Wildo7
Totally Full of It
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 8,945
- Reaction score
- 88
If there's a saving grace of this whole "spy-gate" drama it's that now an entire market has been educated as to just how disingenuous and sensationalist the media can be and how strong they are in shaping people's opinions accross the country. I think most of us knew the media to be sleazy and somewhat controversy-driven, but I think this whole episode has made a lot of us aware as to how the media creates "characters" out of people not only in the sports world, but in the real world and either turns them into heroes or villains.
When this whole story broke, the lines were divided along a few enclaves. There were the homers who were going to defend the Pats at all costs, the reasonable moderates who could see wrong but still wanted to be fair (knowing the ban talk and tarnish SB wins were too much but the Pats weren't in the clear necessarily) and the fans of other teams who were going to maximize this in their hatred of the Pats. In rushing to defend the Pats, I think most of us were forced to do quite a bit of research into the rule, when it was implemented, the real timeline of events, the extent to which other teams do it, how much it would help, how it would help, where you can steal signals from etc. Questions that were not being asked in the media who thrive off of the frenzied shouting matches and superficial moral posturing that is Around the Horn, PTI etc.
Most of us realize that, in the grand scheme of things the videotaping was a) more of a matter of convenience than advantage, b) not only conducted by the Patriots, c) distorted by the relationship of the "characters" involved with the media and the status of the Patriots.
In doing our own research, which usually involved searching for the most hard-to-find and journalistic articles, we've truly learned a lot. We've learned that you cannot underestimate the extent to which Bellichick's cagey attitude towards the media factors into this story. Looking at this objectively, one would see a coach and a team who never talks trash, never over-celebrates, apologized for the indiscretion, accepted the punishment, and complied completely with the NFL's demands. That should paint the picture of an honest coach and organization with integrity that man's up and accepts responsibilty for it without making media sensation out of it. Instead we get analogies to Michael Vick and Richard Nixon. The media needs their soundbites, and they need their controversy. They see a demand in losing teams' fanbases to express hatred towards the Pats and they need to feed it. We now, more than ever, know just how searing and powerful the media machine can be when it sets its sights on you.
There's also no coincidence that many of the "villains" in the theatrical spectacle of sports are usually those that do not buy into this ongoing drama. Those not always available for comic relief, public displays of private life or 24 hour question and answer access. We knew Randy Moss was not a bad guy, but someone who wanted to win. If Randy hadn't come to the Pats, most of us wouldn't have bothered to discover, in rushing to his defense, that his "I play when I want to play" quote has been continuously taken out of context. We know Bellichick is not the evil, arrogant, megalomaniacal dictator that he has been cast as in this sports movie. But what I've taken from this is that we only really know those facts and characters that we are forced to defend. Do we really know T.O.? Do we really accept the part Barry Bonds has been chosen to play? Is Ricky Williams really the selfish stoner they portray? Who is Manny Ramirez? These athletes, who all have strange relationships with the media, who rarely defend themselves to the media, perhaps a display of class in not sinking to the tabloid level, are all getting a clean slate in my book. True, their actions may speak louder than words, but do we really even know their actions?
Perhaps the best thing that could happen to sports fans in this country, and citizens, would be having a scandal erupt in every sports city. Only then will people recognize just how manufactured the news is. Out of fear of bringing politics into this, we can also bring this to a larger, world stage. How many different sides of a person like, say, Hugo Chavez have we heard? Does the media stand to benefit from villainizing him? Have we been given an accurate portrait of him? I'm certainly not defending or denouncing him, but I fear that most of our opinions of people like him are formed in the same way America uses Jay Mariotti to form their opinion of Barry Bonds. It might be right, it might be wrong, but at best, it's completely unreliable. Perhaps the best way to go that extra step and find out what's really going on, is to try and find ways to defend him and see what you discover.
With all the talk of our tarnished Superbowls and Legacy, the only thing that has been tarnished is the sports media. And maybe it's for the better.
- Will
When this whole story broke, the lines were divided along a few enclaves. There were the homers who were going to defend the Pats at all costs, the reasonable moderates who could see wrong but still wanted to be fair (knowing the ban talk and tarnish SB wins were too much but the Pats weren't in the clear necessarily) and the fans of other teams who were going to maximize this in their hatred of the Pats. In rushing to defend the Pats, I think most of us were forced to do quite a bit of research into the rule, when it was implemented, the real timeline of events, the extent to which other teams do it, how much it would help, how it would help, where you can steal signals from etc. Questions that were not being asked in the media who thrive off of the frenzied shouting matches and superficial moral posturing that is Around the Horn, PTI etc.
Most of us realize that, in the grand scheme of things the videotaping was a) more of a matter of convenience than advantage, b) not only conducted by the Patriots, c) distorted by the relationship of the "characters" involved with the media and the status of the Patriots.
In doing our own research, which usually involved searching for the most hard-to-find and journalistic articles, we've truly learned a lot. We've learned that you cannot underestimate the extent to which Bellichick's cagey attitude towards the media factors into this story. Looking at this objectively, one would see a coach and a team who never talks trash, never over-celebrates, apologized for the indiscretion, accepted the punishment, and complied completely with the NFL's demands. That should paint the picture of an honest coach and organization with integrity that man's up and accepts responsibilty for it without making media sensation out of it. Instead we get analogies to Michael Vick and Richard Nixon. The media needs their soundbites, and they need their controversy. They see a demand in losing teams' fanbases to express hatred towards the Pats and they need to feed it. We now, more than ever, know just how searing and powerful the media machine can be when it sets its sights on you.
There's also no coincidence that many of the "villains" in the theatrical spectacle of sports are usually those that do not buy into this ongoing drama. Those not always available for comic relief, public displays of private life or 24 hour question and answer access. We knew Randy Moss was not a bad guy, but someone who wanted to win. If Randy hadn't come to the Pats, most of us wouldn't have bothered to discover, in rushing to his defense, that his "I play when I want to play" quote has been continuously taken out of context. We know Bellichick is not the evil, arrogant, megalomaniacal dictator that he has been cast as in this sports movie. But what I've taken from this is that we only really know those facts and characters that we are forced to defend. Do we really know T.O.? Do we really accept the part Barry Bonds has been chosen to play? Is Ricky Williams really the selfish stoner they portray? Who is Manny Ramirez? These athletes, who all have strange relationships with the media, who rarely defend themselves to the media, perhaps a display of class in not sinking to the tabloid level, are all getting a clean slate in my book. True, their actions may speak louder than words, but do we really even know their actions?
Perhaps the best thing that could happen to sports fans in this country, and citizens, would be having a scandal erupt in every sports city. Only then will people recognize just how manufactured the news is. Out of fear of bringing politics into this, we can also bring this to a larger, world stage. How many different sides of a person like, say, Hugo Chavez have we heard? Does the media stand to benefit from villainizing him? Have we been given an accurate portrait of him? I'm certainly not defending or denouncing him, but I fear that most of our opinions of people like him are formed in the same way America uses Jay Mariotti to form their opinion of Barry Bonds. It might be right, it might be wrong, but at best, it's completely unreliable. Perhaps the best way to go that extra step and find out what's really going on, is to try and find ways to defend him and see what you discover.
With all the talk of our tarnished Superbowls and Legacy, the only thing that has been tarnished is the sports media. And maybe it's for the better.
- Will
Last edited: