The
flaws of media being run by big businesses have never been more prevalent than
right now. All forms of media whether it’s sports, politics, or news are
severely limited when businesses are looking out for their own individual
needs. This exploratory study analyzes Heisman winner Johnny Manziel and the
coverage surrounding him on ESPN and in Time Magazine. The month long obsession
with Manziel following his alleged autograph scandal may have made a lot more
sense than it seemed. The oligopoly of the NCAA and media markets like ESPN
have a very significant impact by limiting the potential for change. (Manziel
is an example of media that is limited due to ESPN’s own needs surrounding the
current debate on collegiate athletes being paid.)
The amount of money surrounding media corporations,
commercialism, and the NCAA, significantly limits other forms of competition in
sports media. These parallel benefits of several markets benefitting the other and
significantly decreasing the potential for competition elsewhere is known as an
oligopoly. The market surrounding college football and sports media has become
so vast that this is a tremendous example of that, and it’s consistent in other
forms of media as well. (A case study of media coverage on Texas A&M
quarterback Johnny Manziel exemplifies that this structure for mainstream media
can vastly flaw the portrayal of college football and sports in general through
mainstream media.) Research methods such as a textual analysis, an
informational interview and a focus group were used to support this claim about
flawed mainstream media surrounding Manziel and all forms of media in general.
ESPN is known as “the worldwide leader in sports,” and
that is because they are by far the most consumed channel in sports. According
to ESPN’s Fact Sheet, the television
program SportsCenter averages up to 115 million viewers a month. The show quite
heavily influences the opinion of sports fans throughout the country. On SportsCenter ESPN has publically
criticized Texas A&M starting quarterback, Johnny Manziel, on numerous
occasions for things other than his play on the football field. And recently,
ESPN reported an NCAA investigation towards Johnny Manziel’s alleged autograph
scandal. No evidence was discovered that Manziel had personally made benefits
towards signing autographs, but nonetheless Manziel was suspended for a half in
Texas A&M’s season opener. It’s assumable the general consensus around
Manziel’s attitude as a player is negative, and that could very well be a
result of ESPN coverage. (Despite not actually having any proof against him,
ESPN portrayed Manziel as guilty of breaking NCAA rules, and more importantly
for having very poor character.)
The constant glorification, bombardment and overall
obsession with athletes in the media has become a consistent culture trend in
American media. Good guys and bad guys are created through extreme amounts of
coverage, and the media hype surrounding sports is one of the largest in the
world. In order to fully analyze the truths of Manziel in the media, a basic understanding
of the trends of American sports media surrounding major athletes is necessary.
In Joan Mancuso’s “Social Media and the Second Screen,”
Mancuso discusses how television is a mainstream form of marketing. The trends
of commercialism and business advertising has traditionally started with
television, and continues to do so. The breakdown of the impact television has
on our lives financially in essence gives a broad example of how sports media
can do the same. Despite the growth of internet, television is still the main
form for marketing and consumption, and there’s no exception in that regarding
Manziel and ESPN.
The article, “The Tweet is in Your Court: Measuring
Attitude Towards Athlete Endorsements in Social Media,” is a great example of the
constant media craze surrounding professional athletes, especially now with the
increase in social media. Cunningham writes, “Whether it is posting pictures
from a restaurant or posting a link to their latest sneaker commercial,
athletes have discovered ways to use social media to promote themselves and
their favorite brands” (Cunningham, 2012). The article continues to explain the
significance of athlete endorsements and the attractiveness it brings to
consumers and spectators of sports. What fans don’t often realize is the
significance that endorsements have on sports. The association of athletes to
business creates revenue for the league, player, and company alike. But those
type of benefits can alter the development of leagues and games in a way that
can sometimes benefit the player’s success. It’s a fascinating theory to
recognize, and this article brings up that perspective in the association of
social media, and that perhaps athletes are magnifying that concept on their
own with the power of things like Facebook and twitter, and this may also be
true in the case of Manziel.
In Cunningham’s article, he describes the power athletes
have through social media to magnify their endorsement value, but in,
“Consuming Sports Media, Producing Sports Media: An Analysis of Two Fan Sports
Blogospheres,” Brigid McCarthy explains sports blogging, and how social media
can impact the fans perspective as well as opposed to the players. In sports
blogs, opinions are developed and shared in a way that’s fairly new to the
consumption world. McCarthy writes, “Given the increasingly entwined
relationship between media and sport, these bloggers can be viewed as both
sports fans, of which there is a growing corpus of surrounding literature, and
as media consumers who gather information from the source they emulate”
(McCarthy, 2013). The ability for fans to share their opinions so constantly is
in a way a pattern of magnifying the significance of sports media as a whole.
As McCarthy said, bloggers are typically consumers, and are likely writing
their blogs in response to what they’ve heard and watched in the sports media.
And due to the fact that blogs are typically in response to consumed media,
they tend to either be criticizing or supporting said media, and that is true
as well in the case of Manziel. Well recognized sports blogs like Bleacher-Report criticized the portrayal
of Manziel on ESPN, and they provided an opposing view for sports fans.
The article “Keeping the Paparazzi an Arm Length Away,”
by Ray Murray provides a perspective from famous athletes or celebrities that
have to deal with a serious lack of privacy due to paparazzi. Murray discusses
how it’s a problem that may seem like it is getting worse, but in reality it’s
always been a strong issue. He proves this in his introduction explaining a
story with singer and celebrity, Frank Sinatra, “While in Italy filming the
1965 release Von Ryan’s Express, Sinatra, while he was with actress Ava
Gardner, his ex-wife, had paparazzi pursue them everywhere. The paparazzi reportedly
offered $16,000 for a posed picture of the couple. Sinatra reportedly countered
with an offer of $32,000 “if he could break one paparazzi arm and one leg”
(Murray, 2013). Murray’s in depth analogy about paparazzi historically and
currently through the eyes of the celebrity’s shows a perspective naturally
isn’t often portrayed in media. For the case of Johnny Manziel, in the past he
has shown little regard for the paparazzi, and the media has criticized him
heavily for this as a result. Manziel has not done anything of real wrong
significance, but he has been seen in the “non-professional” sense, as he would
sometimes be publically intoxicated. Manziel’s attitude towards his portrayal
in the media has been clear: he doesn’t care a whole lot how the media portrays
him, and he refuses to let the media control how he acts.
Sal Paolantonio’s “How Football Explains America,”
analyzes Paolantonio’s concepts behind America’s obsession with everything
football. The book raises questions as to why America is the only country that
is so obsessed with football, and why it doesn’t catch on with other countries.
Paolantonio, who is also a frequent member of football media on ESPN, writes
from both a historical and current perspective. The theory Paolantonio has is
that American’s are subconsciously intrigued by football due to the historical
concept of manifest destiny. Football is all about conquering and gaining
territory, just as manifest destiny was. Perhaps Paolantonio’s theories have a
point, because it’s truthful that other countries just aren’t as obsessed with
football as Americans are. Paolantonio also goes on to discuss the role of
quarterbacks and how the rule changes of forward passing allowed for roles of
good guys and bad guys to develop in the game. The analogy of the 2007 Patriots
led by Bill Belichick was Paolantonio’s example of “bad guys” in the football
media. These concepts of good and bad guys make for good media revenue in the
sports business, and can even pay a heavy bearing in endorsements for athletes.
Due to Manziel’s personality and his loose cannon attitude, he has already been
tattooed in mainstream media as one of the “bad guys.” These tendencies of
roles in media through professional athletes has definitely always been common,
but in the case of Manziel and ESPN, it was always more than just his attitude
and personality for ESPN’s motives surrounding him.
In order to fully comprehend the societal tendencies
surrounding the mass media of sports, naturally an understanding of how sports
media is produced is crucial. The textbook, “Sports Media: Planning, Producing,
and Reporting,” by Brad Schlutz provides an outlook on the industry of sports
media, and what people interested in joining it are taught. The priorities of
this book consist primarily around reporting, anchoring, and production. The
nuts and bolts of sports media production are explained in this book, so
understanding the culture surrounding sports fans becomes much clearer. After
reading up on the production process, David Rowe’s “Sport, Culture, and Media”
becomes much clearer. In the prologue of the book, Rowe writes, “Where other
books in this area particularly focus on a particular sport and its depiction
in a single medium, Rowe’s book covers both production and interpretation
across the full spectrum called the ‘media sports cultural complex’” (Rowe,
2004). Rowe explores all aspects of sports media from things like newspapers,
television, and internet. There are different tendencies of all forms of media
in sports, but Rowe goes in to detail about the tendencies of the business and
their impacts on sports fans and media consumers in society. The book by Rowe compliments
Schultz quite nicely, and only furthers the possibility of ESPN’s portrayal of
Manziel being more significant than it seems. Jay Lathrop Stevens describes how
that also plays a role in his article, “Who is Your Hero? Implications for Athlete
Endorsement Strategies,” and that only further explains the vast significance
of media coverage in athletes, only particularly in endorsed products.
An aspect of good and bad guys in sports is further
exemplified in Rubio Hernandez’s “Sports Heroes: the Heroes of the Mediated
Sacred Sphere.” Hernandez’s research specifically uses tennis star Rafael Nadal
as a case study describing the media coverage of his success. Hernandez writes,
“This article analyzes how media depictions exalt players as objects of worship
and devotion. It will specifically focus on the most successful Spanish
sportsmen such as the tennis player Rafael Nadal and the players of the
national soccer team and how they are promoted as national heroes in
advertising” (Hernandez, 2011). Due to ESPN, Manziel has definitely been deemed
the role as a “bad guy” in the sports world.
Karen Weaver is a professor who has significant
experience in the world of college sports. She currently teaches sports
management at Drexel University, and previously served as the director of
athletics at Penn State Abington and also the University of Minnesota. Her
qualifications as a professor, athletic director, and as a broadcaster as well
make her more than qualified to analyze from a deeper perspective what’s become
of college football. In her book, “Media Deals, College Football, and
Governance,” Weaver explains that she feels that the tendency of how teams are
moving all over the place in conferences is a result of television rankings and
which teams are being watched more than others. The explanations of revenue
towards NCAA athletics can become quite controversial due to the fact that
students may or may not be getting exploited for their talents, and that the
media deals surrounding college football coverage have inflated more and more
over recent years. The politics surrounding college sports, athletes, and media
coverage, is extremely complicated.
That’s exactly what makes Johnny Manziel’s case so
interesting. Recently Manziel was featured on the cover of Time Magazine showcasing an article titled “It’s Time to Pay
College Athletes.” Time Magazine’s
slant on the issue is how a lot of athletes feel about the dilemma.
Universities are making obscene amounts of money from media coverage due to
their successes as an athletic program. An exciting player like Manziel gave
Texas A&M University an absurd increase in revenue, and it’s entirely due
to the coverage drawn with Manziel’s Heisman winning season. The debate is
simple: is it fair that Manziel is prohibited by the NCAA to see any kind of
profits for his success? Time and time again players are getting caught making
money from autographs, jerseys or whatever type of business on the side as a
result of their fame. It’s become so frequent and the revenue from universities
has become so high that Time Magazine
rightfully has a point when they feel that players like Manziel should get paid
for their collegiate athletic prowess. Gregory writes that Texas A&M had a
“seventy-two million dollar estimated retail value of all A&M branded
merchandise sold in 2012-13, a 20% jump over their previous year” (Gregory,
41). That type of revenue jump came entirely off of Manziel’s Heisman campaign,
and his success revitalized the excitement of the Aggies. The point of the article
is it’s very fair to consider Manziel worthy of getting a type of payment for
his work, besides his scholarship to play football. Manziel is just one example
of an individual that significantly benefits a school’s overall revenue due to
his athletic prowess. This has been a consistent trend in the NCAA over the
years, but it’s now more significant than ever due to the constant inflation of
the oligopoly of the markets surrounding division one college sports.
Johnny Manziel’s incidents off the field were not
necessarily newsworthy. Maybe in today’s era of social media, where players can
be spotted and uploaded to the internet in a flash, it could be worth a
headline. But his incidents at first involved nothing more than being seen
intoxicated at parties. He was seen in a Scooby-Doo costume on Halloween, he
was kicked out of a Texas fraternity party, and he decided to remove himself
from the Manning Passing Academy in July. For a network like ESPN, incidents
like those involving a former Heisman winner are certainly worth mentioning,
but this was different then reporting the news. These were more than reports,
it was a month long craze of Manziel mania. And when word broke out that
Manziel had allegedly profited from selling his autographs, the level of Manziel
craze on ESPN had taken a whole new level.
To
verify the obsession of Manziel coverage on ESPN, a textual analysis was
performed on several segments from the show SportsCenter.
A segment on ESPN’s SportsCenter featured former NFL player and head coach Herm
Edwards along with college football analyst Mel Kiper
(http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9627522). The segment was titled
“Questionable Character,” and mainly focused around Manziel’s debut to the 2013
season. Because Manziel was suspended for the first half, he had to lead Texas
A&M on a comeback rally against a much lesser Rice University. In the half
he played in, Manziel went 6-8 with three passing touchdowns and one rushing.
His presence completely decimated any hope of a Rice victory. In the game however,
cameras caught Manziel jawing with opposing defenders on several occasions.
What was said between players was unclear, but cameras also saw Manziel
mimicking the motion of signing an autograph at the defender that was speaking
to him. ESPN interpreted this verbal exchange as Manziel being completely
disrespectful to authority and his suspension from the NCAA. Edwards and Kiper
questioned his work ethic as an individual on all sorts of levels. They felt he
didn’t have the ability or maturity to transform his skill set to the
professional level, and Edwards went as far as to say that Texas A&M was
hurting Manziel by allowing him to be himself instead of being held in check in
the professional sense. Not one clarification of what was said occurred during
the segment, and not one time did they mention that Manziel had never actually
been caught for the alleged autograph scandal that had been talked about for
weeks earlier. The essence of Manziel’s character problems were referred to as
his “antics,” both on and off the field. The overall point of the segment
generalized the fact that they felt Manziel’s character will limit his potential
as an athlete in college, and haunt him even more when he pursues a
professional career.
A
breakdown of Manziel’s 2013 season debut on ESPN’s College Football Live, was
not much different from SportsCenter.
College football hall of famer Lou Holtz, and University of Pittsburgh alumnus
Mark May both questioned his ego in reference to one half of football. This
opinion was definitely driven from the media headlines surrounding Manziel for
weeks beforehand. Holtz in reference to Manziel felt that “he thinks he’s a
coach,” (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9620467). Following the investigation of Manziel’s
autographs, ESPN was very one sided in their opinions based on him. They used a
story that revealed no evidence whatsoever towards Manziel to create a media
fluff surrounding his reputation as an individual. This is because Manziel
already had a reputation for his life off the field as a partier and a drinker.
Aside from that, Manziel has done nothing to hurt anybody or anything of any
real significance to gain a poor reputation.
Interestingly
enough, a further textual analysis of Manziel in other forms of media proved
that not everyone is as hostile towards him as ESPN. Sports Illustrated has
written many articles covering Manziel. This past July, Sports Illustrated beat
writer Andy Staples wrote his article, “Johnny Manziel is Worth the Headache.”
Staples writes:
He
has spent time with Drake and LeBron James, and that made people mad. He has
participated in a trick-shot video, and that made people mad. He has complained
about a parking ticket on Twitter, and that made people mad. One writer at the
Orlando Sentinel suggested freshmen shouldn't win the Heisman Trophy because
Manziel was having too much fun during his offseason. I'd suggest that any sportswriter
who hates fun should seriously reconsider (their) career choice.
(sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
Staples
then went on to quote Manziel himself in regards to his newfound fame, “‘I'm
not going for the Miss America pageant," Manziel said on Wednesday.
"I'm playing football. I'm a 20-year-old kid in college. You can take that
for what it's worth. I'm enjoying my life, continuing to live life to the
fullest. Hopefully, that doesn't bother too many people,’”
(sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
It
makes perfect sense as to why Manziel is portrayed so poorly on ESPN, and it’s
because of the current debate surrounding college athletes being paid. After a
further analysis of Scott Gregory’s article in Time Magazine, Manziel is often labeled as the player that represents
the controversy as to whether or not college athletes should be paid. If ESPN
were to showcase Manziel in a positive light, it would be very foolish for them
from a business standpoint. ESPN and the NCAA have an alliance that works out
pretty well for them right now. An alliance, that’s economically defined as an
oligopoly. The media markets bringing people NCAA football games are
multi-billion dollar industries, ESPN being one of them. If ESPN promoted the
idea of collegiate athletes being paid it could potentially impact the networks
revenue badly by breaking up the market. From an economic standpoint, it’s
understandable as to why people may think college athletes should be paid in a
market like the NCAA that’s become so vast and isolated. But from ESPN’s
individual perspective, they’re going to do whatever they can to prevent people
from thinking that. And because they happen to be a forty billion dollar
network, they have the power of being able to heavily influence a lot of people
in society. Because as stated before, ESPN is part of a sports media oligopoly
that severely limits outside competition that could hurt viewership. Why
wouldn’t ESPN take advantage of a few isolated incidents regarding Manziel to
try and make him look like an immature kid that doesn’t deserve money? The NCAA
was probably just fine with that notion as well considering they suspended him
for being guilty of virtually nothing.
A
majority of sports fans consume a lot of ESPN, and those who do tend to think
negatively towards Manziel. This claim was proven in a focus group where
members answered questions before and after sampled segments from ESPN on
Manziel. Prior to the segments, four young adult male sports fans were asked
about their individual opinions on Manziel. The consensus between all members
was that they had a negative opinion on Manziel. They agreed that they felt he
is a talented player with a poor attitude and that all criticism directed at
him is warranted. However, also before the segments, they agreed that they are
sometimes frustrated with ESPN, even though they consume it more than any other
form of available sports media. It was interesting how all party members of the
focus group felt critical towards Manziel, which is the general consensus on
ESPN and SportsCenter, and yet
members also agreed that ESPN can be much better and at times can be
frustrating to watch.
The
first segment was a Center Piece on SportsCenter titled “Johnny Manziel
Ushered out of Party,” (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9515908/johnny-manziel-texas-aggies-kicked-university-texas-fraternity-party-report-says)
following the news that Manziel had been kicked out of a Texas University
fraternity party in July of 2013. Host Sage Steele was on the set with three
former college football players, Mark Schlereth, Herm Edwards, and Jesse Palmer.
In the segment, Schlereth and Edwards discussed that they felt Manziel had
serious maturity issues, and even insinuated that it could be a result of
parenting. Both Schlereth and Edwards analyzed how their fathers would treat
the situation if they had been seen intoxicated at a rival schools frat party,
and they also talked about how they would treat it towards their sons.
Throughout the piece, the only individual who argued that the story might not
be newsworthy was Jesse Palmer. This is typically a tactic done in forms of
news media where a point is trying to be made. The three people that supported
criticism towards Manziel over powered the one individual that defended him on
national television, and that can have an impact on the audience’s perspective
of Manziel. The talent in the piece even discussed how Manziel was seen wearing
a Tim Tebow jersey, and they claimed that he was wearing that because he was
well aware that the camera was on him and he wanted to be seen wearing it.
After seeing the entirety of the segment, the focus group again was all in
unison on their opinions. All members of the group felt that the topics being
discussed were not really relevant news at all. One quote from the group was,
“ESPN is a 24 hour news network. They kind of have to create stories like this
to fill space. I understand why they do it,” (M4). Despite the consensus that
these stories discussed in the piece were irrelevant, no one picked up on the
strategy at hand where three talent members ganged up on Jesse Palmer, and no
one said anything about the appropriateness of the indirect criticism towards
Manziel’s parents. Again, the members of the group recognized the flaws in the
media format, but their opinions on Manziel were not swayed, and that’s well
exhibited in the next segment from the focus group.
Mentioned
previously from the textual analysis, Lou Holtz sat down with Mark May on
ESPN’s College Football Live, where
they questioned Manziel’s leadership and maturity after the 2013 season opener
on a segment titled, “Manziel Flagged For Taunting Opponents,” (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=9620467).
In the focus group, all members felt the same way about the sampled media yet
again. They felt that the criticism surrounding Manziel was completely
justifiable. One quote from a group member reads, “The criticism of Johnny
Manziel here is completely warranted. He needs to show class in a win. He is
held on a separate level of criticism due to the fact that he is a former
Heisman winner,” (M1). The focus in this segment was that Manziel was flagged
for a taunting penalty after he made a gesture at a Rice defender. The gesture
suggested the motion of signing an autograph, and in the media this was
portrayed as Manziel making a mockery of his suspension for his alleged
autograph scandal. No member of the focus group mentioned they felt that this
was substantial evidence to suggest that Manziel had actually sold autographs,
but they didn’t defend that he may possibly be innocent as well. A quote
summing up the groups opinion on Manziel in response to the segment reads, “Due
to his autograph accusation, Manziel should be more aware of his media
portrayal. It really doesn’t seem like he cares about that at all,” (M3).
Also
mentioned earlier from the textual analysis, Herm Edwards and Mel Kiper heavily
ridiculed Manziel on a SportsCenter segment
titled “Questionable Character.” The group’s opinion on this segment varied a
little more than the others. A majority of the focus group felt that Manziel’s
character and leadership should rightfully be more criticized now instead of
before because of his successful Heisman campaign in 2012. But one member felt
that Edwards and Kiper’s criticism of Manziel’s leadership wasn’t exactly
justifiable. “This is an example of premature criticism. The significance of
Manziel’s leadership isn’t exactly clear. They need to let it go,” (M1). Aside
from that one individual in the group, everyone else felt that Manziel’s
character and leadership are rightfully questionable. “Due to a larger amount
of media coverage, character is analyzed more now than ever before,” (M2).
“Johnny Manziel is the face of college football. He is definitely not a victim.
He needs to act more responsible,” (M3). The focus group of young adult male
sports fans confirmed the consensus that fans opinions on Manziel tend to be on
par with ESPN’s. Even if said fans claim they are often critical of how ESPN
does things as a sports network.
Doctor
Brian Dolber is a professor at Oneonta State University. He specifically
teaches courses such as Fundamentals of Broadcasting, Mass Media and Culture,
and Media Activism and Social Change. His passion for taking a closer look at
mainstream media made him a perfect interviewee for this research. When asked
about the NCAA being an oligopoly he said, “Money going to coaches, networks
and the NCAA is great for them, but players are not getting paid. In an
idealistic economy, it’s not necessarily good for the players and everyone as a
whole. Things could have more of an equilibrium, but given the circumstances of
the market they have less of a motive to address this concern because they
don’t have competition from other sources,” (Dolber, November, 2013).
Doctor
Dolber also acknowledged the current debate surrounding collegiate athletes
potentially being paid that Manziel represents. “In reference to the opposing
argument on whether or not students are getting an education, that argument
completely ignores whether or not campuses are making money on the backs of
athletes. Fans don’t attend games for the owners or the coaches they go for the
players. Players deserve the support of fans, making sure they do have
something to kind of fall back on. The reality is if you’re playing Division I
college football you simply cannot put the effort into your scholarship that
you otherwise could have. Players are putting their bodies on the line and most
are not going to make it at the professional level. In fact if a player would
like the guarantee of a long career these players especially need economic
success. In most states, the highest paid public employee is a football coach,
and that tells you that money is not going to the schools or education, just
the programs themselves. Schools benefit highly through brand identity that
they get through the team, but it contains itself within athletics instead of
education. This should be considered a pro-fan opinion. Opposing fans opinions
are shaped by the media,” (Dolber, November, 2013). Doctor Dolber supports his
claim about opposing opinions being meddled with in mainstream media by
explaining the example of the Nike ad campaigns during the 1994-95 Major League
Baseball strike. Throughout the strike, Nike aired commercials that were in
reference to the MLB’s labor dispute. In the commercial a fan would be seen in
an empty stadium and it would end with the words, “Play Ball. Please.” In
Christopher Martin’s book, “Framed! Labor and the Corporate Media,” he
explains:
This
objective stance served the not-so-objective economic interests of Nike and
television and newspapers. The Nike ad’s request of ‘Play Ball. Please” could
just as well have been its own call of “HELP” as the value of its endorsements
of baseball stars such as Ken Griffey Jr. and Barry Bonds plummeted with the
strike. In fact…Nike announced that it would move its marketing base away from
team sports and toward individual competition sports such as running and
tennis, where Nike presumably has more control over an athlete’s labor (Martin,
126).
In
the case of Manziel’s alleged autograph scandal, Doctor Dolber explains that, “Whether
or not he’s guilty is irrelevant. It just points to the fact that when people
that aren’t making any money are given the option to it’s quite tempting,”
(Dolber, November, 2013). Doctor Dolber referenced that this has always been
true, and uses the Black Sox Scandal as an example. (In 1919 the Major League
Baseball World Series was fixed by members of the Chicago White Sox. Several
players lost the series on purpose in the hopes of profiting from local
gamblers. Even an example as old as this one is similar because the reason
players fixed the series was because White Sox owner Charles Comiskey under
paid his players). “It makes complete sense that they are trying to cash in
when they don’t have the previous economic benefit” (Dolber, November, 2013).
Concluding
the interview, Doctor Dolber brings up one final point towards players getting
paid at the collegiate level: “When you look at the cost of a college
education, I’m certain that it’s still not a really good deal. In a very
mediated marketplace for four years of playing a dangerous sport, even if you
calculated the cost of tuition, that would be about 80,000 dollars for playing
four years of football. That’s not necessarily a good deal when in reality they’re
not making a true education,” (Dolber, 2013). Doctor Dolber’s experience in
media activism and his knowledge of journalism justify his claims and
explanations towards the NCAA and Manziel’s coverage on ESPN. The magnification
of Manziel’s autograph scandal in mainstream media was more than likely ESPN
looking out for their own business interests.
Through
textual analysis, a focus group, and a sit-down interview with a valid source,
it is evident that mainstream media can’t always be trusted. The case of ESPN’s
media coverage on Manziel proves that minor points of negativity can be
magnified to such an extremity that the complete reputation of the individual
can be skewed to a whole new opinion. Truthfully, negative opinions towards
Manziel would have occurred no matter what because that’s just how it is in
sports. There are always good guys and bad guys in football when it comes to
the opinions of consumers viewing sports. But the conclusion of ESPN having
separate motives in their constant ridiculing of Manziel on national television
during the summer of 2013 is quite legitimate. Outside sources confirmed that
these motives surrounded the debate with college athletes getting paid and that
Manziel represents that argument. What’s right and what’s wrong in regards to
the political debate surrounding the labor of college athletes aside, this
tendency for the real truth behind mainstream media motives is unfortunately
all too common. Six mega media corporations owning and controlling 90% of all
media, 90% of what you hear and see every
single day, just doesn’t bode well for the whole concept of pure media.
Times
are changing with the growth and development of the internet, and as a result
media consumption is changing as well. Major markets have still been able to
thrive with the internet, but the freedom of expression through an online
presence bodes an opportunity for separation and change from the aspect of
large media corporations bearing too much control. The most crucial aspect in
this potential change simply starts with the attitude of the consumer, and the
ability to think outside the box of what you see and hear every single day.
Major networks like ESPN having billions of dollars doesn’t truly make them an
evil franchise out to take over the world, but in order to become such a
successful network they’ve had to make serious business decisions that can be
reflected in samples of their media. The portrayal of Johnny Manziel and his
questionable autograph scandal is a clear concrete example of these business
decisions that can impact the purity of stories, and even an individual.
Unfortunately
this is consistent in all realms of media. Economic decisions can often take
precedence over true well-rounded media stories. This is most concerning in
what’s become of news networks. The ability for people to find out what
happened in a story has become so much faster due to the internet that the
demand of news stories simply explaining events that occurred is not nearly as
high as it used to be. As a result, news stories magnify debates and issues
often taking stands on them, truly isolating concepts within political debates
and not providing consumers with the full rounded spectrum they often need to know
to be well-rounded citizens.
Johnny
Manziel is just a kid, and football is just a game. But politics can often have
a very strong parallel to sports, and the business examples of ESPN are exactly
the same as other major markets. In the words of ESPN reporter Sal Paolantonio,
“The pursuit of eyeballs has no conscience.” If an individual were to pick up
this study, the future of what happens to major media networks and what happens
to media on the internet will bear a heavy bearing in the continuity of these
reoccurring media flaws. This is the type of change that media activists like
Doctor Dolber so heavily crave. And as a communication major that’s soon to be
out in the job market, I can’t say I disagree.
Bibliography
Cunningham, N. a. (Fall, 2012). The Tweet Is in Your
Court: Measuring Attitude Towards Athlete Endorsements in Social Media. International
Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p73-87.
Dolber, Brian. Personal Interview. November 20th,
2013.
Edwards, H. a. (2013). SC Centerpiece: Questionable
Character. ESPN.
Edwards, H, Schlereth, M, Palmer, J (2013) SC
Centerpiece: Usered Out of Party. ESPN.
Holtz, L. a. (2013). Manziel Flagged for Taunting
Opponents. ESPN.
Mancuso, J. (Spring, 2013). Social Media and the
Second Screen. Marketing Insights, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p18-19.
Martin, Christopher. (2004) News for the Every Fan:
The 1994-95 Baseball Strike. Framed!
Labor and the Corporate Media, Cornell University, p 125-162.
McCarthy, B. (Aug, 2013). Consuming sports media,
producing sports media: An analysis of two fan sports blogospheres. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 48 Issue 4, p421-434.
Murray, H. (Aug, 2013). Keeping the Paparazzi an Arm
Length Away. Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p868-885.
Paolantonio, S. (2008). How Football Explains
America. Chicago: Triumph Books.
Rowe, D. (2004). Sports, Culture, and the Media .
London : Bain Ltd, Gaslow.
Rubio Hernandez, M. d. (2011). Sports players: the
heroes of the mediated sacred sphere. ESSACHESS, Vol. 4 Issue 2,
p105-125.
Schlutz, B. (2005). Sports Media: Planning,
Production, and Reporting . Burlington, MA: Elsevier .
Staples, A. (2013, July 13). Sports Illustrated.
Retrieved from www.si.cnn.com :
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130717/johnny-manziel-sec-media-days/-
Stevens, J. L. (2003). "Who is Your Hero?"
Implications for Athlete Endorsement Strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 12 Issue 2, p103.
Weaver, K. (Aug, 2013). Media Deals, College
Football, and Governance: Who's in Charge? Change, Vol. 45 Issue 4,
p15-23.
