Contributed by Jill Keskimaki
Last Friday, the third Communication Symposium of the semester was held in the 1862 Lounge. This new location allowed for the relaxed, free-form style of conversation that is encouraged within the atmosphere of the symposium. With the NCAA basketball tournament recently underway, symposium participants had a lengthy discussion about the massive media event that is “March Madness.” The conversation started with various explanations for why it is worthwhile to broadcast sports—whether it is for the public interest or simply interesting to the public. Many attendees agreed that sports have a unifying quality, giving people a sense of belonging when they become passionate about a certain team. Another appeal to sports is that the results of an athletic competition are not open for interpretation; it’s all there in the final score: one team won, and the other lost. One student called attention to the difference between the competition found in sports and that of politics, stating that when watching sports, people have no trouble looking to an athlete and saying, “I really dislike them, but they’re good at what they do,” whereas in politics, you rarely, if ever, hear, “I really dislike them, but I agree with their policies.” If sports media are important because they allow millions of people to watch a game, why isn’t a single livestream camera sufficient? Many argue that the programming that we see on television provides crucial information that isn’t seen in the stadium or arena, such as commentary, graphics, and sideline reports. These extra features get the audience excited about the game, give context to the conflict, and keep people entertained when there is a dull or quiet moment in the game. To anyone who watches sports on TV, it is clear to see that most of these commentators are men, which leads to another topic of discussion in the symposium. Are sports media sexist? When women are hired, is it for sex appeal? Or is it the simple fact that sports were historically male-dominated? Erin Andrews, a well-known, knowledgeable football reporter, has always been a sideline reporter instead of a panelist. Aside from the commentators, sports media in general seem to place more value on men’s sports than women’s. This is still a highly debated issue, one about which the participants of the communication symposium had a lot to say. Some argued that men’s sports are more combative than women’s; therefore, they are more entertaining. Others argued that it comes down to money: men’s sports have a bigger audience, so the media will cater to them instead of the smaller audiences who watch women’s sports. Many agreed that as time goes on, we will begin to see more female reporters, and perhaps even see women playing in the men’s professional leagues. The conversation started by describing how sports are unifying, but yet people tend to get defensive and divisive when they are passionate about a specific player, team, or sport. Take, for example, the NFL rivalry between the Packers and Bears. Fans of each team feel strongly one way or another and refuse to budge. The Olympics, however, seem to bring people together, unifying them with patriotism and spirit. Sports communication is the fastest growing area of media-based communication, so we will likely see some big changes in the near future. Where do you see the future of sports communication? Do you think sports media are indeed sexist? Are sports more unifying or divisive? Leave a comment below!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
SymposiaOn this page, you'll find summaries of each Symposium held by the Communication program. Archives
April 2017
Categories |