Sportsfrog.com

I guess I’m used to seeing pictures of Danica Patrick or Anna Kournikova in bikinis when this argument is made, but instead, Lindsey Vonn’s SI cover this week is “a sexualized pose” according to Dr. Nicole M. LaVoi.

Over the last 60 years researchers have shown that about 4% of all SI covers have portrayed women.

When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action–and the most recent Vonn cover is no exception.

The crux of LaVoi’s argument is based on the fact that Vonn doesn’t have a helmet and goggles on, and it’s a passive photo. And given that criteria, SI just loves making athletes objects. Look at Jimmy Connors and his come hither grin! Or Tom Brady and his fantastic teeth and shirtless body!

Without the proper context of Sports Illustrated cover poses over the years, LaVoi comes off as looking as an uninformed feminist using the Vonn cover to try to make a point that really isn’t there. If Vonn had been scantily clad, this may be a legitimate argument. Instead, it looks pretty foolish.

(h/t The Big Lead)

In the excerpts from this Salon column, the analogies scream Simmons. Even though the not-so-subtle racism doesn’t.

Shirley, as you may know, made waves with his blog post about Haiti this week. Immediately after his post, ESPN got rid of him.

Now that we’ve got a bit of a backstory, it’s pretty clear where the Haiti column came from. I remember Shirley first as the Iowa State player (yes, Iowa State actually had black players. Shirley played with Kelvin Cato and Jamaal Tinsley, if I remember right) and secondly as the dude who wrote a book about barnstorming throughout Europe.

Instead, he’s now known as the guy who may or may not dislike people who aren’t white. That’s pretty sad, and Shirley’s got no one to blame but himself.

The local Fox affiliate went to do a story about the shot.

And the reporter makes a half court shot with his back to the basket on the first take for the teaser.

No joke.

Not only did MLB Network just air the Costas/McGwire interview, but they were able to follow-up with Bob Costas in the aftermath while getting commentary from studio analysts Tom Verducci (si.com), Ken Rosenthal (fox sports) and Peter Gammons (now of MLB). Actual decent and interesting conversation for conversations sake. A blessing to listen to.

Or, you could flip to ESPN and get John Kruk’s take…

There, I said it.

Mike Leach is getting absolutely killed during tonight’s broadcast of the Alamo Bowl. Mike Patrick–Craig James’s usual broadcast partner–has become a de-facto advocate for Adam James and Bob Davie, who spent much more time preparing for the Texas Bowl, is using his status as James’s replacement to play off of Patrick. It’s like a bad buddy-cop movie broadcasting a football game.

The worst part might have been near the end of the first half when Davie said that it must be hard for Leach to realize that it’s over and that he was watching his own football team on television. Yes, that’s probably pretty hard to take, but my guess is that when Davie said that, Leach was in the bathroom puking in disgust from all of the James fellatio that had previously occurred.

ESPN did a great job of ignoring the topic in the first part of the broadcast, and I’m sure that the overtime Liberty Bowl helped. But once the second quarter was underway, it was open season on Mike Leach.

At the very least, ESPN could have clarified on numerous occasions that Craig James worked for the network. Instead, it acted as if that point was known by the viewing audience, while also acting like none of the details–with plenty of pro-Adam James commentary and sidebars–of the past week were known by viewers.

Despicable.

First, my apologies for this post not being a timely rebuttal to the post concerning the other side of this issue. I digress…

Sportsfrog.com used to have the tagline, “dissecting sports and media while battling a dirty gambling habit.” Trust me, I have the t-shirt. I guess it is now my turn to jump into the media dissection pool.

Not only has TMZ not made inroads into “sports coverage,” they are not “covering sports” at all. They are taking the elements of what makes gossip appealing to their audience and widening the net of people who fall into that arena.

The two stories Brontoburglar cited that TMZ reported ahead of the mainstream media were the death of Angels’ pitcher Nick Adenhart and the Tiger Woods car accident. However, both stories involve the “sin” aspects that make news or gossip, respectively. In Adenhart’s case, it is his death, as evidenced particularly well by the newsroom cliché “if it bleeds, it leads,” and in Woods’ case, sex (just like how Alex Rodriguez previously made gossip sheets for being spotted with a woman who was not his wife). If Woods had been in the exact same car accident without the prior reports of his infidelity, would TMZ have been beating down doors to get information? I think not.

Saying TMZ is showing “legitimate newsgathering chops” loses all credibility when, in the next paragraph, it is cited that TMZ pays for scoops. People who know they will not be named as sources have no reason to be honest. Think about this for a second. If some gossip outlet came to you, asked if you had any information about a person you did not actually know (or maybe even knew, but did not like) and offered a substantial amount of money for that information plus a guarantee of anonymity, what reason would you have to not make something up? Before you say, “well, I wouldn’t do that, I have no reason to lie,” you should probably consider if that is true when there is a check made out to you valued at $10,000 ready to be put in your hand. How about $25,000? $50,000? Really? No one knows you’re the person making these statements. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Think about the current state of the human race for a little while if you still think honesty matters in the face of money.

I also have a different answer to this question and answer posed in the other post:

“Was the reluctance to use TMZ information in newspaper stories more related to fears that it wasn’t factually correct, or the fact that it came from TMZ? I lean strongly towards the latter.”

Reluctance to use TMZ information in a newspaper story is due to fears that it is factually incorrect because it came from TMZ. TMZ is a source for gossip, not news. A newspaper that reports false information risks losing the trust of its readership, not to mention the threat of lawsuit. The reporting of “facts” without confirmation is a huge sin in the world of news reporting. It is called independent confirmation.

I doubt readers care about how the information is gathered or who reports it as long as the outlet reporting the news is trustworthy. Then again, looking at the political climate in our country, maybe this is not the case.

TBS ditches Chip Carey.

The Tiger Woods Thing marks the second time that TMZ has absolutely destroyed mainstream media outlets when it comes to a major off the field incident (car crash) with an athlete.

Think that the MSM is happy about that?

While TMZ isn’t infallible, they’ve got a pretty impressive string of exclusives before other gossip magazines/sites/mainstream outlets have gotten them, (Rihanna immediately comes to mind) and has definitely become more influential than Deadspin when it comes to actual news that includes athletes off of the field.

While Deadspin specializes in who’s doing and drinking with whom, something that TMZ is very good at as well when it comes to the Hollywood set, TMZ has shown legitimate newsgathering chops when it comes to both Nick Adenhart and Tiger Woods. (Was the reluctance to use TMZ information in newspaper stories more related to fears that it wasn’t factually correct, or the fact that it came from TMZ? I lean strongly towards the latter)

Of course, that has everything to do with how TMZ gets its information. It’s a well known secret that TMZ pays for scoops, and that’s a definite no-no in the mainstream media world. The money puts TMZ at an obvious advantage, because why tell your information for free when you can tell your information for pay?

And do readers actually care about how their news outlets receive their information, as long as the information is getting out as soon as possible, and to a lesser extent, factually correct?

I’m not suggesting that mainstream media outlets need to start paying sources for information, because I think that opens a giant can of worms, and at the very least, would decrease the number of free information sources available to the general public. However, given the way that TMZ has beaten down the MSM with their scoops in regards to these two stories, the celebrity gossip site has definitely asserted itself as a force to be reckoned with when athletes make news off of the playing field.

Is TMZ really changing sports coverage? Let us know in the Swamp.

(This post assumes that TMZ’s coverage of the Tiger Woods situation has been accurate. If it isn’t, I reserve every right to retract my post.)

Probably only applicable to me, and anyway, it’s not like very many people in the profession take their writing responsibilities that seriously…

Hall of Fame Redskin John Riggins to current owner Daniel Snyder: “You’re pure evil”. I paraphrase only slightly.

COLLINSWORTH: There is a fine line between being a bad guy and a bad GM if you will. Are you saying a bad guy as in the NFL needs to take a look at this?