In late January of this year, a club from the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League decided it would not cooperate with the local media in the city they were visiting.
The reported reason?
The club evidently felt their actions in a game in that city earlier this season had been unfairly reported. In that game, the club in question amassed almost 300 minutes in penalties, and according to published reports, instigated two separate brawls.
By the end of the game, the club reportedly did not have enough players left on the bench to change lines.
Not having been in attendance at the game, it is not our intention to pass judgment on the club’s on-ice actions, though most hockey observers – even those who appreciate tough, hard-hitting action and the occasional ‘dust-up’ – are pleased that brawling has by and large left the game, including at the junior level.
The point here is that it is interesting that the club’s reaction was to shun the local media the next time they were in town. (For the record, The Hockey News reports that the club was indeed fined by the QMJHL for breaking league policy.)
Evidently feeling they were branded as “thugs”, as THN reported, the club did not cooperate with reporters after the January game.
Is this what leaders in junior hockey really want to teach young players: that the way to deal with adversity, or negative publicity, is to refuse to accept responsibility for your actions? What message does it send if clubs endorse the idea of players – at the age of 16, 17, 18 and 19 – viewing the media as the problem?
Did the media make up the story about the fight-filled game? Or simply report on the events of November game?
It’s always easy to “Monday Morning quarterback”, while sitting back and criticizing the decisions of others after the fact.
But such a response (encouraging your young players to intentionally not make themselves available to the media) by a club at this level, in fairness, begs some scrutiny.
Most players, and teams, are more than happy to accept public and media praise when they do well. It’s often easier to be accessible and pleasant when things are going well.
But when things don’t go well……
Was there no other way to deal with the team’s upset with the way they were portrayed in the local media? Did they consider the possibility of taking the time to express their disappointment for what they must have perceived as one-sided, biased, or incomplete reporting of the original game incidents back in November? Did they encourage their young players to take the high road, and demonstrate to the media, their own fans and the fans of the league at large that the events of last November were an aberration, and not reflective of the kind of team they are, or representative of the character of the young men who represent the team and their community?
It just seems there would have been different – and better – ways to handle an organization’s disappointment at how they felt they were “treated” by the media.
To play the ‘silence’ game (or playing word games with League rules… one player is reported to have come out and said “I came out to tell you [the reporters on hand after the January game] I have no comment…so you can’t say I didn’t talk to you”) only serves to reinforce a negative image of the players, the club and the organization – and unfortunately in the eyes of some, the entire league.
Two franchises in the Quebec loop are moving next season. Like many sports leagues, the league depends on fan support to survive. It also depends upon the good will of organizations, coaches, team officials and players who recognize the importance of positive publicity – and respecting relationships, including those with the media.
These kinds of decisions – to in effect boycott the media, the very people who publicize the games – are confusing at best.
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Saturday, February 1, 2003
"Will I be happy I said this when I wake up in the morning?"
By now, the reverberations regarding some comments made recently by a popular Canadian-born NFL’er have been felt in the media – and football – world.
Indianapolis Colts place kicker Mike Vanderjagt made an appearance on a Canadian national TV program, ostensibly as a guest “analyst” to discuss the Super Bowl outcome of the Raiders-Bucs clash.
The veteran player is a well-spoken, articulate, successful athlete, who – in this instance – ended up speaking out about his disappointment with his own ballclub. He commented rather bluntly about the club’s ‘star’ quarterback Peyton Manning, its respected and highly-regarded head coach Tony Dungy, and the overall lack of “emotion” and fire on the ballclub.
Not surprisingly in this day of 24 hour-a-day sports radio and television, the comments were picked up nationally in Canada, in the United States, and of course, in Indianapolis.
Reaction from various parties – including Manning (Manning referred to Vanderjagt as an “idiot” during the Pro Bowl ABC telecast) and Dungy, has been swift and not at all favorable.
The reflection in this instance is not to in any way condemn an individual -- in this case, a professional athlete who has had a tremendous NFL career-- if they choose to speak publicly, openly and “honestly” about opinions they hold. (Some have speculated the player wants to be released so he can sign with another club, and therefore made the comments quite by design…)
But it does raise an important issue: the reality that any elite athlete -- and certainly any pro athlete with any degree of profile -- is very much in the public eye. This is always the case, even in their “off-season” and certainly so when they make themselves available to the media, even in a supposedly “informal” setting.
That athletes are under scrutiny is not a startling revelation, to be sure. But it is yet another reminder: if you are an athlete who wants to be known as a “straight shooter”, someone who says what he or she means, that might well be your ‘right’ and might be a laudable approach -- on the one hand.
But there is another reality that collides with that “right”, that desire: It is the reality that you have to be able to live comfortably with the impact of your words, and be able to deal with any fall out that might occur.
Clearly, there is often an element of hypocrisy in place, in terms of how the media plays its hand in such matters. On the one hand, media criticizes athletes for being bland, having nothing to say, spouting endless clichés.
Yet the moment an athlete steps out of that protective, guarded realm, and seems to speak candidly, the critics circle and are not shy to blast the individual.
There is also the very human side to this. Our words may help “free” our own pent-up, sometimes frustrated feelings about our own personal circumstance, or in the case of a team sport, about what our ballclub is or is not doing to try and “get better”. (Given the tone and context of his words, one presumes that, in this instance, the Colts player said exactly what he was feeling). But those words may also hurt, offend or damage someone else: a friend, a teammate, a “boss”, or the community that individual works or ‘plays’ in.
The sports world would be more wooden and stilted than it already is if athletes lived in total, ongoing fear of ever “speaking their minds”, or were always afraid to “tell it like it is”, or give an honest opinion.
But one thing has not changed over the years: there is almost always a public respect for the individual who thinks before they speak, who rather than ‘venting’ by design or in the heat of the moment, is actually thinking “long-term”. A person who recognizes words have impact and cannot be easily taken back, and can create real issues that may not be easily – or ever—dealt with in a healthy manner.
Many of you will of course remember, or have been told about former Montreal Canadiens captain Jean Beliveau
To this day, in retirement, he remains a highly, highly-regarded figure, a true sportsman. Distinguished. Respectful of others. He makes no personal attacks on others. Never has. Any “critical” comments that he has ever made on issues of the day have been put forward in a thoughtful, measured manner.
Controversial? Dynamic? Not Beliveau.
But respected? Clearly.
Some of today’s athletes fall into the trap of feeling the need to provide the ‘great quote’, or add color to their comments, a little spice. It can be fun, and some, like Dennis Rodman, lived for it, or so it seemed.
But often, there are very real – and very negative-- consequences.
Indianapolis Colts place kicker Mike Vanderjagt made an appearance on a Canadian national TV program, ostensibly as a guest “analyst” to discuss the Super Bowl outcome of the Raiders-Bucs clash.
The veteran player is a well-spoken, articulate, successful athlete, who – in this instance – ended up speaking out about his disappointment with his own ballclub. He commented rather bluntly about the club’s ‘star’ quarterback Peyton Manning, its respected and highly-regarded head coach Tony Dungy, and the overall lack of “emotion” and fire on the ballclub.
Not surprisingly in this day of 24 hour-a-day sports radio and television, the comments were picked up nationally in Canada, in the United States, and of course, in Indianapolis.
Reaction from various parties – including Manning (Manning referred to Vanderjagt as an “idiot” during the Pro Bowl ABC telecast) and Dungy, has been swift and not at all favorable.
The reflection in this instance is not to in any way condemn an individual -- in this case, a professional athlete who has had a tremendous NFL career-- if they choose to speak publicly, openly and “honestly” about opinions they hold. (Some have speculated the player wants to be released so he can sign with another club, and therefore made the comments quite by design…)
But it does raise an important issue: the reality that any elite athlete -- and certainly any pro athlete with any degree of profile -- is very much in the public eye. This is always the case, even in their “off-season” and certainly so when they make themselves available to the media, even in a supposedly “informal” setting.
That athletes are under scrutiny is not a startling revelation, to be sure. But it is yet another reminder: if you are an athlete who wants to be known as a “straight shooter”, someone who says what he or she means, that might well be your ‘right’ and might be a laudable approach -- on the one hand.
But there is another reality that collides with that “right”, that desire: It is the reality that you have to be able to live comfortably with the impact of your words, and be able to deal with any fall out that might occur.
Clearly, there is often an element of hypocrisy in place, in terms of how the media plays its hand in such matters. On the one hand, media criticizes athletes for being bland, having nothing to say, spouting endless clichés.
Yet the moment an athlete steps out of that protective, guarded realm, and seems to speak candidly, the critics circle and are not shy to blast the individual.
There is also the very human side to this. Our words may help “free” our own pent-up, sometimes frustrated feelings about our own personal circumstance, or in the case of a team sport, about what our ballclub is or is not doing to try and “get better”. (Given the tone and context of his words, one presumes that, in this instance, the Colts player said exactly what he was feeling). But those words may also hurt, offend or damage someone else: a friend, a teammate, a “boss”, or the community that individual works or ‘plays’ in.
The sports world would be more wooden and stilted than it already is if athletes lived in total, ongoing fear of ever “speaking their minds”, or were always afraid to “tell it like it is”, or give an honest opinion.
But one thing has not changed over the years: there is almost always a public respect for the individual who thinks before they speak, who rather than ‘venting’ by design or in the heat of the moment, is actually thinking “long-term”. A person who recognizes words have impact and cannot be easily taken back, and can create real issues that may not be easily – or ever—dealt with in a healthy manner.
Many of you will of course remember, or have been told about former Montreal Canadiens captain Jean Beliveau
To this day, in retirement, he remains a highly, highly-regarded figure, a true sportsman. Distinguished. Respectful of others. He makes no personal attacks on others. Never has. Any “critical” comments that he has ever made on issues of the day have been put forward in a thoughtful, measured manner.
Controversial? Dynamic? Not Beliveau.
But respected? Clearly.
Some of today’s athletes fall into the trap of feeling the need to provide the ‘great quote’, or add color to their comments, a little spice. It can be fun, and some, like Dennis Rodman, lived for it, or so it seemed.
But often, there are very real – and very negative-- consequences.
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
It takes years to build credibility and seconds to throw it away
In fairness, a person's career should rarely, if ever, be judged solely on the basis of one untoward comment.
But one thoughtless comment can cost a person his or her job.
And it doesn't have to be a "public" comment.
Canadian visitors to this site will know that a leading political aide - in fact, one of the top aides to long-time Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien - some weeks back was reported to have made a comment about U.S. President George Bush in something of a 'non-official' setting. This apparent 'informal' remark was perhaps made thinking that this high-ranking official was in an unofficial and therefore "off-the-record" capacity….that is, that no one who was within earshot of the comment (i.e. reporters) would in fact report that the comment was made.
Regardless of the circumstances, this senior aide was quoted in the media shortly thereafter as referring to President Bush as a "moron".
In the first few days afterward the Prime Minister attempted, as politicians are wont to do, to deflect the mounting scrutiny. He wanted, at all costs -- and as someone with considerable political "equity" within the Canadian landscape -- to protect his trusted and loyal aide as best he could.
Nonetheless the aide ultimately resigned under duress.
Now, this particular individual will no doubt land on their feet, either with another high-level political position or some form of patronage appointment. This will likely come after an appropriate period of absence, similar to when Ministers are forced to resign because of some scandal or allegation. (After a few months they will often re-appear, but with a different portfolio.)
The individual landing on their feet aside, what really transpired here?
Was it fair that a reporter ran with a comment that was not intended to be made public? By all accounts only one reporter did, but other reporters of course followed up on the story.
Fair or not, those in the public arena, be they in business, politics or sports, need to understand that they are always "on". There simply is no such thing as "off the record" -- formally, or informally. (To be clear, the above situation was evidently a circumstance whereby an aide was overheard saying something, not a situation in which the individual "agreed" to a so-called off-the-record conversation.)
If you say something out loud, you must expect that it could end up on the front page of a major newspaper.
But there is more than a practical reason (fear of "getting caught", or losing your job, etc.) for not playing the 'off-the-record' game.
That reason is this: our personal integrity.
We often remind our clients of this very simple reality: it takes years to build your credibility, only seconds to throw it away.
Similarly, the moment we concede to go "off the record" with a reporter, we run a very real personal "integrity" risk; that is, we run the risk of giving that reporter the very distinct impression that there are "two of us". One of which says all the "correct" things when the cameras are rolling and another with views that are quite different when we think no one is recording what we're saying.
My sense is that's a risk that few of us would really want to take.
But one thoughtless comment can cost a person his or her job.
And it doesn't have to be a "public" comment.
Canadian visitors to this site will know that a leading political aide - in fact, one of the top aides to long-time Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien - some weeks back was reported to have made a comment about U.S. President George Bush in something of a 'non-official' setting. This apparent 'informal' remark was perhaps made thinking that this high-ranking official was in an unofficial and therefore "off-the-record" capacity….that is, that no one who was within earshot of the comment (i.e. reporters) would in fact report that the comment was made.
Regardless of the circumstances, this senior aide was quoted in the media shortly thereafter as referring to President Bush as a "moron".
In the first few days afterward the Prime Minister attempted, as politicians are wont to do, to deflect the mounting scrutiny. He wanted, at all costs -- and as someone with considerable political "equity" within the Canadian landscape -- to protect his trusted and loyal aide as best he could.
Nonetheless the aide ultimately resigned under duress.
Now, this particular individual will no doubt land on their feet, either with another high-level political position or some form of patronage appointment. This will likely come after an appropriate period of absence, similar to when Ministers are forced to resign because of some scandal or allegation. (After a few months they will often re-appear, but with a different portfolio.)
The individual landing on their feet aside, what really transpired here?
Was it fair that a reporter ran with a comment that was not intended to be made public? By all accounts only one reporter did, but other reporters of course followed up on the story.
Fair or not, those in the public arena, be they in business, politics or sports, need to understand that they are always "on". There simply is no such thing as "off the record" -- formally, or informally. (To be clear, the above situation was evidently a circumstance whereby an aide was overheard saying something, not a situation in which the individual "agreed" to a so-called off-the-record conversation.)
If you say something out loud, you must expect that it could end up on the front page of a major newspaper.
But there is more than a practical reason (fear of "getting caught", or losing your job, etc.) for not playing the 'off-the-record' game.
That reason is this: our personal integrity.
We often remind our clients of this very simple reality: it takes years to build your credibility, only seconds to throw it away.
Similarly, the moment we concede to go "off the record" with a reporter, we run a very real personal "integrity" risk; that is, we run the risk of giving that reporter the very distinct impression that there are "two of us". One of which says all the "correct" things when the cameras are rolling and another with views that are quite different when we think no one is recording what we're saying.
My sense is that's a risk that few of us would really want to take.
Sunday, December 1, 2002
It's Even Tough for Tiger
Communicating thoughtfully with (and through) the media should be about a lot more than simply trying to look or sound good.
There is no question that how a person communicates - are they credible, articulate, thoughtful - influences how others may think about them, both good and bad.
But more than whether fans or media respond favorably to an athlete or not because of how they come across is this reality: how an individual athlete speaks - and speaks out - can help or hinder their club as a whole.
Some examples:
- Barry Bonds is one of the finest ballplayers of his generation, the National league MVP again in 2002. Yet his off-field demeanor somehow seems to diminish his otherwise lofty accomplishments. He may be a very genuine and thoughtful person, but that is not what the public sees through the media prism, it would seem. When push came to shove in the World series this fall, the club that was clearly team-oriented, the Anaheim Angels, outlasted a club with individual superstars like Bonds and Kent, and a manager, Dusty Baker, who was clearly unhappy in San Francisco.
- Tracy McGrady was quoted during the NBA playoffs this past spring as saying Baron Davis of the Charlotte Hornets was not the outstanding player in the series. McGrady told the assembled media he (McGrady) was, in fact, the top guy. Davis, according to McGrady, was simply "made to look better" because of his teammates. How do we suspect McGrady's teammates might have felt when getting ready for their next big playoff game?
- More recently, former player and now NFL General Manager Matt Millen referred to one of his (albeit unnamed) current Detroit Lion players as a "devout coward". He made this statement on Mike Ditka's radio show in Chicago. Was this done to motivate his team? Was he sending a message through the media? Did he simply 'forget' for a moment that he was being heard throughout the sports world?
In a subsequent interview of his own, Peter King of CNN Sports Illustrated remarked that Millen often goes "off the record" with him (King). And further, that in those instances, Millen will often say very harsh and negative things about specific, individual players.
That had to feel good for the players, as well: to know Millen's outburst on the Ditka program was in fact not an isolated incident… that Millen says that sort of thing, evidently all the time.
(By the way, this is another clear example of why nothing is really and truly off the record. Even though King did not mention names, clearly the fact that he felt free to report publicly on a Buffalo radio program that he speaks off the record with Millen - and that Millen says critical things privately - is indirectly reporting off-the-record comments made by Millen.)
As we've said before, athletes do face the constant tug between sounding like they respond with nothing but clichés and running a risk if they venture into giving their 'real' opinions on the subject of the day.
Even - maybe especially - Tiger Woods faces this kind of 'comment' scrutiny. Woods has been criticized in recent times for his reported reluctance to take strong stands on issues (e.g. the current controversy surrounding the Masters and Augusta National's "refusal" to allow women members). Said Woods: "I have the feeling that sometimes I can't say anything, because I'm going to get criticized. And what's unfair about this is, people always ask my opinion. They ask for my opinion, and sometimes when I give it to them, they don't respect what I have to say. If that's the case, don't ask."
While acknowledging this difficulty, and it's a challenge athletes often face, this much seems clear: what an athlete, coach or manager says in a thoughtless moment can impact negatively their team, their organization and themselves.
There is no question that how a person communicates - are they credible, articulate, thoughtful - influences how others may think about them, both good and bad.
But more than whether fans or media respond favorably to an athlete or not because of how they come across is this reality: how an individual athlete speaks - and speaks out - can help or hinder their club as a whole.
Some examples:
- Barry Bonds is one of the finest ballplayers of his generation, the National league MVP again in 2002. Yet his off-field demeanor somehow seems to diminish his otherwise lofty accomplishments. He may be a very genuine and thoughtful person, but that is not what the public sees through the media prism, it would seem. When push came to shove in the World series this fall, the club that was clearly team-oriented, the Anaheim Angels, outlasted a club with individual superstars like Bonds and Kent, and a manager, Dusty Baker, who was clearly unhappy in San Francisco.
- Tracy McGrady was quoted during the NBA playoffs this past spring as saying Baron Davis of the Charlotte Hornets was not the outstanding player in the series. McGrady told the assembled media he (McGrady) was, in fact, the top guy. Davis, according to McGrady, was simply "made to look better" because of his teammates. How do we suspect McGrady's teammates might have felt when getting ready for their next big playoff game?
- More recently, former player and now NFL General Manager Matt Millen referred to one of his (albeit unnamed) current Detroit Lion players as a "devout coward". He made this statement on Mike Ditka's radio show in Chicago. Was this done to motivate his team? Was he sending a message through the media? Did he simply 'forget' for a moment that he was being heard throughout the sports world?
In a subsequent interview of his own, Peter King of CNN Sports Illustrated remarked that Millen often goes "off the record" with him (King). And further, that in those instances, Millen will often say very harsh and negative things about specific, individual players.
That had to feel good for the players, as well: to know Millen's outburst on the Ditka program was in fact not an isolated incident… that Millen says that sort of thing, evidently all the time.
(By the way, this is another clear example of why nothing is really and truly off the record. Even though King did not mention names, clearly the fact that he felt free to report publicly on a Buffalo radio program that he speaks off the record with Millen - and that Millen says critical things privately - is indirectly reporting off-the-record comments made by Millen.)
As we've said before, athletes do face the constant tug between sounding like they respond with nothing but clichés and running a risk if they venture into giving their 'real' opinions on the subject of the day.
Even - maybe especially - Tiger Woods faces this kind of 'comment' scrutiny. Woods has been criticized in recent times for his reported reluctance to take strong stands on issues (e.g. the current controversy surrounding the Masters and Augusta National's "refusal" to allow women members). Said Woods: "I have the feeling that sometimes I can't say anything, because I'm going to get criticized. And what's unfair about this is, people always ask my opinion. They ask for my opinion, and sometimes when I give it to them, they don't respect what I have to say. If that's the case, don't ask."
While acknowledging this difficulty, and it's a challenge athletes often face, this much seems clear: what an athlete, coach or manager says in a thoughtless moment can impact negatively their team, their organization and themselves.
Friday, November 1, 2002
Where's the Backup?
By all accounts Jeremy Shockey is an immense talent, an emerging superstar now playing for the New York football Giants.
And yet the early stages of Shockey's NFL career have already been somewhat turbulent - off the field.
The young tight end, a first round draft choice of the Giants in this past spring's annual NFL college draft, plays in the largest sports media market in the world.
For whatever reason, he was apparently invited to appear on the often controversial, New York-based syndicated talk show of high-profile morning man Howard Stern.
For inexplicable reasons, he agreed to appear on the show.
Within minutes, he had been asked a question about whether there are any gay players in the NFL.
His response? "I hope not."
He added that, if he knew there was a gay player on his college team, "[he] wouldn't stand for it".
His responses continued in a similar, less than thoughtful, vein.
Not surprisingly, his offensive and hurtful comments caused a tremendously swift - and negative - public reaction.
While he made an apology of sorts afterwards ("I guess I do regret saying it…"), his additional later comments - that he was simply trying to be funny on the Stern show - rang rather hollow to his critics.
Beyond the obviously insensitive nature of his comments on a radio program, the question remains: who was guiding this young man's public appearances? Was no one aware of the kind of program that the young athlete was to appear on? Had anyone spent any time advising him on the pros and cons of making such an appearance?
Further, did he have anyone help him anticipate the kinds of questions he might be asked, and what his responses would be?
Clearly, his comments are indefensible. Whether they were made "in jest", or were a genuine representation of his feelings, only he knows.
Athletes do live in a fishbowl. They are criticized by and in the media when they merely spout clichés and hackneyed, middle-of-the-road responses time and again.
However, when they do step forward and say something "out of the box", it also often leads to controversy and criticism - sometimes, as in this instance, with good reason.
Ideally, all professional athletes could and would speak in an articulate, engaging, thoughtful and genuine manner - and would operate in an environment where the outside world was not hanging on their every word, and thus were truly comfortable doing so.
Ideally, all of our opinions on all subjects - athletes or not - would be engaging and thoughtful, but that of course is not always the case.
Can an athlete really be himself, or herself? Should they be able to say whatever they want, regardless of whether it is hurtful or insensitive?
One thing is clear: these situations, where a young person with often limited experience deals with experienced media people, are often potentially damaging to an individual athlete, their image and their career… not to mention those who may have been justly offended by certain comments.
Every club in major professional sports employs experienced public relations professionals on staff. Virtually all players have agents who claim to represent their interests "off the field", not just in terms of negotiating contracts.
Yet, often when athletes - especially young athletes - need it most, their 'support system' (those supposedly there to prepare them thoroughly for what might await them) is nowhere to be found.
And yet the early stages of Shockey's NFL career have already been somewhat turbulent - off the field.
The young tight end, a first round draft choice of the Giants in this past spring's annual NFL college draft, plays in the largest sports media market in the world.
For whatever reason, he was apparently invited to appear on the often controversial, New York-based syndicated talk show of high-profile morning man Howard Stern.
For inexplicable reasons, he agreed to appear on the show.
Within minutes, he had been asked a question about whether there are any gay players in the NFL.
His response? "I hope not."
He added that, if he knew there was a gay player on his college team, "[he] wouldn't stand for it".
His responses continued in a similar, less than thoughtful, vein.
Not surprisingly, his offensive and hurtful comments caused a tremendously swift - and negative - public reaction.
While he made an apology of sorts afterwards ("I guess I do regret saying it…"), his additional later comments - that he was simply trying to be funny on the Stern show - rang rather hollow to his critics.
Beyond the obviously insensitive nature of his comments on a radio program, the question remains: who was guiding this young man's public appearances? Was no one aware of the kind of program that the young athlete was to appear on? Had anyone spent any time advising him on the pros and cons of making such an appearance?
Further, did he have anyone help him anticipate the kinds of questions he might be asked, and what his responses would be?
Clearly, his comments are indefensible. Whether they were made "in jest", or were a genuine representation of his feelings, only he knows.
Athletes do live in a fishbowl. They are criticized by and in the media when they merely spout clichés and hackneyed, middle-of-the-road responses time and again.
However, when they do step forward and say something "out of the box", it also often leads to controversy and criticism - sometimes, as in this instance, with good reason.
Ideally, all professional athletes could and would speak in an articulate, engaging, thoughtful and genuine manner - and would operate in an environment where the outside world was not hanging on their every word, and thus were truly comfortable doing so.
Ideally, all of our opinions on all subjects - athletes or not - would be engaging and thoughtful, but that of course is not always the case.
Can an athlete really be himself, or herself? Should they be able to say whatever they want, regardless of whether it is hurtful or insensitive?
One thing is clear: these situations, where a young person with often limited experience deals with experienced media people, are often potentially damaging to an individual athlete, their image and their career… not to mention those who may have been justly offended by certain comments.
Every club in major professional sports employs experienced public relations professionals on staff. Virtually all players have agents who claim to represent their interests "off the field", not just in terms of negotiating contracts.
Yet, often when athletes - especially young athletes - need it most, their 'support system' (those supposedly there to prepare them thoroughly for what might await them) is nowhere to be found.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)