|
| |
Can You Put Her Back in the Bottle?
by viking64@home.com
The U.S. Women's World Cup Crown (a tiara just won't cut it)
is a great achievement, for the players, the Federation, and the millions who supported
them. I was especially happy that the Federation opened the wallet and made it worth more
than a minimum wage job.
A full two hours after the victory, the spin doctors were at
it, making the victory into something of broader significance, for women's sports, and
soccer. The players themselves have generally left such content-spinning to the observers
and ex players, and that too is wise. But what do we make of the claims of feminine
emancipation, the exposure given to women's sports, the acceptance of soccer as a more
mainstream sport.
They think they've escaped from the bottle. Have they?
I heard figures in the media, one soccer print journalist,
one radio personality, on two sports radio stations, discuss the spin placed on the game.
The print journalist was quick to point out the graciousness of the players in not
"copping an attitude" when answering questions from the media, the same media
empire that has seldom given women's sports, much less soccer, much attention. In
contrast, the radio personality demonstrated some irritation at a former player who used
the platform of the victory to "take some shots" at the male-dominated media,
that prefers, surprise surprise, male-dominated sports.
Using exactly the same context, callers to the local sports
radio show were quick to take the media to task over their indifference to soccer, mens or
women's, up to this point. At issue is whethersoccer has sufficient basis to merit the
media's attention on half the scale of the big six sports.
All of this comes down to one question, and no answers. Do
the sports pages and the sports channels and the sports radio stations set or reflect the
interest in sporting events? Or worse yet, do they merely reflect the tastes of a handful
of people around the nation who own the media?
Media outlets are risk averse, because they are businesses.
Gum-shoe reporters are a thing of the past, because highly educated sports journalists now
roam the field and locker room, primping, preening, and pontificating poetic about the
things that really matter in life, victory and defeat. And like the movie industry, the
risk of being creative by coving things other than the big six is not worth it. Interview
number 100 with a Star, a Ranger or an out-of-season Cowboy is more likely to hold
circulation stable than a series of stories about the Women's National Team or the Dallas
Burn, despite the possibility that it might be an interesting story.
The risk-averse behavior is mistaken for indifference.
Advocates for soccer, and I mean advocates, not fans, work
pretty hard at convincing media personnel that the market is there. They pine that if only
the media gatekeepers would open their eyes, soccer would get its due. They point to
international mens matches that draw well, some MLS matches that draw well, and the
Women's Olympics that sold out every seat available. And they indict NBC for their failure
to provide any meaningful coverage of mens soccer, much less women's soccer, as undeniable
proof that the media ignores the empirical data to slight soccer, with obvious malicious
intent.
And behold, the Women's World Cup. We see sporting venues
bulging to the rim with knowledgeable and adoring fans, followed by a reluctant media crew
that just would not heed the call before the first kick. Suddenly the media find
themselves awash, utterly tossed about by the wave of support whose existence they
steadfastly denied. What soccer advocate can resist the fun of poking a media person in
the eye, just once, as payback for them laughing in your face over and over again? No
market? How about 40 million television sets on Sunday, in the middle of summer, in the
middle of the day?
Soccer may be one sport in the U.S. where the media will
never have the upper hand in setting the sports agenda. The Internet teems with soccer
information in a way the traditional media can't match. The lack of media coverage
produced an Internet-addicted fan base for soccer that will never relinquish the thrill of
real-time information disseminated to their desktop, by fans just like themselves. If you
are like me, you read the quotes from MLS coaches, players, and league personnel long
before they appear in the local paper. Did the U.S. media's minimal and begrudging
coverage of soccer produce the soccer-Internet ring? You bet. So why do soccer advocates
care if the media miss the wave?
Half the answer is that they believe traditional press
coverage is proof that soccer, what they care about, is important. Why
don't NASCAR fans, or holy hell, WWF fans, feel this way?
The other half of the answer is that broadband media (radio,
tv, print) do a better job of generating soccer support than they do reporting soccer
news. Coincidentally, this is exactly what broadband media deny they do. Media
personnel are slow to admit that the gobs of print and coverage they give to the big six
are simply another form of advertising. These media outlets can deny it all they want, but
to the breadth of casual sports fans, it's not credible until it's in the paper or in
electronic media. Coverage begets interest. The media is proof of the scientific principle
that, if you study something, it changes because you studied it.
And that dynamic of coverage that generates interest is what
soccer fans, and advocates, are after. The question on my mind is, have we all seen the
critical mass that advocates have been praying for?
Is Mia (and indirectly the men's soccer scene) really out of
the bottle, or are we set up for more disappointment?
Call your local media outlet and find out.
|
