It’s so common now, and there’s no turning back the clock.
The issue? Unidentified sources.
This is certainly not a new phenomenon. The notion of a journalist, a reporter of some description, writing a story with compelling information from “sources” is as old as journalism. (Woodward and Bernstein will likely go to their graves without revealing the name of “deep throat”, the individual largely responsible for providing the then soon-to-be-famous investigative reporters the anonymous information that led to the disintegration of the Nixon administration in the mid 1970’s. Theirs may be one of the more prominent historical cases of the media utilizing so-called “unidentified sources” to chase down a story)
That these media “sources” are often undeclared remains through the years a question of some ethical debate. Reporters have, through the years, been willing to risk jail time in order to protect – that is, not publicly identify – their sources.
One view puts the information shared privately between the “source” and the investigating reporter in the realm of a sacred trust, not to be disclosed at any cost.
Others view this approach as a dangerous game.
If a person can report as fact something that may have occurred based on information obtained from anonymous sources, what guarantee is there that such events absolutely took place?
If a reporter quotes an individual speaking about someone else, without naming the first person, how does the public know that the quote was not simply “made up” in the interests of weaving a more ‘sale’-able story?
Might the reporter have an agenda, a personal bias?
These are but a few of the simplest questions that can be asked when discussing the reality of how such sources are utilized.
I recall a time (in the late 1970’s-early 80’s, if I’m not mistaken) when Scott Young, the highly-respected columnist for the Globe& Mail resigned his position at the prestigious Canadian national newspaper. Why? Because a younger fellow writer had written a rather poisonous piece about the then General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs, Punch Imlach.
Perspective and fairness requires that it be said that Young and Imlach had been close through the years, and had collaborated on a couple of popular books together. But Young’s resignation stemmed from his concern that the story which vilified Imlach was filled with quotes from unidentified sources – apparently not a longstanding or fully accepted practice at the time, at least not in Young’s mind, it would seem.
Young saw this as journalistically unsound, and lacking the high ethical standards required of a reporter.
So, he resigned in protest.
Much more recently, that same newspaper ran a major story on the alleged dysfunction within the basketball operation side of the Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment empire.
The story was sprinkled liberally with anonymous quotes about then General Manager Glen Grunwald (since fired) and his supposed internal battles with the apparently soon-to-be-fired Kevin O’Neill.
Not surprisingly, the story – quoting current and former Raptor players without attribution, as well as people supposedly ‘close’ to Raptors forward Vince Carter and others within the management group of MLSE – caused a firestorm. It also undoubtedly hastened the timetable that will see the continued dismantling of the struggling organization.
For appearances’ sake, on the record, at least, the players stood behind their coach. But the public is left to wonder: Who were these anonymous players who spoke out against O’Neill? Who were the management types who allegedly said the things they said? Did anyone have an agenda here?
Were all of these quotes accurate? Was the story really credible when everyone quoted was unnamed? Could any of this have been made up?
Was the newspaper outlet and its reporters simply reflecting what was really going on inside the organization?
In recent years, one of the best – and most outspoken – players in baseball has been pitcher Curt Schilling. Schilling of course was a mainstay with the Phillies and then the Diamondbacks, when Arizona beat the Yankees in the World Series a few seasons back.
Schilling went on a nationally syndicated radio program recently, and spoke about the media attention the Red Sox receive in Boston.
His contention was that the Boston press simply make up quotes to create stories, and sell newspapers.
So we can count Schilling as one athlete who does not support the use of anonymous quotes.
If you are a young athlete, you need to be aware that the media is always looking for a story – good, bad or anywhere in between. Most ‘beat’ reporters covering the local major-league NFL, NHL or NBA team need a story a day.
When they sense trouble in paradise (i.e. within the clubhouse or dressing room, or within the front office) it is in their blood to seek out – some will say create – the story.
They will utilize whatever approach and sources they can to develop a story that is entertaining and potentially of great interest.
It may even be accurate.
My sense has long been: if you don’t want to see it in the newspaper, don’t say it. Don’t say it in the elevator, the hotel lobby or the dressing room. On the record or “off the record”.
Just don’t say it.
If you go “off the record”, if you speak on the condition of anonymity, you may feel ‘protected’. And that particular reporter may like you as a “source”, especially if your comments gave that reporter a supposed ‘scoop’. But at the end of the day, he or she will wonder about your personal integrity, all the while using your quotes to make his or her story.
Since integrity is still important to most people, that’s something worth thinking about before playing the ‘unidentified source’ game.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Thursday, April 1, 2004
The Same People You Met on Your Way Up
Most of us have heard the oft-repeated expression, which goes something along the lines of: “Be good to the people you pass on the way up, because you’ll be seeing them again on your way back down….”
Whether one agrees with the rationale for electing to ‘be good’ in this instance (choosing ‘goodness’ because it will help your own situation, as opposed to choosing to do good simply because it is the right thing to do), it is clear that this is a philosophy shared by some, but not all, in the field of sports.
This brings to mind a revealing newspaper article penned more than ten years ago by then Globe & Mail sports columnist Marty York. York wrote a piece about the at the time just-retired Expo catcher (and now Hall-of-Famer) Gary Carter, who broke into the big leagues with the Expos, won a World Series with the Mets before ultimately ending his career with his original club.
The gist of the article was this, as I recall:
Back in the mid-later 70’s, a young cub reporter, barely out of high school, was doing some freelance reporting from spring training. Being so young, this young man had no ‘reputation’ to speak of, so he was not known to the players. He had no hands-on cash to entice players as he begged for interviews from the players on hand -- any players.
As the story goes, he was routinely and repeatedly turned down by everyone he sought out for any kind of brief interview. He was evidently rebuffed by stars and non-stars alike.
The one player who took the time to do an interview with this young, fledgling reporter was then Expos star catcher Gary Carter.
Now, part of the perspective required to fully appreciate this story was that, in his own way, Carter was much like former hockey superstar Bobby Hull. At the height of his popularity and long before players were paid handsomely to attend collector shows and sign autographs for big cash, Hull would sign for virtually every person who asked, after practices and long after games, often while his teammates were waiting impatiently for the team bus to depart.
There was some resentment of Hull, it has often been written, because he seemed to like his celebrity a little too much, was all smiles for the cameras, the media and the public.
But the reality was that Hull, in those days, was genuine in wanting to ensure that he never turned down a polite person seeking his signature or attention, especially children. (He had a personal experience in his youth when the legendary Gordie Howe granted him an autograph, and he was determined to do the same for others.)
As a personal aside, my own one-time experience with Bobby Hull, by the way, was in keeping with his reputation at the time.
It was the mid 1960’s, and the night before the Black Hawks were to play the Red Wings at the old Detroit Olympia, Hull had been brought in (and probably paid a few hundred dollars, attractive money for an athlete back then) by Canadian Tire in Windsor, Ontario to shake hands with visitors to the store the evening before the Hawks played the Wings.
I recall sitting with my Dad and an elementary school chum for at least two to three hours in our car, waiting, as Dad put it, “for the line to get shorter”.
We finally left the car as the line was down to a couple of dozen people and waited to meet The Golden Jet. My friend, wiser than I, had brought a puck to be signed, which Hull gladly signed, though this was not a night for autographs, only shaking hands.
I shook Hull’s hand. Mad dad talked farming with Hull for a couple of minutes, and we all left more than pleased.
(As recently as the fall of 2003, I attended a collectibles show with my youngest son. Hull was asked by a collector to sign a particular piece of memorabilia, but the company sponsoring Hull’s appearance said no, because the time was up and the collectible was not one provided by the sponsoring company. Hull quietly suggested that the person wait until Hull was finished his responsibilities, and then he would sign for the man, free of charge. At about that time, my son went up to shake Hull’s hand, and Hull could not have been more gracious, though he earned not a cent for the handshake. He could easily have said, “Sorry folks, my time is up…”)
Hull made a lot of money for his impatient teammates over the years, especially when he took his skills and people skills to the new World Hockey Association in 1972 and helped drive hockey salaries upwards.
To this day he remains a hockey icon in Canada, despite some events that have tarnished his public persona somewhat. He remains popular largely because he was such a positive person in dealing with the media, and so patient and responsive in dealing with the public.
Sometimes the equity you build – and Hull built plenty over the years with the media and the public – helps you a great deal when things get difficult, as they sometimes have for Hull over the years for various reasons.
Back to Carter: The story goes that, not only did Carter give an interview to the young reporter, he brought him into the team’s dugout and chatted for about half an hour.
The young man filed his story, and from there built a successful career that later resulted in his being a key decision-maker with the network that was to air the Florida Marlins games when that team joined Major League Baseball as an expansion club in the early-mid 1990’s.
The now executive received hundreds of resumes from ex-jocks, all former players looking to land the coveted job of “color analyst” on the Marlin broadcasts in their inaugural season.
No doubt many of the resumes came from haughty players who, when they were ‘somebody’, had flipped off the young reporter back in the 1970’s.
In any event, who was among those looking to land that plum assignment, even though he had no broadcast experience other than doing interviews himself?
Gary Carter.
Who got the job?
Gary Carter.
Carter, like Hull before him, was said to be envied and disliked by many of his teammates over the years. He was, they whispered, too in love with a camera, too anxious to be quoted, too much of a self-promoter.
Yet, the above story reveals that his old teammates apparently wouldn’t give the time of day to a young guy who was just trying to catch a break, and get his career going in a small way.
But Carter did. And years later, the young man remembered, and returned the favor.
Whatever Carter’s motivation way back when, the story reminds us all – and certainly is a reminder for young athletes who are on their way to earning a more than substantial living as a professional athlete – that if being good to others because it is the right thing to do is not motivation enough, then doing good because you might benefit down the road is an acceptable “back up” motivation, perhaps.
Isn’t it better to make time for others, be accommodating, be patient, especially when you’ve been blessed with the opportunity to earn your living – a very successful living – doing something you really love to do?
Whether one agrees with the rationale for electing to ‘be good’ in this instance (choosing ‘goodness’ because it will help your own situation, as opposed to choosing to do good simply because it is the right thing to do), it is clear that this is a philosophy shared by some, but not all, in the field of sports.
This brings to mind a revealing newspaper article penned more than ten years ago by then Globe & Mail sports columnist Marty York. York wrote a piece about the at the time just-retired Expo catcher (and now Hall-of-Famer) Gary Carter, who broke into the big leagues with the Expos, won a World Series with the Mets before ultimately ending his career with his original club.
The gist of the article was this, as I recall:
Back in the mid-later 70’s, a young cub reporter, barely out of high school, was doing some freelance reporting from spring training. Being so young, this young man had no ‘reputation’ to speak of, so he was not known to the players. He had no hands-on cash to entice players as he begged for interviews from the players on hand -- any players.
As the story goes, he was routinely and repeatedly turned down by everyone he sought out for any kind of brief interview. He was evidently rebuffed by stars and non-stars alike.
The one player who took the time to do an interview with this young, fledgling reporter was then Expos star catcher Gary Carter.
Now, part of the perspective required to fully appreciate this story was that, in his own way, Carter was much like former hockey superstar Bobby Hull. At the height of his popularity and long before players were paid handsomely to attend collector shows and sign autographs for big cash, Hull would sign for virtually every person who asked, after practices and long after games, often while his teammates were waiting impatiently for the team bus to depart.
There was some resentment of Hull, it has often been written, because he seemed to like his celebrity a little too much, was all smiles for the cameras, the media and the public.
But the reality was that Hull, in those days, was genuine in wanting to ensure that he never turned down a polite person seeking his signature or attention, especially children. (He had a personal experience in his youth when the legendary Gordie Howe granted him an autograph, and he was determined to do the same for others.)
As a personal aside, my own one-time experience with Bobby Hull, by the way, was in keeping with his reputation at the time.
It was the mid 1960’s, and the night before the Black Hawks were to play the Red Wings at the old Detroit Olympia, Hull had been brought in (and probably paid a few hundred dollars, attractive money for an athlete back then) by Canadian Tire in Windsor, Ontario to shake hands with visitors to the store the evening before the Hawks played the Wings.
I recall sitting with my Dad and an elementary school chum for at least two to three hours in our car, waiting, as Dad put it, “for the line to get shorter”.
We finally left the car as the line was down to a couple of dozen people and waited to meet The Golden Jet. My friend, wiser than I, had brought a puck to be signed, which Hull gladly signed, though this was not a night for autographs, only shaking hands.
I shook Hull’s hand. Mad dad talked farming with Hull for a couple of minutes, and we all left more than pleased.
(As recently as the fall of 2003, I attended a collectibles show with my youngest son. Hull was asked by a collector to sign a particular piece of memorabilia, but the company sponsoring Hull’s appearance said no, because the time was up and the collectible was not one provided by the sponsoring company. Hull quietly suggested that the person wait until Hull was finished his responsibilities, and then he would sign for the man, free of charge. At about that time, my son went up to shake Hull’s hand, and Hull could not have been more gracious, though he earned not a cent for the handshake. He could easily have said, “Sorry folks, my time is up…”)
Hull made a lot of money for his impatient teammates over the years, especially when he took his skills and people skills to the new World Hockey Association in 1972 and helped drive hockey salaries upwards.
To this day he remains a hockey icon in Canada, despite some events that have tarnished his public persona somewhat. He remains popular largely because he was such a positive person in dealing with the media, and so patient and responsive in dealing with the public.
Sometimes the equity you build – and Hull built plenty over the years with the media and the public – helps you a great deal when things get difficult, as they sometimes have for Hull over the years for various reasons.
Back to Carter: The story goes that, not only did Carter give an interview to the young reporter, he brought him into the team’s dugout and chatted for about half an hour.
The young man filed his story, and from there built a successful career that later resulted in his being a key decision-maker with the network that was to air the Florida Marlins games when that team joined Major League Baseball as an expansion club in the early-mid 1990’s.
The now executive received hundreds of resumes from ex-jocks, all former players looking to land the coveted job of “color analyst” on the Marlin broadcasts in their inaugural season.
No doubt many of the resumes came from haughty players who, when they were ‘somebody’, had flipped off the young reporter back in the 1970’s.
In any event, who was among those looking to land that plum assignment, even though he had no broadcast experience other than doing interviews himself?
Gary Carter.
Who got the job?
Gary Carter.
Carter, like Hull before him, was said to be envied and disliked by many of his teammates over the years. He was, they whispered, too in love with a camera, too anxious to be quoted, too much of a self-promoter.
Yet, the above story reveals that his old teammates apparently wouldn’t give the time of day to a young guy who was just trying to catch a break, and get his career going in a small way.
But Carter did. And years later, the young man remembered, and returned the favor.
Whatever Carter’s motivation way back when, the story reminds us all – and certainly is a reminder for young athletes who are on their way to earning a more than substantial living as a professional athlete – that if being good to others because it is the right thing to do is not motivation enough, then doing good because you might benefit down the road is an acceptable “back up” motivation, perhaps.
Isn’t it better to make time for others, be accommodating, be patient, especially when you’ve been blessed with the opportunity to earn your living – a very successful living – doing something you really love to do?
Monday, March 1, 2004
If One More Player Says 6 Million Dollars is an Insult...
It’s happened yet again.
A professional athlete has come out and stated – clearly, and for the public record – that he is insulted by a contract offer that he has received.
The player in question is All-Pro cornerback Ty Law of the defending NFL Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots.
The actual monetary details won’t mean much to most of us – but for the record, he has turned down a contract extension offer of almost 30 million dollars over the next four years, and was evidently insulted, in his words, by the Patriots offer. He now says he never wants to play for the Patriots again. His current contact already calls for him to make over 6 million in 2004, more than 8 million in 2005.
I recall a time many years ago – I believe it was the late 1970/early 80’s. A top major league relief pitcher/closer by the name of Bruce Sutter was offered the then staggering amount of $700,000 a season.
His reaction? He said he was insulted. He had to, he said at the time, feed his family.
So we fast forward more than 20 years later, and such insult comes at a higher price, at least.
The hockey world is now battling ‘image’ problems in the wake of the (rightly so) highly publicized Todd Bertuzzi incident. But the problem facing hockey is not simply a matter of its often misguided ‘eye for eye’ system of justice and self-policing.
It is also the reality that the people who play the game are becoming more and more disconnected from the “fans” and those who really care about the game – the very people who help pay for those same players to play the game and earn their substantial incomes.
Salaries have spun totally, totally out of the realm of what ought to be. Not surprisingly, the cost of purchasing a ticket to see an NHL game in many markets is prohibitive for the “average” person.
Fighting – or causing – the same cycle is baseball, still struggling to recapture its luster and popularity in many markets almost 10 years after a disastrous strike/lockout.
And now we hear about football players who are “insulted” by offers that would provide them with more money than they could possibly spend in several lifetimes.
Basketball has long overpaid its athletes. (Recall that Kevin Garnett of the Minnesota Timberwolves, who has been earning millions since he was 18 years of age, was also “insulted” a few years ago by a 120 million dollar contract offer.)
How did we get here? How did we reach a point where these – albeit very talented, in most cases – individuals truly believe they are worth millions and millions of dollars – per season! – to play a game they love to play.
A few years ago, in a comment that was not as publicized as it should have been, a very popular NHL (and NHL Players Association leader) player was asked about the high cost of tickets for the average dad. His reply was, in essence: “If that dad can’t afford it, maybe he shouldn’t be taking his kids to a game”.
Hmm...
Does that sound like someone even remotely connected to reality? Someone with any sense of perspective? Yet this is a player lauded for his “community work”.
Much more recently, a prominent member of one of the most popular Canadian-based NHL teams said he was prepared to “sit out” for the rest of his career, before accepting any kind of salary cap in the upcoming round of collective bargaining with the league. (This player makes close to three million dollars a year, and will expect much more in his next contract.)
After his advisors likely informed him just how bad that comment sounded to fans everywhere and anywhere, the player tried to modify his comments the next day, too late to hide his true feelings.
Perhaps it could be said that these individuals are at least ‘being honest’ and are not simply giving pat, typical responses to media questions. But in the same breath, are these really the types of messages and attitudes these athletes want to convey to the public? Do they somehow think that saying these kinds of things will engender public sympathy or support? Are they so disconnected because of their high profile and wealth they don’t understand how poorly they are coming across?
Or do they just not care?
Sadly, riches can lead to a certain headiness, a lack or loss of perspective. Only when we are touched by significant loss of prestige or income, or by tragedy, illness, a sudden loss of a loved one, do some individuals regain balance in their life.
One wonders if many athletes, past and present, worked half as hard, and showed half as much appreciation for their good fortune as, for example, the average Special Olympics athlete does, how many of them would feel “insulted” by being offered a contract that makes them wealthy beyond anyone’s wildest imagination?
A professional athlete has come out and stated – clearly, and for the public record – that he is insulted by a contract offer that he has received.
The player in question is All-Pro cornerback Ty Law of the defending NFL Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots.
The actual monetary details won’t mean much to most of us – but for the record, he has turned down a contract extension offer of almost 30 million dollars over the next four years, and was evidently insulted, in his words, by the Patriots offer. He now says he never wants to play for the Patriots again. His current contact already calls for him to make over 6 million in 2004, more than 8 million in 2005.
I recall a time many years ago – I believe it was the late 1970/early 80’s. A top major league relief pitcher/closer by the name of Bruce Sutter was offered the then staggering amount of $700,000 a season.
His reaction? He said he was insulted. He had to, he said at the time, feed his family.
So we fast forward more than 20 years later, and such insult comes at a higher price, at least.
The hockey world is now battling ‘image’ problems in the wake of the (rightly so) highly publicized Todd Bertuzzi incident. But the problem facing hockey is not simply a matter of its often misguided ‘eye for eye’ system of justice and self-policing.
It is also the reality that the people who play the game are becoming more and more disconnected from the “fans” and those who really care about the game – the very people who help pay for those same players to play the game and earn their substantial incomes.
Salaries have spun totally, totally out of the realm of what ought to be. Not surprisingly, the cost of purchasing a ticket to see an NHL game in many markets is prohibitive for the “average” person.
Fighting – or causing – the same cycle is baseball, still struggling to recapture its luster and popularity in many markets almost 10 years after a disastrous strike/lockout.
And now we hear about football players who are “insulted” by offers that would provide them with more money than they could possibly spend in several lifetimes.
Basketball has long overpaid its athletes. (Recall that Kevin Garnett of the Minnesota Timberwolves, who has been earning millions since he was 18 years of age, was also “insulted” a few years ago by a 120 million dollar contract offer.)
How did we get here? How did we reach a point where these – albeit very talented, in most cases – individuals truly believe they are worth millions and millions of dollars – per season! – to play a game they love to play.
A few years ago, in a comment that was not as publicized as it should have been, a very popular NHL (and NHL Players Association leader) player was asked about the high cost of tickets for the average dad. His reply was, in essence: “If that dad can’t afford it, maybe he shouldn’t be taking his kids to a game”.
Hmm...
Does that sound like someone even remotely connected to reality? Someone with any sense of perspective? Yet this is a player lauded for his “community work”.
Much more recently, a prominent member of one of the most popular Canadian-based NHL teams said he was prepared to “sit out” for the rest of his career, before accepting any kind of salary cap in the upcoming round of collective bargaining with the league. (This player makes close to three million dollars a year, and will expect much more in his next contract.)
After his advisors likely informed him just how bad that comment sounded to fans everywhere and anywhere, the player tried to modify his comments the next day, too late to hide his true feelings.
Perhaps it could be said that these individuals are at least ‘being honest’ and are not simply giving pat, typical responses to media questions. But in the same breath, are these really the types of messages and attitudes these athletes want to convey to the public? Do they somehow think that saying these kinds of things will engender public sympathy or support? Are they so disconnected because of their high profile and wealth they don’t understand how poorly they are coming across?
Or do they just not care?
Sadly, riches can lead to a certain headiness, a lack or loss of perspective. Only when we are touched by significant loss of prestige or income, or by tragedy, illness, a sudden loss of a loved one, do some individuals regain balance in their life.
One wonders if many athletes, past and present, worked half as hard, and showed half as much appreciation for their good fortune as, for example, the average Special Olympics athlete does, how many of them would feel “insulted” by being offered a contract that makes them wealthy beyond anyone’s wildest imagination?
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Is It Really Worth Saying?
The examples are too many to cite, but here are a few:
Days before a crucial late season NCAA college football game in November 2003 between arch-rivals Michigan State and the Michigan Wolverines – a game that could determine who went to the Rose Bowl – a Michigan State defensive lineman publicly called out the Wolverines quarterback and offensive line.
It was later disclosed, not surprisingly, that the comments from Greg Taplin had become bulletin board material for the Michigan offensive line. The game was a fairly lopsided Michigan victory, and their offensive line dominated Taplin and the State defensive line all afternoon.
The Indianapolis Colts were outstanding in the first two games of the 2003 NFL playoffs. Their success shed the club – and its All-Pro quarterback Peyton Manning, who played brilliantly in both games – of its label as playoff failures, a club that could not play its best when it really mattered.
Not content to let their play speak for itself, Indy tight end Marcus Pollard was quoted as saying (only days before the Colts were to face New England in the AFC Championship game in Foxborough, Massachusetts): “If we keep playing like this, they might as well give us our Super Bowl rings right now.”
Of course, football fans – and Colt fans – know only too well that the Patriots defense overwhelmed, outperformed and almost completely shut down Manning, Pollard and the Colts as the Pats won handily.
Ex-Chicago Bull Jalen Rose, now with the Toronto Raptors, went back to Chicago in late January, 2004 to play the Bulls in the Windy City for the first time since he was traded. He was quoted as saying, before the game, that he was looking forward to playing his ex-team, and evidently noted, “The Bulls are the worst team in basketball.”
Of course, the Bulls hammered the Raptors convincingly, which makes it difficult to assess, in light of Rose’s pre-game analysis, what the Raptors now are.
Of course, these stories are hardly uncommon in the world of sports. It is a world full unbelievably talented athletes, many remarkably dedicated.
It is also a world full of bravado, testosterone, WWE-style posing after dunks and end-zone celebrations.
It is not surprising that athletes will, on occasion, predict their own success. In fact, when their words turn prophetic, as was the case in 1969 when Jets quarterback Joe Namath called his shot before the Super Bowl and (correctly) guaranteed a win against the heavily-favored Colts, he was the swashbuckling sports hero of the highest order. The game ultimately earned him Hall-of-Fame honors for a career that was otherwise very solid, but not extraordinary, other than for its flamboyance.
That said, when bold athletes speak out and promote themselves or trash their opponents before “the big game”, there are way, way more stories that end up exactly the way things did for Taplin, Pollard and Rose than for Namath.
There is no doubt that the media, particularly beat reporters who cover any given professional team in sports markets across North America, love it when an athlete steps beyond the often tightly-controlled club house environment and says something beyond, “….we played as a team, gave 100%, left it on the field, etc…”
Great – especially controversial – quotes make for stories that write themselves and properly highlighted, increase readership or viewership and ultimately circulation. From a business perspective, anything out of the boring, plaid, milquetoast norm creates headlines, sells well, and potentially increases revenues for the media outlets serving up the stories.
Athletes may say bold, unexpected or colorful things for a whole host of reasons: they let their guard down; they wanted to send a message to their coach, their teammates or the opposition; they’re tired of saying the same old, same old.
But sometimes athletes say things simply because they don’t take a second to consider the consequences. Not that providing fuel for the opposition is a particular tragedy, even in the world of sports, but since winning does matter at the pro level, giving your opponent extra motivation seems like an ineffective strategy in the vast majority of cases. History backs that up.
There are also times that athletes likely feel pushed to break out of their self or team-imposed “box”, usually by the media who often complain that too many athletes have nothing to say.
That is why reporters tend to love, in the hockey world, a Brett Hull or Jeremy Roenick, because they rarely miss a chance to air a view on any number of subjects, whether it is particularly well-thought out or not.
(After hockey superstar Joe Sakic of the Avalanche appeared on the Jim Rome show some time back, a Toronto-based hockey columnist wrote in a major publication: “…the interview demonstrated once again one of the problems selling of hockey in the U.S. Hockey players, unlike many other athletes, almost always are dry and boring interviews, even if they are probably the most sincere guys in sport. Unfortunately, the way sport sells nowadays is by trash talking and being controversial. But other than Brett Hull, hockey guys just aren’t up to it.”
Yet most athletes have not built up the ‘media equity’ that superstars like Hull and Roenick have built up, (whereby when those players make comments that some may feel are out of line, the media will not condemn them, but will usually put their comments in a, “oh, that’s just Brett talking again..” context).
Most athletes, as in the Sakic example, face the pressure of being called bland, boring, of having nothing of consequence to say.
Yet, if they do take that risk and say something out of the ordinary, the media will generally be the first to slap them into place.
What to do?
Every athlete, like any individual, must of course follow their own comfort levels, their sense of what they want to project, how they want to come across and how they wish to be perceived -- if it that matters to them.
Somewhere between bravado and blandness there is often the opportunity to provide the ever-eager media, who need a story a day and quotes to build their story line, whatever it is, with thoughtful comments. Either thoughtful reflections upon a particular game, analysis at a level beyond “we gave 100%”, or when the opportunity arises, a peek inside, comments that reveal something about the values that that individual athlete may genuinely hold dear.
Once an athlete is known for being accessible, patient, responsive, and having something beyond the bland to contribute – in good times and in difficult times – he or she becomes golden to most reporters – who might prefer something sensational, but will at least respect a thoughtful approach instead.
Days before a crucial late season NCAA college football game in November 2003 between arch-rivals Michigan State and the Michigan Wolverines – a game that could determine who went to the Rose Bowl – a Michigan State defensive lineman publicly called out the Wolverines quarterback and offensive line.
It was later disclosed, not surprisingly, that the comments from Greg Taplin had become bulletin board material for the Michigan offensive line. The game was a fairly lopsided Michigan victory, and their offensive line dominated Taplin and the State defensive line all afternoon.
The Indianapolis Colts were outstanding in the first two games of the 2003 NFL playoffs. Their success shed the club – and its All-Pro quarterback Peyton Manning, who played brilliantly in both games – of its label as playoff failures, a club that could not play its best when it really mattered.
Not content to let their play speak for itself, Indy tight end Marcus Pollard was quoted as saying (only days before the Colts were to face New England in the AFC Championship game in Foxborough, Massachusetts): “If we keep playing like this, they might as well give us our Super Bowl rings right now.”
Of course, football fans – and Colt fans – know only too well that the Patriots defense overwhelmed, outperformed and almost completely shut down Manning, Pollard and the Colts as the Pats won handily.
Ex-Chicago Bull Jalen Rose, now with the Toronto Raptors, went back to Chicago in late January, 2004 to play the Bulls in the Windy City for the first time since he was traded. He was quoted as saying, before the game, that he was looking forward to playing his ex-team, and evidently noted, “The Bulls are the worst team in basketball.”
Of course, the Bulls hammered the Raptors convincingly, which makes it difficult to assess, in light of Rose’s pre-game analysis, what the Raptors now are.
Of course, these stories are hardly uncommon in the world of sports. It is a world full unbelievably talented athletes, many remarkably dedicated.
It is also a world full of bravado, testosterone, WWE-style posing after dunks and end-zone celebrations.
It is not surprising that athletes will, on occasion, predict their own success. In fact, when their words turn prophetic, as was the case in 1969 when Jets quarterback Joe Namath called his shot before the Super Bowl and (correctly) guaranteed a win against the heavily-favored Colts, he was the swashbuckling sports hero of the highest order. The game ultimately earned him Hall-of-Fame honors for a career that was otherwise very solid, but not extraordinary, other than for its flamboyance.
That said, when bold athletes speak out and promote themselves or trash their opponents before “the big game”, there are way, way more stories that end up exactly the way things did for Taplin, Pollard and Rose than for Namath.
There is no doubt that the media, particularly beat reporters who cover any given professional team in sports markets across North America, love it when an athlete steps beyond the often tightly-controlled club house environment and says something beyond, “….we played as a team, gave 100%, left it on the field, etc…”
Great – especially controversial – quotes make for stories that write themselves and properly highlighted, increase readership or viewership and ultimately circulation. From a business perspective, anything out of the boring, plaid, milquetoast norm creates headlines, sells well, and potentially increases revenues for the media outlets serving up the stories.
Athletes may say bold, unexpected or colorful things for a whole host of reasons: they let their guard down; they wanted to send a message to their coach, their teammates or the opposition; they’re tired of saying the same old, same old.
But sometimes athletes say things simply because they don’t take a second to consider the consequences. Not that providing fuel for the opposition is a particular tragedy, even in the world of sports, but since winning does matter at the pro level, giving your opponent extra motivation seems like an ineffective strategy in the vast majority of cases. History backs that up.
There are also times that athletes likely feel pushed to break out of their self or team-imposed “box”, usually by the media who often complain that too many athletes have nothing to say.
That is why reporters tend to love, in the hockey world, a Brett Hull or Jeremy Roenick, because they rarely miss a chance to air a view on any number of subjects, whether it is particularly well-thought out or not.
(After hockey superstar Joe Sakic of the Avalanche appeared on the Jim Rome show some time back, a Toronto-based hockey columnist wrote in a major publication: “…the interview demonstrated once again one of the problems selling of hockey in the U.S. Hockey players, unlike many other athletes, almost always are dry and boring interviews, even if they are probably the most sincere guys in sport. Unfortunately, the way sport sells nowadays is by trash talking and being controversial. But other than Brett Hull, hockey guys just aren’t up to it.”
Yet most athletes have not built up the ‘media equity’ that superstars like Hull and Roenick have built up, (whereby when those players make comments that some may feel are out of line, the media will not condemn them, but will usually put their comments in a, “oh, that’s just Brett talking again..” context).
Most athletes, as in the Sakic example, face the pressure of being called bland, boring, of having nothing of consequence to say.
Yet, if they do take that risk and say something out of the ordinary, the media will generally be the first to slap them into place.
What to do?
Every athlete, like any individual, must of course follow their own comfort levels, their sense of what they want to project, how they want to come across and how they wish to be perceived -- if it that matters to them.
Somewhere between bravado and blandness there is often the opportunity to provide the ever-eager media, who need a story a day and quotes to build their story line, whatever it is, with thoughtful comments. Either thoughtful reflections upon a particular game, analysis at a level beyond “we gave 100%”, or when the opportunity arises, a peek inside, comments that reveal something about the values that that individual athlete may genuinely hold dear.
Once an athlete is known for being accessible, patient, responsive, and having something beyond the bland to contribute – in good times and in difficult times – he or she becomes golden to most reporters – who might prefer something sensational, but will at least respect a thoughtful approach instead.
Monday, December 1, 2003
Comrie and Communication
It took many, many weeks, but former Edmonton Oiler center Mike Comrie was finally traded recently. However, he was not traded to the team (Anaheim) that thought it had made the deal with Edmonton.
Once the transaction with the Philadelphia Flyers was finally formally consummated, Comrie – who for reasons most people don’t fully understand had seen his relationship with the Oilers organization nosedive horribly – was quoted as saying something that sounded simple, but was likely quite revealing.
Said Comrie, “I guess one of the bigger issues that we had was our lack of communication.”
Clearly, something unraveled between Comrie’s “camp” (agent, advisors) and the management of the club that he had once dreamt of playing for.
None of us on the outside really knows what happened, but Comrie’s own words suggest a likely problem area.
People in that volatile mix (a team trying to build a competitive team within a tight budget, a young player trying to fully maximize his “worth”) likely stopped communicating in a way that was helpful and positive. And then they probably stopped communicating at all.
“Communication” can mean means lots of different things, of course.
There is the ability to communicate, for example, and more precisely the ability to communicate well, thoughtfully and articulately.
Then there is the willingness to communicate.
Once two parties – whether in a workplace relationship, or in a personal relationship, for example—are unwilling to communicate, getting to a level where people can actually communicate effectively is impossible.
You’ve got to be at least willing to talk, before you can talk thoughtfully and in a responsive manner—and in a manner which might lead to understanding and agreement, or at least compromise.
Of course, it’s usually the case that before people hit the stage where they are no longer willing to talk, they did indeed communicate. It’s just that their communication likely grew more frustrating, more distant and less productive.
Is there a perfect way to deal with such stalemates in the sports world? Likely not. But it is important, at a minimum, to keep the lines of communication open.
On occasion, a team owner throws out protocol and goes over the head of his own General Manager, and simultaneously slides past the player’s agent to phone a player directly to see if the relationship can be saved, beyond whatever financial considerations have to be hammered out.
This was apparently the case in Texas a few years ago, when catcher Ivan Rodriguez was about to opt for free agency, but was won back by the ball club because he was overcome by the gesture of the team owner. Money (as large as the amount was) was not as important to the player as the fact that the owner wanted him to stay.
But such interventions don’t always work.
Good communication can heal, but poor communication can also create harm to a relationship that can last a very long time.
On a related front, how does one assess what happened in talks between the Oilers and the Mighty Ducks, in the very same (Comrie) matter?
One General Manager says publicly he was certain he had a “verbal” deal. The other says just as adamantly that he made it perfectly clear there was no Comrie deal in place until certain things took place.
Was this a case of poor communication? Poor listening skills? Or a person wanting to hear what he wanted to hear or the other GM wanting to be heard in the way that he wanted to be heard?
Whatever, it happens too often in sport at many levels -- from the 10-year old level to the pros -- that things are said that indeed hurt or wound in some fashion. A comment from a coach or a team official can sting and the feelings that result are often never really dealt with in an open and healthy fashion.
At the professional level, the demand for a trade can be brought on by many things: Playing time. Pride. Money. Hurt feelings.
But one of the things that often crops up after the fact as the real ‘trigger’ is unhappiness relating to poor communication between player and coach.
And it doesn’t always have to be that way.
Once the transaction with the Philadelphia Flyers was finally formally consummated, Comrie – who for reasons most people don’t fully understand had seen his relationship with the Oilers organization nosedive horribly – was quoted as saying something that sounded simple, but was likely quite revealing.
Said Comrie, “I guess one of the bigger issues that we had was our lack of communication.”
Clearly, something unraveled between Comrie’s “camp” (agent, advisors) and the management of the club that he had once dreamt of playing for.
None of us on the outside really knows what happened, but Comrie’s own words suggest a likely problem area.
People in that volatile mix (a team trying to build a competitive team within a tight budget, a young player trying to fully maximize his “worth”) likely stopped communicating in a way that was helpful and positive. And then they probably stopped communicating at all.
“Communication” can mean means lots of different things, of course.
There is the ability to communicate, for example, and more precisely the ability to communicate well, thoughtfully and articulately.
Then there is the willingness to communicate.
Once two parties – whether in a workplace relationship, or in a personal relationship, for example—are unwilling to communicate, getting to a level where people can actually communicate effectively is impossible.
You’ve got to be at least willing to talk, before you can talk thoughtfully and in a responsive manner—and in a manner which might lead to understanding and agreement, or at least compromise.
Of course, it’s usually the case that before people hit the stage where they are no longer willing to talk, they did indeed communicate. It’s just that their communication likely grew more frustrating, more distant and less productive.
Is there a perfect way to deal with such stalemates in the sports world? Likely not. But it is important, at a minimum, to keep the lines of communication open.
On occasion, a team owner throws out protocol and goes over the head of his own General Manager, and simultaneously slides past the player’s agent to phone a player directly to see if the relationship can be saved, beyond whatever financial considerations have to be hammered out.
This was apparently the case in Texas a few years ago, when catcher Ivan Rodriguez was about to opt for free agency, but was won back by the ball club because he was overcome by the gesture of the team owner. Money (as large as the amount was) was not as important to the player as the fact that the owner wanted him to stay.
But such interventions don’t always work.
Good communication can heal, but poor communication can also create harm to a relationship that can last a very long time.
On a related front, how does one assess what happened in talks between the Oilers and the Mighty Ducks, in the very same (Comrie) matter?
One General Manager says publicly he was certain he had a “verbal” deal. The other says just as adamantly that he made it perfectly clear there was no Comrie deal in place until certain things took place.
Was this a case of poor communication? Poor listening skills? Or a person wanting to hear what he wanted to hear or the other GM wanting to be heard in the way that he wanted to be heard?
Whatever, it happens too often in sport at many levels -- from the 10-year old level to the pros -- that things are said that indeed hurt or wound in some fashion. A comment from a coach or a team official can sting and the feelings that result are often never really dealt with in an open and healthy fashion.
At the professional level, the demand for a trade can be brought on by many things: Playing time. Pride. Money. Hurt feelings.
But one of the things that often crops up after the fact as the real ‘trigger’ is unhappiness relating to poor communication between player and coach.
And it doesn’t always have to be that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)