Posted on 03/26/2015 8:52:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
Americans have long used sports as a way to “get away” from the real world for a few hours and focus on a game rather than current events. Sports, after all, have a way of uniting people unlike anything else. Bias in the Booth, a new book by sports talk radio personality Dylan Gwinn, argues that there has been an effort by sports broadcasters to sway public opinion on certain issues—related to sports or not—towards a liberal viewpoint.
In the book, Gwinn cites examples such as the deification of Michael Sam and Bob Costas’ rant about gun control as ways that liberals are attempting to politicize sports. Gwinn, speaking in an interview to Townhall, said that the role of sportscaster has changed gradually over time, and that the sportscasters of today are far more political than those in years past. Previously, there was an “unwritten rule” that sports reporters were not there to push an agenda, but rather to just, well, report on sports news.
Today, however, things are different. “There’s no difference between the mainstream media and sports media,” explained Gwinn. Gwinn also said that sportscasters have an advantage over mainstream media personalities, as they have a “captive audience” of fans looking to catch the game. An average consumer has multiple options as to where to get news, but “there’s a monopoly on sports news.”
Gwinn paid particular attention to the treatment of Tim Tebow by the sports media vs their treatment of Michael Sam. Tebow, a former Heisman winner, is a devoted Christian who was open and public about his faith. Sam was notable for being the first openly gay player to be drafted into the NFL. Tebow, despite his ability to win playoff games for the Denver Broncos, was disparaged by the media. Sam, who was drafted in the seventh round following a disappointing NFL Scouting Combine, was cut by two different teams and failed to see the field of an NFL game. Sam’s play at the professional level was mediocre at best, yet he was fawned upon by the media. Teams that did not sign him were questioned, and the Rams and Cowboys underwent scrutiny after they cut him, despite the fact that he showed limited potential as a professional athlete. This was the opposite of the treatment given to Tebow.
Bias in the Booth is an interesting look at how the world is increasingly becoming politicized. It’s a must-read for both political junkies and sports fans alike. This is certainly a unique book and a refreshing departure from the typical political book.
Perhaps we should have a “lowest form of sustainable life” contest.
Entrants include: sportscasters,the MSM, public school administration, congress, and the presidency.
We already knew that but it’s good to have one’s personal views verified by an independent professional...so we’re not paranoid after all.
“Shut up and do the play-by-play.”
The allegedly “unwritten rule” about not pushing political or social agendas in sports journalism was broken decades ago. Back in the 1980s (before the dawn of the internet) I subscribed to The Sporting News, as Sports Illustrated was the sports arm of the democrat/communist propaganda complex. While TSN was the house organ of the St. Louis Cardinals, for the most part it had decent reporting and was the best source for the baseball box scores and stats.
But then the TSN op-ed writers began the push for sports as a means to “social justice.” If I recall that was around 1988 or 1989 that it became pronounced. In disgust, I dropped my subscription.
Agreed, but since the advent of radio broadcast of sporting events, "commentary" has mixed in with the who, what, when, and where pronouncements by the announcers. Most commentary was muzzled by employers and sponsors. Now it seems that employers and sponsors use broadcasts as the soap boxes to voice their agendas.
LOL! I always wondered why they had so many glowing articles on the St. Louis Cardinals. I used to subscribe back in the 1970s. St. Louis Cardinal slant notwithstanding, I liked it, and it provided a good way to keep track of the teams and their minor league prospects (oh the days wasted, when I used to track those things...).
True, sports writers were leaning left in the 1970s, and in the 1980s were blatantly leftwing.
If anyone doubts that, go back and read the coverage of the 55 year old tennis hustler Bobby Riggs versus tennis champ Billy Jean King.
It was as propagandist as anything written today in the NYTs, Rachel Maddow could have been writing all the coverage, which pretended that it was a male versus female battle of two champions.
My brother tried to tell me years ago that sports journalists are every bit as biased, and perhaps even more so, than those in the mainstream press.
I am beginning to think that he was right.
ESPN resembles MSNBC more and more every day.
Same thing with NHL reporting over the years. Almost all of them have demanded a ban on fighting for years, as well as making helmets and later, visors, compulsory equipment. Basically wanting the league to be like US College or Europe.
As a result, you are seeing stickwork and cheapshot offences way up (along with career ending head and neck and back injuries) compared to when even I began watching the game back in the late 1970s (let alone the Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovlich, etc era). Anybody who talks about the NHL that featured less headgear and only five minutes for fighting was the more cleaner and polite brand of sport gets called out as basically stupid and “non-progressive”.
TSN was published in St. Louis, so they were naturally biased toward the Cards. As a Cub fan, that bothered me but not nearly so much as when they went hard left.
I still recall the first issue of TSN I bought off the newsstand in 1973 or 1974; it had a cover of the Cubs “M Squad,” Bill Madlock, Rick Monday and Bobby Mercer.
For whatever reason, most national sports reporters are liberal Jews. You’re gonna get their viewpoint whether you want it or not.
That is why they re-hired Olberdoof. I quit watching ESPN on that very day.
Add to that the inane blatherings of Mike Emrick and Pierre McGuire make watching a televised NHL game difficult. Give me CBC Hockey Night in Canada with Don Cherry any day
Actually, Don Cherry (who was of course the Boston Bruins’ coach back then) was among the numerous people connected with the game as a coach or player who warned about making the helmet mandatory (they were grandfathered starting in 1979-80). Ones like him, Larry Robinson, Barry Beck, Fred Shero, and Brad Park said that more helmets would lead to more careless or deliberate behaviour involving sticks and other related cheap stuff, resulting in more injuries. Guess what, they were proven right.
Haven’t watched Hockey Night in Canada much in recent years, largely because of Ron Maclean thinking he’s the smartest man in the room, along with other know-it-alls like him they are putting up to supposedly balance against Cherry. Agree with you totally on Mike Emrick and Pierre McGuire and their blatherings (as well as Ed Olczyk’s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.