I Learned Something Today...

The course on ethics has been eye opening to say the least and applying it to a career in sports media will be incredibly tricky.  In fact, I am not sure at this point that I will continue a career in sports media without considerable soul searching and or selling out.  However, I will say I worked harder in this class than any other, and maybe that’s just what the sports world needs.

The article, Why Our Moral Compass is More Flexible Than an Olympic Gymnast by Wertheim and Sommers is particularly revealing.  The authors start with an example of Red Sox fans who are booing Alex Rodriguez for his steroid use but seemingly giving David Ortiz, a Red Sox player linked to steroids, a pass.  The article then references multiple behavioral studies which focus on morality in groups and how our moral failures are viewed.  As Wertheim concludes, “We’re willing to excuse moral failures so long as they belong to members of our team.”  This will be something I will have to consider once I find work in the sports media world.  But exactly whose team am I on?  

If you are working on the broadcast operations of the Red Sox it is easy to give your guy a pass.  If you listen to any game in the country on any given night, the home team announcers will go a little bit softer on their guy as opposed to a player on the opposite team.  However, what if your organization is acting unethically?  An employee at NBC will have to weigh working on the Olympics broadcast with the fact that the network is funding the Olympic executives more than anyone else.  According to Hobson, “by the time that flood of cash flows through the Movement and reaches the athletes, barely a trickle remains, often a few thousand dollars at most.”  This creates an ethical dilemma in me that is yet to be solved.  I personally, I am not one to support the financial and political elite but those are the groups who seem to benefit the most from the Olympic cash flow.

Although the ethical conundrum surrounding the Olympics can be related to greed, it is a different situation when the lives of others are dramatically affected by the unethical actions of a select few.  In the article Crisis Communication in Sports Organizations, Billings et al review multiple cases which largely focus on an athlete’s or organization’s denial and eventual admission to wrong doing.  One of the cases mentioned is of former Penn St defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who would eventually be convicted on 45 child abuse counts.  Football coach Joe Paterno and several high ranking administrators where dismissed by the school’s Board of Trustees when the charges came to light.  As Billings mentions regarding the case, “While Paterno did report the initial incidents that were witnessed by an assistant football coach in 1999, the university’s administration failed to follow the necessary procedures to ensure the safety of children.”  As I review this case it becomes one of the vary cut and dry answers for reviewing ethical behavior.  If I had been employed by the university’s athletic department I would absolutely go to the police with any knowledge of a sexual or violent crime being committed. 

In the article entitled The Moral Case Against Contemporary American Sports, author William Morgan argues that “American sports are in dire moral straights today.”  Morgan reviews both professional and collegiate sports in his brief, even stating that collegiate sports are “driven by the same market imperatives.”  According to Morgan, these imperatives are corporate sponsorships, public financing, licensing fees and televisions contracts among others.  As I begin my possible career into sports media, the medium of television is massive.  One area of scrutiny from Morgan is what he calls the “outrage industry,” which is evidenced in such ESPN talk shows such as Pardon the Interruption, Around the Horn and First Take.  These shows feature print and media “journalists” (quotations added by me not Morgan) arguing back and forth with what has been affectionately known as the “hot take.”  As Morgan describes, “once such commentators found out that there was plenty of money to be made by delivering thoughtless, scandalous, off-the-cuff pronouncements about sports… they gladly gave up the hard work of moral criticism.”  These types of TV shows dominate the sports networks when there isn’t an actual game on.  However, this is not something I aspire to be in the sports media world.  I personally don’t believe it is ethical to argue a point, just for the sake of arguing if you don’t necessarily believe it, but that is exactly what these journalists are doing.  The real question is: who is watching this? 

This brings me to the article entitled “The Process of Making Morally Reasoned Decisions in Sports” by Lumpkin and et al.  This particular article has had the greatest impact on what I will take away from this course.  Specifically, the moral values listed in the article are applicable to any position in sports media whether it be a reporter, TV personality, public relations person or marketing executive.  The three moral values outlined, justice, honesty and beneficence describe the essence of acting with integrity.  Lumpkin describes honesty as “the condition or capacity of being truthful of trustworthy in dealing with others.”  Does the hot take analyst take this into consideration when fabricating an argument for ratings and decibel levels?  Do the baseball teams act honestly when they manipulate municipalities into paying for new stadiums with idle threats of relocation?  Did Tom Brady know about the balls being deflated? 

These same questions can be applied to beneficence, which Lumpkin describes as “the condition of (A) not doing harm, (B) preventing harm, (C) removing harm and (D) doing good.  In my opinion, the hot take analyst, the baseball team and a possible rules cheat would not measure up.  This is where things get murky for me.  Is there any honesty in sports?  I know in my mind I would be taking these moral codes and applying them to all of my decision making and to the decisions made by the organizations and athletes I’d be covering.  It seems it will by my duty to bring ethics and morality to an industry that seems to be grossly lacking.             

References

Billings, et al. Crisis Communication in Sports Organizations.  (2015)

Lumpkin, Et al. The Process of Making Morally Reasoned Decision in Sports. (2012)

Hobson, Will.  Olympic Executives Cash in on “Movement” that Keeps Athletes Poor (2016)

Morgan, William. The Moral Case Against Contemporary American Sports. (2012)

Wertheim et al. Why Our Moral Compass is More Flexible Than an Olympic Gymnast. (2016)

Not Just a Game

The film Not Just a Game covers a broad range of sports and politically charged topics.  The topics, which range from the militarization of football, sexuality in sports and whether athletes should take a political stance, are relevant in any sports conversation today. 

            One of the first points in the film I found interesting discussed the militarization of today’s sports culture.  The first aspect is how athletes, particularly football players, will use military lingo while describing their games.  The film plays a clip of then University of Miami tight end Kellen Winslow II saying “It’s war,” and later “I’m a f**kin soldier!” during a post-game interview after a particularly physical contest against Tennessee.  Another aspect of the militarization of sports is related to the presence of the military at the games themselves.  Starting with a coin toss from the most decorated General to the American flag hanging from the Green Monster, I think we can all say we’ve seen it.  Dave Zirin provides a first-hand account of going to a baseball game on “military appreciation night” and an announcement about where in the ballpark you can go sign up!

            Another interesting point from the movie relates to the brutality of football.  As Zirin comments in the film, “The average NFL career is three and a half years and the average player will die twenty years sooner than the rest of the population.”  This sounds like someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness not a retired professional athlete.  The film also emphasizes this point during an interview in which former NFL player John L. Williams describes the ten different surgeries he’s had on only three different body parts.

            The third point of the film I found interesting was in regards to gender in sports.  During the 1967 Boston Marathon, which didn’t allow women, Kathy Switzer registered as “K. V. Switzer” and was given a registered number.  Once she was noticed by race officials, one of them ran out and tried to remove her from the competition.  The men running with her pushed the official out of the way and as Zirin describes “for them the Boston Marathon wasn’t about proving male supremacy, pitting boys against girls.  It was about people running a race.”

            One the other side of the coin, there were points in the film that did not exactly help the cause, in my opinion.  The first of which was the use of actual movies to emphasize the masculinity and brutality of football.  Clips from Varsity Blues and Patton were played and I felt them unnecessary when real life examples were available and suitable.  Trying to make a point about the real world and then using fictional movies to make it didn’t make sense.

            A second point in conflict was in regards to Muhammed Ali.  Ali is civil rights icon and as Zirin describes him: “When he believed in something, he believed in standing up for it outside of the ring.”  However, Ali was not perfect and his relationship with Joe Frazier is often left out of his accolades.  During their trilogy of fights, Ali often referred to Frazier as a “gorilla” and even said “It’s gonna be a thrilla in Manilla when I kill that gorilla” (Parker).  These inherently racist statements should be included when discussing Ali because it paints the entire picture for the audience.

            The final point of disagreement comes from the segment on Michael Jordan being a representative for Nike. As shown in the film, Jordan covered up the Reebok logo with an American flag during the 1992 Olympics because he had a contract with Nike.  Also, he was subject to skepticism in the public eye for not endorsing an African American political candidate in his state.  Michael Jordan is a very successful businessman and part of that is because of the loyalty to his own brand but also because he has been neutral politically.  Both of these things are within his right and athletes are not responsible for political opinions.  Recently, Jordan has donated money to social justice causes. (Neuharth-Keusch).

            One point of connection between the film and a chapter by Jeffery Bineham touches upon homophobia in professional sports.  In the chapter “Tragedy and Comedy as Ethical Responses to John Rocker,” Bineham references Rocker’s inflammatory and derogatory quotes from a 1999 Sports Illustrated article.  In the article, Rocker, at the time a pitcher with the Atlanta Braves, describes the people of New York City and is quoted as saying “some queer with AIDS” and “some 20-year old mom with four kids.”  This ties directly with quotes from former NBA player Tim Hardaway.  The film plays the recording of an interview Hardaway did after former NBA player John Amaechi came out as homosexual.  Hardaway says, “I let it be known I don’t like gay people.”  This point emphasizes that homophobia is still prevalent in professional sports.

            Another correlation to the movie comes from the chapter by Leonard, entitled “Eye Candy and Sex Objects: Gender, Race, and sport on YouTube.”  In his chapter, Leonard describes the sexually charged YouTube comments left on videos of female athletes Hope Solo, Alex Morgan and Allison Stokke, regardless of what the video was about.  This shows the anonymity of the internet lets sexist comments rise to the surface.  In the film, Zirin is quoted as saying that “in 2001 the only women to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated, this is a weekly magazine now, were the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.. from 1972!”  This shows that women are still treated as sex objects by even the mainstream media.

            A final point that connects the two is women’s tennis star Billie Jean King.  King not only started the Women’s Tennis Association, she also fought for equal pay for men’s and women’s tournaments but also defeated former men’s Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs in the “Battle of the Sexes.”  In his chapter, “Is Your Underwear Flame Retardant: Sexuality in Sports,” Zirin says “King was far more than an athlete or a symbol, she was an activist for women’s equal rights.”

             In the chapter “Ethical Foundations and Perspectives” Christians outlines five key ethical guidelines.  One of them is Mill’s Principle of Utility, which states “Seek the greatest happiness for the aggregate whole.”  This principle can be applied to the media’s coverage of women’s sports.  As Zirin mentioned in the film, “women’s sports now get five percent less airtime than twenty years ago.”  If the sports media covered both genders equally, happiness would be provided for the whole.

            Another ethical principle in the chapter by Christians is Aristotle’s Mean, which states “Moral virtue is a middle state determined by practical wisdom.”  This can be applied to the FOX football announcers wearing army fatigues during their broadcast from a base in Afghanistan.  FOX as a media company, is not living in the middle ground because they are actively supporting the military and complicit to selling its agenda.

            A third principle from Christians is “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  This can be applied to a portion of the media that covered the death of Pat Tillman.  When it was revealed that the military covered up the circumstances of Tillman’s death, his mother appeared on the news program 60 minutes to tell her side of the story.  By having her on, 60 Minutes is basically doing what it felt was right, and would do for any of its own which was to give a person the chance to tell the truth.

            The film Not Just a Game creates many questions about how politically charged issues in sports are covered today.  Sadly, it seems women and LGBT athletes are still subjected to decreased coverage and corresponding sexism and homophobia.  However, as more of these films are made and expose the skewed coverage on certain issues the more likely the playing field will be equal. 

References

Christians, et al.  Ethical Foundations and Perspectives (2012)

Bineham, Jeffrey. Tragedy and Comedy as Ethical Responses to John Rocker.  (2005)

Leonard, David J. Eye Candy and Sex Objects: Gender, Race and Sport on YouTube (2013)

Zirin, David. Is Your Underwear Flame Retardant: Sexuality in Sports (2013)

Neuharth-Keusch, AJ. Michael Jordan Donating $2 Million to help address police-related shootings. (2016)

Parker, Lonnae O’Neal. In Trilogy with Muhammed Ali, the words hurt Joe Frazier most. (2011)

A League of Their Own

League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis, is a 2013 documentary film based on the book League of Denial by Steve Fainaru and Mark Fainaru-Wade.  The film outlines the story former football players suffering from neurological illness after retirement and what the National Football League as well as the scientific community knew about the potential harmful effects of the game. 

            The film provides specific examples from the experience of the players, their loved ones and the scientists conducting research to emphasize the severity of the disease.  One telling point is provided by Dr. Robert Stern, a neuropsychologist at Boston University.  When discussing players hitting their heads during games and practices he states “Those things seem to happen 1,000 to 1,500 times a year.  Each time that happens it’s about 20 Gs or more.  That’s the equivalent of driving a car 35 miles per hour into a brick wall” (League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis. PBS Frontline, 2013).  This point demonstrates the violent force of every single impact on the brain.

            A second point is a story about former player Mike Webster, who is featured prominently in the documentary.  Garrett Webster, his son, relays an incident where his father Mike, who is living in his pick-up truck, said “I’m cold and I don’t realize I can fix it by putting a jacket on.” (League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis. PBS Frontline, 2013).  This situation emphasizes the cognitive impairment Webster is experiencing.

            Another point in the film about the potential for brain injury comes from Dr. Ann McKee.  When asked if she would allow her young children to play football she says no and when pressed by the interviewer she states “It’s dangerous and it could impact their long term mental health.” (League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis. PBS Frontline, 2013).

            On the other side of the spectrum, the film also left some questions that could be explored further.  Chris Nowinski is a prominent figure in the film as he works to locate and procure the brains of former NFL players for scientific research.  Chris, is a former college football player and professional wrestler who admitted to numerous head injuries both on the field and in the ring.  As the film gives small focus to his wrestling exploits, it could have expanded its focus to pro wrestlers and other athletes from other sports who suffer potential head injuries.

            The film also doesn’t spend enough time on some of the unanswered questions about the causes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).  Dr. Henry Feuer who at the time was with the Indianapolis Colts, said in reference to Dr. McKee “she cannot tell me where it’s starting.” (League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis. PBS Frontline, 2013).  This point is echoed by another NFL team doctor and is an important aspect of the CTE story.  If not every player has it why do some get it and others not?

            A final point that plays into the discussion of CTE is whether other substances can contribute to the cause.  Dr. Maroon, who was a team doctor with the Pittsburgh Steelers, added that many of the players who had their brains examined by Dr. McKee abused alcohol, steroids and other substances and wondered if those substances were a contributing factor to the formation of CTE.

            The film ties to the reading by Almond in a very specific way.  When referencing linebacker Harry Carson and his play against Mike Webster, the narrator says “Hall of fame linebacker for the New York Giants, Harry Carson, went to WAR with Mike Webster.”  In his writing, when Almond describes how the players talk about the game he says “They talk about being in the trenches, going to war, all that martial jargon.” (Almond).  The war analogies are common when discussing football, from the players to the commentators and I’m not sure why.  Football is a game and if someone wants to know about war they should talk to someone coming home from the Middle East or a surviving service member of World War II.

            In the reading by Bazerman, the author discusses ethical gaps in organizations and discusses the Challenger space shuttle disaster.  Morton Thiokol was a NASA contractor and was relied upon to make a decision regarding the safety of a launch during cooler temperatures.  According to Bazerman “Against the objections of their own engineers, the four Morton Thiokol senior managers present voted to recommend the launch.”  This example from NASA and Morton Thiokol is tied to Groupthink.  Bazerman identifies Groupthink as “the tendency for cohesive groups to avoid a realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action in favor of unanimity.”  The NFL and its Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee seem to stick together and deny any wrong doing or any linkage between football and brain injury which does not appear to entertain any alternative courses of action.

            In his writing Easterbrook mentions many reforms for safety in football.  In regards to youth football he states “tackle football should not be played until age thirteen or until 8^th grade. (Easterbrook).  This ties in with Dr. McKee’s comments from League of Denial when she states she would not let her children play football if they were 8 and 10 years old.

              When applying ethical theories to the NFL public relations team and the journalists covering the story it appears that the journalists were abiding by the “Love thy neighbor as thyself” from the Christians reading.  The journalists are actively trying to uncover any potential fraudulent behavior by the NFL which would invariably help any current and former NFL players.

            The NFL public relations team, assumed to be under direction of the Commissioner, may be using the third theory from the Christians essay which is Utilitarianism.  The theory is described “to determine what is right or wrong by considering what will yield the best consequences for the welfare of human beings” (Christians).  The NFL owners will continue to make enormous sums of money and the fans will continue to worship the game at the expense of the players who in this case are the minority.  The welfare of human beings will be the ability for the NFL to continue make money and provide a product they want to provide.

            The first theory from the Christians reading is where the NFL public relations team and the journalists should converge.  “Moral virtue is a fixed quality of the will, consisting essentially in a middle state, as determined by the standard that a person of practical wisdom would apply” (Christians).   If the journalists and the NFL worked together to discuss the concussion issue with a moral integrity there would be less corruption and deceitfulness from either side.

            In the end, the League of Denial film raises many questions about the ethical practices of the NFL.  If the NFL knew football could cause CTE why didn’t then admit it?  Or if they didn’t know why didn’t they work harder to find an answer?  In all honesty, more science does need to be done before it can be determined why CTE is showing up in some deceased football players and not others.