February 3rd was a very important date in the world of college football, known as National Signing Day, in which the nation’s top high school football players declared where they would play their college football. Since fans tend to show piqued interest, the media follows, as websites such as Rivals, Scouts, and ESPN not only cover signing day, but track recruits and offer analysis year round.
Personally, I find the media coverage that these 18 year olds receive downright ridiculous. Harkening back to my days in high school, I remember the strenuous process of deciding which college to attend, thus, I imagine that having the entire ordeal become a public process must be nerve-racking, to say the least. These high school students are called and texted on an almost daily basis by web reporters who are attempting to, essentially, read their minds. They are asked to report on where they stand on each school and to constantly give updates to changes in their opinions, only to find that statements made in passing can grace the headlines of one of these football recruiting websites. A bit much for one person to deal with? Decide for yourself, attached is a link to a related article on ESPN about the process.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/news/story?id=4848740
Media Intrusion Theory, as defined by Dennis Davis in Mass Communication Theory, claims that the media has imposed itself into politics and, as a result, changed the whole political process (Baran, Davis 293). I see the same thing happening in the world of college football recruiting (albeit, I’ll be the first to admit, football is not nearly as important as politics). High school recruits and college coaches read websites such as Rivals and Scouts as much, if not more, than fans. Therefore, it could be argued that what is reported is almost as important as what is truth. For example, if a young man reads that a college is unimpressed with his recent athletic performance, this will likely effect the outcome of his final decision, regardless of whether or not the report is true. Furthermore, coaches will often stop pursuing potential players who have reportedly “lost interest” in the school, even though many times, the reports are false.
This brings me to my next point: media accuracy. With competition rampant between recruiting websites, it becomes very important who breaks major stories, sometimes leading to lapses in fact-checking, a microcosm, in my opinion, of all media today. The issue came to a head last February when Kevin Hart, a young Nevada football player held a press conference, attended by local media, and announced that he would be accepting a football scholarship to the University of California. Hearing wind of the news from local media, Rivals reported the story without fact-checking boasting that it had gotten the scoop. In a rush, Scout and ESPN news services soon followed. The only problem was that Kevin had never been contacted by the University of California and had, in fact, never received a scholarship offer from any school, instead, concocting a selfish hoax to play into his own ego. A simple call to the University by any of these websites would have instantly revealed this. Eventually, Kevin was caught, although not until thousands of people had been duped. You can read further about the story here.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3236039
How did this happen? As Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann theorized, “Mass media constitute the major source of reference,” (McQuail 300). Essentially, it means that what the media report, we, the public, automatically assume is truth.
Journalists are considered the gatekeepers of information and, in this situation, they dropped the proverbial ball. In a rush to release the story, Rivals didn’t think to fact-check, a basic law of journalism, and published a piece that should have never seen the light of day.
I will leave you with a number of questions, so feel free to take any of these in any direction you want. Baran and Davis state “Media [doesn’t] manipulate passive individuals,” (Baran, Davis 271). The reason that so much information about college football recruiting is reported is because the public craves this information (I may be safe in assuming that most of this public resides in or near states such as Mississippi, Kentucky, or Alabama). However, we must consider the ethical concerns of constantly hounding an already stressed high school student. In journalism, is the demand for information enough of a reason for reporters, society’s gatekeepers, to cover an issue?
Second, I question whether Kevin Hart’s elaborate scheme was concocted because, as he claims, he wanted to play Division 1 football, or whether he simply wanted the media attention that accompanies it. Does intense coverage of events (whether it’s college football recruiting, crime, or something else completely) spurn individuals to engage in copycatting in order to receive attention?
Third, in Kevin Hart’s situation, his fraud worked because the media was more concerned with speed than anything else. With the influx of online reporting over the last five years where information is shared quicker than ever before, has speed replaced accuracy as the most important part of journalism?
Lastly, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann also claimed that “The media tend to speak in one voice, almost monopolistically,” (McQuail 300) as was the case with Kevin Hart, in which they all reported a lie. The reports were released, essentially, in the name of speed. Has speed, as a benefit of online reporting, contributed further to the problem of media conglomeration?
John in response to your third question regarding Kevin Hart and whether speed has replaced accuracy, I must agree with you. Considering my experience with college recruiting through both my experience as a basketball manager and my constant reading of all the major recruiting websites. This story does not surprise me because while there is competition on the field there is also just as much competition to report what is actually occurring on the field. For example in the world of college basketball Dave Telep has a recruiting service that many major college programs use however Adam Finkelstein also has a recruiting service, and while they may not be in direct competition, I would bet that both Finkelstein and Telep, instantly put in their services the newest information available even if it is not 100 percent accurate. For example one site may rate a player in a better catorgy than he really is just to publish there report on time .In addition while I am not sympathizing with these services, college athletics especially division 1 athletics are not a game ,high school basketball is a game college basketball is a business, and potential huge money maker for a university masquerading as game, and these business men/coaches want information on recruits faster than humanly possible or they will cease to use that service. To get to the specific question regarding Kevin Hart situation I do belive that he was a great example of the fact that speed has replaced accuracy. Outside of the sporting world we see this in the tabloids were at the drop of a hat a famous actor/musician can charged with ludicrous rumors, and these magazines just print whatever they think will sell. To summarize in many cases the journalistic integrity of people such as Edward Murrow and Woodward and Bernstein has been replaced by People magazine editor wanting to report the latest Hollywood gossip regardless of wither it is true or not.
ReplyDeleteDue to this I believe that the current media is in fact manipulators and therefore I disagree with the following quote, “ The media are far from being the sinester manpulators of the popular mind suggested by some conspriery theriores, their major functions seem to be support the system, to uphold conformity, to provide reassurance ,and to protect the members of soceity exceissivly distrubing distracting or dysfuncational information(Rogers and Dearing) at one time a long time ago this qoute may have rung true unfortunetly that is not the case now. This is not all the media fault however I blame this on our soceity as a whole we want information quickley and unforuatnalty for use the consequence is that we can no longer trust the media as a previous generations were able. If we did not place such a emphais on speed the Kevin Hart Debacle would have never occurred
In reading through John's blog concerning high school athletes, and media influence, I found it to be very interesting as well as informative. I have chosen to address two major issues in relation to John's posting. First is the rapid ways in which journalists report nowadays and secondly is the rights journalists have to cover an issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me most though is the lack of accuracy that reporters had in responding to the Hart incident. Journalism has historically been one of fact finding and presenting to the public; whether through intense research or not, the report should always be 100% true before it is published. Besides, it's kind of a communications law anyway.
Nonetheless, I agree the speed has taken a front seat to fact finding in today's journalistic society. Due to the competitive internet market, news stories no longer have to wait overnight to be published in newspapers - where all viewers will receive them at the same time NOR do people have to wait for the 11 o'clock news in order to find out breaking news stories. The internet has allowed us to have access to information 24/7 and in turn this has produced a sort of ignorance on the part of journalists.
Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of fine journalists out there. However, at the same time there are a bunch who will also accept what is heard immediately without proper fact finding - essentially trying to edge competition by being the first to report on the story. While reading this blog I couldn't help think about the Dan Rather story in which Rather erred in a report of President Bush's military service. In a brash effort to diminish the President, Rather reported that documents claimed Bush received preferential treatment while serving in the National Guard. Shortly thereafter the reports were found to be false and the incident eventually caused Rather's termination but not after it became ingrained in millions of American minds. This incident clearly outlines a journalist who rushed to a conclusion without proper fact finding. And the result was the worst one possible - his job. This justifies the idea that the media has such a profound and prolific effect on society. As we have learned from Gerbner's cultivation theory, it is very easy to influence a group of individuals. In addition, McQuail writes that "media are active agents of false consciousness, constraining people to misperceive their environment and their own place in it" (386). While this can relate directly to cultivation theory it also has a place within gatekeeping. Since society can easily be induced into false consciousness, the media has an extremely important responsibility to report fact. Journalists control not only the flow of information but viewer's minds as well. And accuracy should never be sacrificed for quickness in journalism.
On the contrary, in defense of the today's journalistic methods, I believe that journalists have a responsibility to report on all issues, regardless of whom they deal with. The reason I take this stand relates directly to the spiral of silence and an important focus of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. In relation to this theory it is believed that "If various viewpoints about agenda items are ignored, marginalized, or trivialized by media reports, people will be reluctant to talk about them. As time passes, those viewpoints will cease to be heard in public..." (Baran and Davis 283). While this point is meant to relate to political items, I believe the same holds true for all of society's issues. Everything that is of interest to society should be reported on and presented to the public - as long as its factual. So regardless of the stress put on high school football players to reveal their intentions, I think that if they are willing to make a public statement about their careers, then the press should follow. It is their right to do so as long as it is done morally.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely imagine how frustrating it must be to have to choose a college with the added stress of the media trying to get inside your head.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the demand for information is enough of a reason for reporters to cover an issue. Though we are dependent on the media, they have an audience who expects something from them. If there is a high demand for certain information, I don’t see why reporters wouldn’t want to cover a certain issue. I do not want to generalize journalists, but I do think that many are more worried about getting a story than about how the subject (in this case, a high school athlete) is affected by the journalist hounding them. In the same sense that agenda-setting theory tells us what to think about but not what to think, the journalists are putting a student’s personal decision out in the open but do not necessarily try to persuade us to choose a school/team we feel may be best for the athlete. An agenda is defined by Rogers and Dearing as “a list of issues and events that are viewed at a point in time as ranked in a hierarchy of importance” (82). In a town that may not necessarily have too much excitement, it is a big deal to have a student be recruited to play on a college team. Therefore, the issue of where the student athlete will choose to go may seem like a pressing issue, if only for a few weeks during his/her final semester.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that speed has contributed further to the problem of media conglomeration, though it definitely negatively affects journalism. I would say that speed has replaced accuracy in some cases. Journalism is one career that has definitely taken the heat for not always having their facts straight. The findings from the study done by McCombs and Shaw about the issues in the 1968 Presidential election “indicates that a considerable amount of campaign news was not devoted to discussion of the major issues but rather to analysis of the campaign itself. This may give pause to those who think of campaign news as being primarily about the issues” (155). In the same sense, journalists are not always correct, but maybe there is now less emphasis on having correct facts since it is most important to be the first to have a story. With technology and the Internet, they can just as quickly correct their mistakes later. It is unfortunate that all journalists suffer a bad reputation from those unethical journalists who choose not to check their facts.
Sports play a major role around the world, as a part of culture and entertainment. They are glorified in many countries, with America being a part of the enthused sports culture, especially with an American sport such as football. Sports media coverage is extensive, but it is tough to decipher whether the extreme amount of attention given to sports is equally because of the media and the audience, or if one influences the other.
ReplyDeleteThese theories can be taken out of the political context and applied to sports media coverage, giving a new perspective to the ways that these theories are applied. America takes pride in their sports and it is clear that football has been engrained into part of our culture seeing that the Superbowl has essentially become a national holiday. This can be exemplified through Noelle-Neumann’s concept of the spiral of silence. “Individuals are more independent when status in the group is less important to them, (McQuail, 382)”, which is what she attempts to convey. Americans, regardless of their age, location, favorite sports teams, or if they are even a football fan at all, often come together for the social aspect of the Superbowl. Not going to a Superbowl party might as well be equivalent to not spending Christmas with your family.
It is difficult to determine if the media coverage causes audience interest or if it is audience interest that causes increased media coverage when it comes to sports. However, it can be argued that there is a reciprocal relationship, whereas they feed off of each other. It is a never-ending cycle where each constantly contributes and because of their needs from one another, they have created an ongoing process. The media need to have an audience, and the audience have found dependency on the media. As described in the media system dependency theory, “the media operate in a given way in a given social system to meet given audience wants and needs” (Baran & Davis, Chapter 10, 273). The media has successfully captured an audience which they can define and therefore cater to.
Online reporting and the increase use of technology has contributed to the problem of media conglomeration because of the power media conglomerates have, giving them access and ability to report in an immediate manner. We have become such a media involved society that we are constantly searching for the most updated, immediate news, from sources that we can recognize, and therefore, build a trusting relationship with.
I found this blog very interesting and as a college football fan, I have read stories about college recruiting and the pressure that is placed on these high school athletes. There is immense pressure placed on these athletes and the media plays such a large role in this. The media can have an effect on these athletes and sometimes can get their facts wrong when reporting a story. The media doesn't always report the truth because they can be so focused on being the first one to break a story, that they can sometimes report false information. John had a good example of this in his blog with regard to Kevin Hart who said he was accepting a scholarship to the University of California, when in reality Hart never even received any interest from the school. The media didn't know this and when the website, Rivals, found this out, they didn't hesitate to report the story as true. ESPN and Scout were next to report the story. Obviously these stories were false and these websites should have looked into it more, but this just shows that the media isn't always accurate and definitely has replaced accuracy with speed sometimes. This story also backs up Elisbaeth Noelle-Neumann's claim that, "The media tend to speak in one voice, almost monopolistically (McQuail, 380)." All the websites that reported on Hart's school decision all reported the same story, which ended up being a lie, but no one decided to check out the facts because they were too focused on being the first to break the story. I do think that this is a problem and accuracy should be the main objective for journalists and the media.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with John when it comes to the media's intrusion in college recruiting. This can be summed up be the Media Intrustion Theory, which discusses how the media has intruded into politics so much by trying to inform the public of politcial ongoings that they have changed the political process (Baran & Davis, 293). This theory can be associated with college recruiting because this process for high school athletes is very important and a tough enough decision as it is, but with the media constantly checking in with them and trying to get the inside scoop, they have effectively changed the whole recruiting process. This process should be a private matter for the most part, until the final decision has been made by the athlete. Yet, the media is always hounding the athletes or people they know who may have some information on the athlete's thinking. Some reports done by the media end up being false and if a news story discusses how a school wasn't completely impressed by an athlete's performance in workouts, then this athlete bay also lose interest in the school and this can lead to the athlete deciding not to choose that school. If this report is false, then nothing good comes out of all of this because the athlete has now lost a possibility of going to that school because of what happened. So, I agree with John that the media has played a large role in college football recruiting. Some of it is negative when it comes to reporting facts and not just trying to be the first outlet with the inside scoop. Reporting the truth should be the media's number one priority because false reports can lead to bad decisions by these athletes and can alter their lives forever.
ReplyDelete