Does anyone ever remember a time when the media reported in a clear, concise, and unbiased manner? When ESPN set up shop in Bristol in the late 70's, were the producers a bunch of fresh out-the-joint college kids who were still a little wet behind the ears, naive to the ways of the world and unaffected by any kind of influence?
Probably not. I wasn't really around, in any kind of journalistic capacity anyway, back then, but I find it a little hard to believe, that, if John Madden walked into the Raiders' locker room after a tough loss, and found Ken Stabler and Fred Biletnikoff letting the waterworks fly, a media frenzy would ensue. Had that happened, it would've been '72-'73. Those cats probably went to the bar and pounded cold Pabst Blue Ribbon after a tough loss.
In the 70's, and even the 80's....Sports media wasn't as polished and didn't really resemble tradtional news. Uncharted territory began to be overcome by the pirate ship that is the new guard in sports media. Back in the 90's, a time I like to pleasantly refer to as the "When Stuart Scott had two good eyes" era, We began to see professional/college sports covered a little differently. Once the modern age was ushered in by higher ratings, Scandal began to erupt. It shook the very foundation on which the sports we loved were at their core. Mark Mcgwire happened. Jose Canseco happened. Barry Bonds happened. The veil was lifted and we began to see professional athletes for who they were. Mortals who fail, and make mistakes. Mistakes=ratings. ratings=ad revenue. Ad revenue=profits. (insert earlier post about Cam Newton here).
So here we sit, with The Miami Heat suffering a crippling loss in the waning seconds of Sunday's matchup vs. Derrick Rose and the once again on top of things Chicago Bulls. Ol' "new guard media" has been anything but kind to the 2010-11 Miami Heat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if positive highlights in reference to Miami's season have been few and far between.
So, let's be objective, for just one second. I'm no expert, far from it. What I do know, is that Miami's record this year is 43-20. They're WELL over .500 and will surely make the playoffs. They lose some close games, everyone at ESPN is up their asses with contempt. When head coach Erik Spoelstra took to the mic at the post game PC he looked like a beleaguered coach that was at the helm of a team who had won 15 games all season, not the coach of a team that's in 3rd place in the Eastern conference. Soon after facing the media, he admitted, he saw some guys crying in the locker room.
Enter "Crygate"; an eruption of discussion about when, and even if it's ok to show emotion in the realm of pro sports. Why guys do it, why guys don't do it, etc. It seems that there was some pretty healthy debate going on, as ESPN would start to run B-roll of Terrell Owens crying after Tony Romo blew another cowboys' post season.
So why were some of Miami's players crying on Sunday? was it because they got crapped on by the spurs last week, then lost a barn-burner to the Bulls? No. it's because the likes of ESPN has built this team up, only to tear them down. They weren't crying because they had some tough losses, they were crying because the media has spared them no expense.
Maybe, just maybe, there was a time when the powers that be weren't trying to sell a product, weren't trying to garner attention or ratings, a time when simpler people played a simpler game and the programmers in Bristol weren't in the business of soul sucking for the means of selling car insurance and tickets to the movie Battle: Los Angeles. We'll never, ever live in that world again, this much I know. But, when you see humans, being human for once, think for 30 seconds about where it came from. You might be surprised at the lack of complexity.
-Marty.
