radio station this morning, mentioning how Rogge used to be involved in sailing, a sport not exactly known for its excessive celebrations. Bolt's celebration was about the joy of winning and also about promoting himself, two concepts that have no place under Rogge's watch, where everything must be for the commercial expansion of the Games themselves instead of the welfare of the athletes who compete in them.
What really boggles my mind is that Rogge sees Bolt's celebrations as the most pressing and problematic issue around these Olympics and decides to take a firm stance against them, but completely ignores and sloughs off the more relevant and important issues listed above. It's the modern-day equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Yes, there have been many great moments in these Olympics, but they have also revealed the true flaws of the Olympic movement to a wider audience, including the overzealous nationalism the Games have promoted in China, the lengths a totalitarian state will go to to win and the political gambits and manueverings the IOC heads have used to legitimize a state of repression in favour of expanding their moment's commercial appeal to a massive untapped market. Now is the time for Dr. Rogge, an orthopedic surgeon by profession, to investigate the internal cancers that plague his organization, rather than attempting to trim one of its toenails that probably isn't even too long. Physician, heal thy organization!
The felons, fascists, dictators and corrupt officials who currently fill Rogge's own organization [Andrew Jennings, Transparency In Sport]? Nope, all those are trivial. Rogge found a much more significant target than those minor annoyances: the post-race celebrations of Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt[National Post].
It's tough to describe just how out of whack Rogge's priorities are, but Yahoo! Sports columnist Dan Wetzel makes a vailiant effort. "Jacques Rogge is so bought, so compromised, the president of the IOC doesn’t have the courage to criticize China for telling a decade of lies to land itself these Olympic Games," he writes. "All the promises made to get these Games — on Tibet, Darfur, pollution, worker safety, freedom of expression, dissident rights — turned out to be phony, perhaps as phony as the Chinese gymnasts’ birthdates Rogge was way too scared to investigate. One of the most powerful men in sports turned the world away from his complicity. Instead, he has flexed his muscles by unloading on a powerless sprinter from a small island nation. Rogge’s ripping of Usain Bolt’s supposed showboating in two of the most electrifying gold-medal performances of these Games has to be one of the most ill-timed and gutless acts in the modern history of the Olympics."
Wetzel is right on the money. Neate's already pointed out how ridiculous the criticisms of Bolt are [Out of Left Field], so I won't spend too much time on that. Globe and Mail reporter Matt Sekeres added a great point on Vancouver's Team 1040 radio station this morning, mentioning how Rogge used to be involved in sailing, a sport not exactly known for its excessive celebrations. Bolt's celebration was about the joy of winning and also about promoting himself, two concepts that have no place under Rogge's watch, where everything must be for the commercial expansion of the Games themselves instead of the welfare of the athletes who compete in them.
What really boggles my mind is that Rogge sees Bolt's celebrations as the most pressing and problematic issue around these Olympics and decides to take a firm stance against them, but completely ignores and sloughs off the more relevant and important issues listed above. It's the modern-day equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Yes, there have been many great moments in these Olympics, but they have also revealed the true flaws of the Olympic movement to a wider audience, including the overzealous nationalism the Games have promoted in China, the lengths a totalitarian state will go to to win and the political gambits and manueverings the IOC heads have used to legitimize a state of repression in favour of expanding their moment's commercial appeal to a massive untapped market. Now is the time for Dr. Rogge, an orthopedic surgeon by profession, to investigate the internal cancers that plague his organization, rather than attempting to trim one of its toenails that probably isn't even too long. Physician, heal thy organization!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Manufacturing the Olympics
The whole kerfuffle around the Olympics' lip-synching switch, pre-taped fireworks and "volunteer fans"–which got a nice front-page expose from Bruce Arthur in the National Post this morning-better reveals the true nature of the Beijing Olympics and China than most of the coverage so far. If you're one of the five people living under a rock somewhere who hasn't yet heard about this, here's the basic run-down. During the opening ceremonies, the Chinese featured a song entitled "Ode to the Motherland" that was sung by seven-year-old Yang Peiyi, but lip-synched live by nine-year-old Lin Miaoke because Yang's face was apparently too round and her teeth were too crooked. Not content with this masterpiece of propaganda, they then inserted pre-taped fireworks footage into the montage of live fireworks to add to the event and sent in volunteer cheer squads to fill some of the empty seats.
This trifecta of deceptive maneuverings shows us plenty about China. If they just let things happen as they may, this wouldn't get a ton of attention: no one cares if a seven-year-old has perfect teeth, or how long a fireworks montage is, or even if not every Olympic venue is perfectly full. Instead, they've created a firestorm of negative press out of their attempts to spin things just right. The whole censoring-the-Internet bit is right up the same alley, and it shows just how badly the Chinese understand the Western media: by trying to keep reporters from writing about Amnesty International and Tibet, which might have just been brief subplots in the vast array of Olympic coverage, they created a boatload of stories on how the government was trying to limit the media's access.
Really, they should have hired some Western PR specialists. The best way to get a reporter to write a story is not to provide him with information on it, but rather to tell him "there's nothing to see here": anyone with even a smattering of journalistic instincts knows when someone's trying to hide something. Cover-ups usually make the best stories as well, and often lead to effects far greater in magnitude than just telling the truth in the first place would have caused: just ask Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein or Richard Milhous Nixon.
It's the whole authoritarian spirit of the Chinese Olympics that is so disturbing, though. Clearly, good is not good enough. A seven-year-old girl can have a beautiful voice, but crooked teeth? She's got no place in their Olympics. Cheering and other expressions of fandom? Not unless they're state-approved [Deadspin]. Tibetan bartenders? Better expel them, as well as question their black employers, discriminate against black bar patrons, approve the lyrics of foreign entertainers and prevent local residents from inviting foreigners to their apartments [The Washington Post]. Chatting with foreigners? Only allowed if you don't ask about age, marriage, health, home, personal experience, religion, political views or occupation. While you're at it, you'd better be careful with how you walk around foreigners and how you speak with handicapped athletes [Gawker]. Reading Fire Joe Morgan or Joe Posnanski's blog? Nope, no sabermetrics here [Joe Posnanski]. Planning to protest? Make sure you check with the police first [Charles Hutzler, The Associated Press].
As Arthur writes, these Olympics are certainly impressive, but the deception and the image-management makes you wonder what's real.
"What China has built here is incredible. The architecture, the machinery, the armies of volunteers and an Opening Ceremony with images that were surely seared into the soul of every Chinese citizen, and not a few citizens of the world, who watched. These are the Superpower Olympics, damn the costs. As Thomas Boswell of The Washington Post put it, the four billion people who will see these Olympics will witness "the behemoth that is being born."
But they are the Hollywood Olympics, too, complete with false fronts and lead actors and a cast of thousands, or millions. At its heart, this is a bright, shining, $40-billion lie. If the whole thing is being staged in Cambodia, don't be surprised."
What the Chinese government fails to realize is that their own efforts at control are only making things worse. The protests in Tibet earlier this year would have been less of a story if the government hadn't tried to keep the word from getting out. The smog would have been reported on, for sure, but in a less-embarrassing and less-frequent fashion if they didn't keep trying to tell us that everything's fine. Amnesty International probably would have been a bit player at most in these Olympics if the government hadn't blocked their website. No one would have criticized Yang Peiyi's appearance if she had sang, but by using a double, they touched off a firestorm of controversy. Normal, spontaneous cheering isn't a negative story, and might even be a positive one, but telling your fans how to cheer isn't going to earn you rave reviews.
The control, the censorship and the stage-managing make it easy to be cynical and skeptical even during moments that should be great promotional pieces. Even China's gold medal in team gymnastics is largely discredited due to the controversy about the gymnasts' ages [Ann Killion, San Jose Mercury News]. Open the country and the Games up, play by the rules of the rest of the world, let the press do their job, and you'll be surprised at the praise you'll get. If you try and keep the lid on for too long, it will eventually blow off in your face in a shower of hot steam.
This trifecta of deceptive maneuverings shows us plenty about China. If they just let things happen as they may, this wouldn't get a ton of attention: no one cares if a seven-year-old has perfect teeth, or how long a fireworks montage is, or even if not every Olympic venue is perfectly full. Instead, they've created a firestorm of negative press out of their attempts to spin things just right. The whole censoring-the-Internet bit is right up the same alley, and it shows just how badly the Chinese understand the Western media: by trying to keep reporters from writing about Amnesty International and Tibet, which might have just been brief subplots in the vast array of Olympic coverage, they created a boatload of stories on how the government was trying to limit the media's access.
Really, they should have hired some Western PR specialists. The best way to get a reporter to write a story is not to provide him with information on it, but rather to tell him "there's nothing to see here": anyone with even a smattering of journalistic instincts knows when someone's trying to hide something. Cover-ups usually make the best stories as well, and often lead to effects far greater in magnitude than just telling the truth in the first place would have caused: just ask Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein or Richard Milhous Nixon.
It's the whole authoritarian spirit of the Chinese Olympics that is so disturbing, though. Clearly, good is not good enough. A seven-year-old girl can have a beautiful voice, but crooked teeth? She's got no place in their Olympics. Cheering and other expressions of fandom? Not unless they're state-approved [Deadspin]. Tibetan bartenders? Better expel them, as well as question their black employers, discriminate against black bar patrons, approve the lyrics of foreign entertainers and prevent local residents from inviting foreigners to their apartments [The Washington Post]. Chatting with foreigners? Only allowed if you don't ask about age, marriage, health, home, personal experience, religion, political views or occupation. While you're at it, you'd better be careful with how you walk around foreigners and how you speak with handicapped athletes [Gawker]. Reading Fire Joe Morgan or Joe Posnanski's blog? Nope, no sabermetrics here [Joe Posnanski]. Planning to protest? Make sure you check with the police first [Charles Hutzler, The Associated Press].
As Arthur writes, these Olympics are certainly impressive, but the deception and the image-management makes you wonder what's real.
"What China has built here is incredible. The architecture, the machinery, the armies of volunteers and an Opening Ceremony with images that were surely seared into the soul of every Chinese citizen, and not a few citizens of the world, who watched. These are the Superpower Olympics, damn the costs. As Thomas Boswell of The Washington Post put it, the four billion people who will see these Olympics will witness "the behemoth that is being born."
But they are the Hollywood Olympics, too, complete with false fronts and lead actors and a cast of thousands, or millions. At its heart, this is a bright, shining, $40-billion lie. If the whole thing is being staged in Cambodia, don't be surprised."
What the Chinese government fails to realize is that their own efforts at control are only making things worse. The protests in Tibet earlier this year would have been less of a story if the government hadn't tried to keep the word from getting out. The smog would have been reported on, for sure, but in a less-embarrassing and less-frequent fashion if they didn't keep trying to tell us that everything's fine. Amnesty International probably would have been a bit player at most in these Olympics if the government hadn't blocked their website. No one would have criticized Yang Peiyi's appearance if she had sang, but by using a double, they touched off a firestorm of controversy. Normal, spontaneous cheering isn't a negative story, and might even be a positive one, but telling your fans how to cheer isn't going to earn you rave reviews.
The control, the censorship and the stage-managing make it easy to be cynical and skeptical even during moments that should be great promotional pieces. Even China's gold medal in team gymnastics is largely discredited due to the controversy about the gymnasts' ages [Ann Killion, San Jose Mercury News]. Open the country and the Games up, play by the rules of the rest of the world, let the press do their job, and you'll be surprised at the praise you'll get. If you try and keep the lid on for too long, it will eventually blow off in your face in a shower of hot steam.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A helluva column
I should preface this by stating that I respect the Globe and Mail's William Houston as a writer who's been doing a tough job for a long time, and I frequently read his columns. He does a fantastic job as a reporter who digs up interesting details on media coverage of Canadian sports, and his takes on the competition among the various channels and the TV ratings of different events are always worth a look. However, his analysis of networks' on-air coverage is much more hit-and-miss. Some of it is bang-on, such as his analysis of the different networks' trade deadline shows. I don't agree with many of his other ideas, particularly about what makes good and bad commentary, but I can usually at least understand where he's coming from. On occasion though, he'll drop in something that's so absurdly out-of-the-blue that I can't even begin to fathom the thought process he went through in constructing it.
A great example of the latter is his column from yesterday's Globe criticizing Hockey Night in Canada's coverage of the playoffs. Personally, from the games I've seen, I think Hockey Night's been doing their usual stellar job, but I can respect someone who disagrees with me and can support their reasoning. Unfortunately, Houston's effort does not meet this standard. Just look at the first couple paragraphs of his piece:
"The Hockey Night in Canada telecast of the San Jose Sharks-Calgary Flames game last Sunday was weak in spots, but helpful in identifying some of the show's problems," he writes. Okay so far: we still disagree that it was weak, but I'm looking forward to his explanation.
"Let's start with host Ron MacLean, an excellent broadcaster and a popular hockey personality."
Interesting. If he's such an excellent broadcaster, why is he the primary problem? We're about to find out.
"On a semi-regular basis, MacLean uses "hell of a" to describe something exceptional, such as "a helluva third period." He uttered "helluva" once on Sunday."
Good Lord! I had no idea my tax dollars were going to fund such gross profanity! We clearly need a censorship law for the CBC: it can come in right alongside the new Bill C-10 set to deny tax credits to films and videos "deemed offensive to the public", which star director Ang Lee points out is more state censorship than he ever experienced in China, that noted haven of free speech. Hey, if we're going to destroy Canadian cinema, we might as well take out Canadian TV while we're at it so we can replace it with the bland, inoffensive entertainment that Houston apparently prefers. No one had better send him a Trailer Park Boys DVD: he might have a heart attack just from reading the box!
Seriously though, how can "helluva" be considered offensive in this day and age? It's a short form for "hell of a", a commonly used superlative for a strong athletic performance. What's so offensive, the word "hell"? Well, it occurs fifty-five times in the Bible, so clearly all copies of that book need to be burnt instantly. It's also the name of a town in Michigan, so we should wipe that off the map as well. The Hells Angels? Gone. Hells Bells? Toast. Hell freezing over? Better burn those Eagles CDs. Never mind the following Wikipedia entry:
"The word "Hell" used away from its religious context was long considered to be profanity, particularly in North America. Although its use was commonplace in everyday speech and on television by the 1970s, many people in the US still consider it somewhat rude or inappropriate language, particularly involving children.[15] Many, particularly among religious circles and in certain sensitive environments, still avoid casual usage of the word. In British English and some parts of North America, the word has fallen into common use and is not considered profane; often considered to be a safer and less offensive alternative to swearing, as in the phrase, 'Go to Hell.'"
Well, I guess Houston still lives in a time before the 1970s and still considers hell profane. As he excitingly goes on about MacLean, "Last week, he used damn and hell in the same breath. They're minor expletives, but CBC Sports is the only place we know where a host is allowed to swear on the air." You can feel the implied exclamation marks, and the shock he expects to arise as millions of Canadians spill their morning coffee reading such tales of horror and instantly flee to their 1970s-style typewriters to bang out indignant letters to the editor over the degradation of society and the absence of any and all morals. As Macdonald Hall's Bruno Walton might say, "Our world is crumbling around us!" Damn and hell in the same breath? On the airwaves? Forget the censorship bill, you might as well just burn MacLean at the stake right now. Oh, rats: I just used damn and hell in the same breath. William Houston, if you're reading this, you're welcome to come burn me as well for violating your sacrosanct media sphere of morality.
The funny thing is, it's not just the times that Houston is out of touch with. I've been reading "best-of" collections of great Canadian sportswriters like Jim Coleman and Milt Dunnell recently, and they spent much of their time at horse tracks and boxing rings. I sincerely doubt if either man ever recoiled when they heard a "damn" or a "hell" from the legendary characters they hung out with. Sure, it's somewhat different when it's in the media, but should it really be? That's what makes sites like Drunk Jays Fans so refreshing: those guys don't bother to take the rough edges of their passionate commentary, regardless of who they offend. Slipping in a "helluva" really shouldn't offend anyone these days, anyways,(except for those hopelessly behind the times).
The trend's starting to catch on: at our own humble paper, we're certainly not reticent to use "damn" or "hell" when quoting people, and even occasionally in our own writing. We're also not afraid to throw in even naughtier words when someone says them. This is especially important in sports: I know I'd much rather hear "We put up a hell of a fight" than the clichéd, sans emotion comments like "We went out there and did our best." In an era where most athletes and coaches are taught to spin everything in the blandest way possible, the occasional outburst of pure passion should be lauded, not censored.
This isn't to say that language should be used just for pure shock value. There's a point where it's real, and a point where it's just contrived, where you lose the passion that made pushing the boundaries great in the first place. However, particularly in sports, there's a lot of emotion involved, and the fans who read/watch/listen to them are better able to connect with the game and the athletes if coaches, players and even announcers can truly express what they feel than if they're forced into politically correct language. Even the mainstream media's starting to get this: Houston's colleague Jeff Blair had a fantastic story today about the Jays' loss, which started off with manager John Gibbons dropping three consecutive "fucks". Of course, the paper didn't actually print the word in question, but Blair didn't condemn Gibbons for his language, and he came through as a guy who was genuinely passionate and frustrated about his team. I know I'd rather have a character like him or Ozzie Guillen managing my club than a dull figure who sticks to Houston's rules. There's other great examples, such as Joe Posnanski, my favorite Kansas City Star columnist, who recently held a fantastic swear-off between Scott Raab and Pat Jordan. Now, those guys might fall into the category of "swearing just to draw attention", but I can say that that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
In any case, I don't want to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" world espoused by Mr. Houston. I prefer my athletes and commentators as real people, who curse when they miss a shot or complement something amazing with "that was a hell of a play". So don't worry, Ron: I'm sure there are plenty of people who have moved on from the old days and can actually handle a little helluva here and there in their media. Unfortunately, none of them happen to write the sports television column for the Globe and Mail.
A great example of the latter is his column from yesterday's Globe criticizing Hockey Night in Canada's coverage of the playoffs. Personally, from the games I've seen, I think Hockey Night's been doing their usual stellar job, but I can respect someone who disagrees with me and can support their reasoning. Unfortunately, Houston's effort does not meet this standard. Just look at the first couple paragraphs of his piece:
"The Hockey Night in Canada telecast of the San Jose Sharks-Calgary Flames game last Sunday was weak in spots, but helpful in identifying some of the show's problems," he writes. Okay so far: we still disagree that it was weak, but I'm looking forward to his explanation.
"Let's start with host Ron MacLean, an excellent broadcaster and a popular hockey personality."
Interesting. If he's such an excellent broadcaster, why is he the primary problem? We're about to find out.
"On a semi-regular basis, MacLean uses "hell of a" to describe something exceptional, such as "a helluva third period." He uttered "helluva" once on Sunday."
Good Lord! I had no idea my tax dollars were going to fund such gross profanity! We clearly need a censorship law for the CBC: it can come in right alongside the new Bill C-10 set to deny tax credits to films and videos "deemed offensive to the public", which star director Ang Lee points out is more state censorship than he ever experienced in China, that noted haven of free speech. Hey, if we're going to destroy Canadian cinema, we might as well take out Canadian TV while we're at it so we can replace it with the bland, inoffensive entertainment that Houston apparently prefers. No one had better send him a Trailer Park Boys DVD: he might have a heart attack just from reading the box!
Seriously though, how can "helluva" be considered offensive in this day and age? It's a short form for "hell of a", a commonly used superlative for a strong athletic performance. What's so offensive, the word "hell"? Well, it occurs fifty-five times in the Bible, so clearly all copies of that book need to be burnt instantly. It's also the name of a town in Michigan, so we should wipe that off the map as well. The Hells Angels? Gone. Hells Bells? Toast. Hell freezing over? Better burn those Eagles CDs. Never mind the following Wikipedia entry:
"The word "Hell" used away from its religious context was long considered to be profanity, particularly in North America. Although its use was commonplace in everyday speech and on television by the 1970s, many people in the US still consider it somewhat rude or inappropriate language, particularly involving children.[15] Many, particularly among religious circles and in certain sensitive environments, still avoid casual usage of the word. In British English and some parts of North America, the word has fallen into common use and is not considered profane; often considered to be a safer and less offensive alternative to swearing, as in the phrase, 'Go to Hell.'"
Well, I guess Houston still lives in a time before the 1970s and still considers hell profane. As he excitingly goes on about MacLean, "Last week, he used damn and hell in the same breath. They're minor expletives, but CBC Sports is the only place we know where a host is allowed to swear on the air." You can feel the implied exclamation marks, and the shock he expects to arise as millions of Canadians spill their morning coffee reading such tales of horror and instantly flee to their 1970s-style typewriters to bang out indignant letters to the editor over the degradation of society and the absence of any and all morals. As Macdonald Hall's Bruno Walton might say, "Our world is crumbling around us!" Damn and hell in the same breath? On the airwaves? Forget the censorship bill, you might as well just burn MacLean at the stake right now. Oh, rats: I just used damn and hell in the same breath. William Houston, if you're reading this, you're welcome to come burn me as well for violating your sacrosanct media sphere of morality.
The funny thing is, it's not just the times that Houston is out of touch with. I've been reading "best-of" collections of great Canadian sportswriters like Jim Coleman and Milt Dunnell recently, and they spent much of their time at horse tracks and boxing rings. I sincerely doubt if either man ever recoiled when they heard a "damn" or a "hell" from the legendary characters they hung out with. Sure, it's somewhat different when it's in the media, but should it really be? That's what makes sites like Drunk Jays Fans so refreshing: those guys don't bother to take the rough edges of their passionate commentary, regardless of who they offend. Slipping in a "helluva" really shouldn't offend anyone these days, anyways,(except for those hopelessly behind the times).
The trend's starting to catch on: at our own humble paper, we're certainly not reticent to use "damn" or "hell" when quoting people, and even occasionally in our own writing. We're also not afraid to throw in even naughtier words when someone says them. This is especially important in sports: I know I'd much rather hear "We put up a hell of a fight" than the clichéd, sans emotion comments like "We went out there and did our best." In an era where most athletes and coaches are taught to spin everything in the blandest way possible, the occasional outburst of pure passion should be lauded, not censored.
This isn't to say that language should be used just for pure shock value. There's a point where it's real, and a point where it's just contrived, where you lose the passion that made pushing the boundaries great in the first place. However, particularly in sports, there's a lot of emotion involved, and the fans who read/watch/listen to them are better able to connect with the game and the athletes if coaches, players and even announcers can truly express what they feel than if they're forced into politically correct language. Even the mainstream media's starting to get this: Houston's colleague Jeff Blair had a fantastic story today about the Jays' loss, which started off with manager John Gibbons dropping three consecutive "fucks". Of course, the paper didn't actually print the word in question, but Blair didn't condemn Gibbons for his language, and he came through as a guy who was genuinely passionate and frustrated about his team. I know I'd rather have a character like him or Ozzie Guillen managing my club than a dull figure who sticks to Houston's rules. There's other great examples, such as Joe Posnanski, my favorite Kansas City Star columnist, who recently held a fantastic swear-off between Scott Raab and Pat Jordan. Now, those guys might fall into the category of "swearing just to draw attention", but I can say that that was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
In any case, I don't want to return to the "Leave it to Beaver" world espoused by Mr. Houston. I prefer my athletes and commentators as real people, who curse when they miss a shot or complement something amazing with "that was a hell of a play". So don't worry, Ron: I'm sure there are plenty of people who have moved on from the old days and can actually handle a little helluva here and there in their media. Unfortunately, none of them happen to write the sports television column for the Globe and Mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
