“Social media has changed the world.
Everyone has an opinion.”
– Tiger Woods[1]
In
1994, one of the most publicized events in history was dubbed the “trial of the
century,” involving former National Football League (NFL) athlete, turned
celebrity endorser and movie star, O.J. Simpson (OJ) who was charged for the
murders of his ex-wife and her friend.
Fast forward to 2009, famous professional golfer Tiger Woods found himself
at the center of a personal crisis when his vehicle he was driving crashed and
revelations emerged about his marital infidelities with several women.
Both
events were covered to an extraordinary immersive presence by the media. This
essay will critically examine the impactful role of traditional/mainstream
media coverage during both events and will delve into the role played by social
media, particularly in the Woods case and how perhaps the OJ situation might
have been different had social media been available during the mid-1990s.
Hindman[2],
in her assessment of how the mainstream press evaluated its conduct during the
pretrial stage of the OJ saga, found that many mainstream media organizations
acknowledged that the coverage was over the top, poor and, in many instances,
unethical. Her study showed that there
were many instances where journalists relied upon unnamed and unreliable
sources, biases, paying of witnesses for interviews and not fully verified presentations
of untrue stories, ‘evidence’ and other questionable conduct. This media behavior
was so pervasive that these questionable actions became the norm, not the
exception, and in the process the line between traditional and tabloid
journalism was blurred. When the trial ended, for many, it became difficult to
recognize the distinction between the legitimate media and tabloid media.
Utilizing
‘attribution theory’ as her theoretical framework, Hindman’s conclusions on the
mainstream media’s conduct were consistent with the academic literature on how
attributors see themselves and accept responsibility for their actions. In the OJ
case, she found four primary responses from the media: the attributors distanced
themselves from other news media and blamed them; they distinguished themselves
from tabloids and blamed them; they blamed non-media and outsiders; and they blamed
the audience as the media merely and legitimately was fulfilling its watchdog
role to inform and educate the citizenry in a democratic republic.
The
coverage of the Tiger Woods scandal shared many similarities with the OJ case.
As one senior journalist for Sports Illustrated summarized, “When it comes to
buzz, this has generated the most of any story I have been involved in, hands
down”.[3] The academic literature reinforces
the depth of coverage, as Sanderson explains that, “perhaps no athlete has
experienced more intense media scrutiny for his private behaviors than…Woods.”[4]
Claudia
Kozman, in her study[5]
of the mainstream media’s attribute effect on the public during the first 17
days of the Woods scandal, found that more than 90 percent of the stories were
about the scandal and there was a close to 80 percent coverage of the
sex/adultery attribute. This might indicate a significantly high incidence of
the media’s obsession with Woods’ sex life.
USA
Today columnist Brett Haber argued that Wood’s private
indiscretion became the public’s business: “People want answers
from Tiger, but not because they need them or have a right to them, rather
because they’re curious. I don’t believe any federal judge has ever issued a
subpoena on the grounds of curiosity.”[6]
Paul Farhi, writing for The Washington Post,
argued that the media frenzy surrounding the Woods scandal wasn’t always about
the facts. He offers several examples to support his case and concludes that “the misreporting of the
Woods story suggests that once the National Enquirer or TMZ serves up the raw
details of the story, the mainstream media can't always be relied on to
separate fact from fiction.”[7]
Even
Tiger Woods weighed in on the media’s coverage: “Although I understand there is
curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently
circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.”[8]
The
above citations provide examples of the similarities between the OJ and Woods
cases. While I did not find any comparative like the one Hindman did on the OJ
saga, I can conclude, judging on the similarities of the cases, that the
media’s explanation for the Woods’ coverage would be somewhat similar to how
they described it for the OJ: that is, shifting blame and invoking the public’s
right to know.
New Media
One
of the biggest differences between the two cases referenced above was the
context that existed at the time of the two incidents. In 1994, the media
landscape was dominated primarily by mainstream press (major newspapers, broadcast
network media and a rising tide of 24/7 cable outlets especially those
dedicated exclusively to sports) and tabloid-style journalism in the print and
entertainment media. These formats competed fiercely with each other in the
race to present ‘breaking news.’ In
2009, while both the mainstream press and the print tabloids still maintained
high relevancy, they now had new competitors: commentators and news curators
operating often on an unfiltered basis on ‘new media’ online platforms that
include blogs, independently owned news websites, Twitter, Facebook and other
formats.
With
the introduction of new media we have seen seismic shifts in terms of how news
is covered and information disseminated. Much of it is due to availability and
easy access of these new media formats and this has flattened the media
hierarchy, giving rise to ‘citizen journalists.’ Accordingly, social media and
blogs have increasingly become a source of news for sports fans. Additionally,
mainstream editors are now requiring their journalists to create online blogs
in addition to their traditional reporting. Some journalists feel the increased
pressure to pursue controversial stories, and often are taking shortcuts to
compete in a nonstop media environment, so as to increase ‘hits’ to their blogs
and online content as well as to gain followers and enhance engagement on
Twitter or Facebook posts.
It
is this dimension that amplified the Tiger Woods case, making it the sociocultural
juggernaut that it became. Similarly, it is this dynamic that has pressured an
uncertain, chaotic mainstream media industry to engage in rushed even
asymmetric journalism so as to react quickly to breaking news stories and to
remain competitive in a now more crowded media landscape.
It
was Walter Lippmann who eloquently articulated that the news media was
instrumental in agenda setting and for creating the “Pictures in Our Heads”
about what is prominent and important in public affairs.[9]
During the OJ case, media organizations were primarily responsible for creating
the “pictures in our heads.” However, in the Woods’ case this shifted a lot
towards the new media practitioners who now play a seminal role in determining issue
salience on the public’s agenda.
Had
the internet and social media existed during the OJ trial, the effects, including
questionable media ethics, would have been amplified significantly and would
have seen an even greater reverberating effect and attention than what occurred
in 1994. The way OJ case dominated the news media, particular television, was,
in some respects, an unprecedented sociocultural phenomenon. If it happened
today, with the 24/7 coverage and citizens’ opinions on online platforms, jury
selection might have almost been impossible, as no one would have been able to
escape the coverage and might have been influenced one way or the other by the
priming and agenda setting effects of traditional, tabloid, and new media.
It is this dimension that amplified the Tiger Woods case, making
it the sociocultural juggernaut that it became. In 2007, ESPN-TV, the cable
sports broadcasting giant, gathered a panel of radio hosts, television
personalities, and pop-culture columnists for a segment they called Who’s
Now. The segment was structured like the tournament brackets for the NCAA
college basketball championship and the panelists determined who should win as
sport’s most captivating contemporary personality. Woods won the crown and
although the segment was heavily criticized, its ratings signaled a programming
success. A 2011 Bleacher Report commentary indicated that the segments
were not merely entertaining parlor games for sports enthusiasts but something
more critical and disturbing, as witnessed in the coverage of the Woods
scandal. The segments were intended as gauging visibility and enhancing the
business of television in gaining viewership and attracting advertising
sponsors. However, as the Bleacher Report commentator noted, “What we didn’t
know at that time was that Who’s Now was also an indication of which
athlete would be most talked about should he or she get into some trouble off
the field.”[10]
In
fact, this year has seen two major television productions about the OJ case
that captivated audiences and generated a large volume of social media
discourse: The People v. O.J. Simpson:
American Crime Story, a 10-episode installment that aired on the F/X
Network and the five-part ESPN-TV documentary entitled O.J.: Made in America. Ezra Eldelman, who directed the ESPN
documentary, said the public’s sustained attention to the OJ case is a result
of the perception gap between those who believe he was guilty and the defendant
still claiming his innocence more than two decades after the deaths. In an
interview with Vice Sports (2016),
Eldelman says, “The trial is about so much. I think anytime something occupies
this much cultural space we overdose on it, we need to put it down, but it's
something that's still relevant today from a thematic perspective and for our
culture. A lot of the things people discussed at the time are still relevant
today. On that level, I'm not surprised we're still as interested in revisiting
the trial and engaging in the same conversations today.”[11]
And, in the coverage of sports today, viewers and readers are exposed to many
variations and interpretations of athletic and personality representation
(e.g., notably but not just limited to gender or race) that go well beyond the
coverage of the actual sporting event or competition and move into an immersive
realm of highlights and memes, expert and amateur analyses, and countless
debate show programing.
[1] Tiger Woods has a hot
take on social media: 'Everyone has an opinion' (n.d.). Retrieved September 28,
2016, from
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/07/tiger-woods-has-a-hot-take-on-social-media-everyone-has-an-opinion.
[2] Elizabeth Hindman.
“Lynch mob Journalism” v. “Compeling human drama”: Editorial... Journalism and Mass Communication Quartely;
Autumn 1999; 76, 3, ProQuest pg.499
[3] Dick Friedman. (n.d.). Tiger Woods scandal takes celebrity coverage to
new level. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/tiger-woods-scandal-takes-celebrity-coverage-new-level.
[4] James Sanderson. Framing Tiger’s troubles: A comparison between
traditional media and social media. International
Journal of Sports Communication, 2010, 3(4), 439.
[5] Claudia Kozman. The
Tiger Woods scandal in the media: measuring attribute effects on the public. International
Journal of Sports Communication, 2013, 6, 214-233.
[6] Haber, W. B. (2009).
Retrieved September 28, 2016, from
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/haber/2009-12-01-tiger-woods-media-accident_N.htm.
[7] Farhi. P. (2009). The
media frenzy around the Tiger Woods scandal isn't always about the facts.
Retrieved September 28, 2016, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121004315_2.html
[8] Tiger Woods's statement on accident. (2009). Retrieved September 28,
2016, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112901438.html.
[9] Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan, 1922, p.29.
[10] By Take Over The Game Contributor, Aug 9, 2011. (2016). ESPN, Tiger
Woods, a caddie, and media framing. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/797441-espn-tiger-woods-a-caddie-and-media-framing.
[11] Wong, A. (n.d.). The
Many Tragedies Of O.J. Simpson: A Conversation With ‘O.J.: Made In America’
Director Ezra Edelman. VICE Sports.
Retrieved September 28, 2016, from https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-many-tragedies-of-oj-simpson-a-conversation-with-oj-made-in-america-director-ezra-edelman
No comments:
Post a Comment