Media Framing on KD VS. RW

"Narrative, with all its lies, still dominates.”~ Jay Caspian Kang^[1]

If one were an unfamiliar observer about what the NBA (National Basketball Association) does and its happenings, he/she surely would be forgiven for mistaking the league for being a boxing or MMA (mixed martial arts) promotional platform. Judging from the sports reporting frames, primarily generated by traditional print and broadcasting media and even digital media purveyors, coverage of the Golden State Warriors and the Oklahoma City Thunder since the NBA season began on October 25 could confuse the reader about whether media are covering a team sport or a one-on-one star athlete contest. Similarly, to some readers and viewers, it might be further confusing whether reporters are reviewing games played by either of these teams against other league teams and not against each other. Additionally, it occasionally becomes perplexing and less than clear to tell that he/she is reviewing a basketball game, and not an event where physical violence could be the norm.

In every game during the season's first week involving the Golden State Warriors and the Oklahoma City Thunder, the media have deployed frames that could lead to the misconstrued scenario, as above noted. A review of headlines and content coverage of those teams by traditional media shows some familiar trend characteristics across the board. They include the following:

1.) There is at least one mention of Kevin Durant in every Thunder game recap/discussion and likewise of Russell Westbrook in a recap of a Warriors' game.

2.) Strong language, referencing intense dislike, is used to describe the relationship between those two players.

3.) Westbrook is portrayed as seeking "revenge" against Durant for his departure from the Thunder over the summer.

4.) There is a “mano-a-mano” dynamic characterizing the Russell versus Kevin showdown and showcase narrative after every game their respective teams have played (even though no games involved the two players' teams going against each other, which will happen Nov. 3)

5.) Durant is portrayed as a disloyal person who chose self-interest by leaving the Thunder and joining the Warriors.

6.) Westbrook became the first NBA athlete to put up at least 100 points, 30 rebounds, and 30 assists in the first three games of a season.[2] Some reporters and others on social media mused that perhaps Westbrook had been held back previously in his performance potential when Durant was still on the Thunder team.

The various tonal aspects of the media's coverage echo the framing protocol as advanced by Entman when he contends that "to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described."^[3]

The current frame regarding these two NBA teams can be surmised along these lines by using language from the major traditional media reports: this “blood feud” pits the “hero,” "Revenge Russ," who now looks like he's "free" and not "tied" down is ready to "tear apart" and "destroy" "disloyal" Kevin (presumably over the season or in rematches between their respective teams), who plays for the “empire” and who "doesn’t like" Westbrook, who was "protected, spoiled, cuddled and pampered"^[4] by the Thunder when Durant played there. 

These resonate as tough words, which resemble and shadow “Cave Man Meets Student Champion,” as adumbrated by Evensen, writing on the media narrative of the Jack Dempsey-Gene Tunney championship boxing fights of 1926 and 1927.^[5] The dynamic remains 90 years later in casting these two NBA teams as heavyweight championship fighters. Jay Caspian Kang, writing for The New York Times, perhaps best described it: “Durant versus Westbrook will be next year's dominant N.B.A. motif because it brings in the full breadth of the rich, if at times overblown, metaphors that have always driven the best sportswriting: loyalty versus self-interest, the individual versus the empire and solidarity with the underdog versus the cynical efficiency of the superteam.”^[6]

Kang's commentary was just one of many from the traditional media providing coverage that cultivated the 'Durant vs. Westbrook' story line months before the start of the season. By the time the season started in late October the public was already primed for this rivalry and many on social media (particularly on Twitter and Facebook) were all too willing to go along and reinforce what already had become familiar frames and narratives in discussing Durant v. Westbrook as the proxy for the Warriors v. the Thunder. It must also be noted that the traditional media have a strong presence on social media platforms through their organizations’ direct channels/pages or through their individual agents and reporters which amplify these frames quickly.

This shows that even on social and other emerging digital media, the larger and well-resourced traditional media, especially in sports coverage, have a strong presence and can still play a central role in agenda setting on these platforms. Many of the discussions, retweets and shares on these immediate-response platforms are offshoots of source materials from traditional media outlets utilizing these digital channels to distribute their content. For instance, Fox Sports' Twitter timeline ran the headline, "Russell Westbrook's revenge tour will dominate the NBA next season." ESPN links directed users to a similar story titled, “Russell Westbrook revenge tour begins now.”

Even advertisers jumped on the Durant v. Westbrook sweepstakes during the season's opening week, utilizing primarily new and social media for fresh promotional campaigns. Nike, which represents both Durant and Westbrook in shoe merchandise, used its Jordan brand to release a video ad with Westbrook saying, "Now I do what I want".^[7] In August, the Jordan brand tweeted that "some run, some make runways" in an apparent reference to the two players. These actions triggered an avalanche of commentary on social and new media. For example, a Fox sports headline on a piece about the ad read, “No KD, no problems." ^[8]

During the week following the coverage of season openers for the Warriors and Thunder, the seminal role the traditional media play in framing and agenda setting is plainly evident in this heavily promoted rivalry. Even with the growing dominance of new media platforms, the mainstream sports media outlets with their enormous brands and resources have adapted by utilizing these media formats to distribute their content while playing an ever more pervasive dominant role in setting the agenda of major sports reporting and in framing the narratives, stories and discussions of the day's outcomes in sports.

---

^[1] Kang, J.C. (2016, August 21). How do you tell a better story in sports? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/magazine/how-do-you-tell-a-better-story-in-sports.html

[2] Young, R. (2016, October 31). Russell Westbrook joins elite list with 2nd triple-double in 3 games. ESPN. Retrieved from: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/17931841/russell-westbrook-oklahoma-city-thunder-joins-elite-list-second-triple-double

^[3] Entman, R. E.  (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 52.

^[4] Hladik, M. (2016, October27). Skip Bayless thinks Russell Westbrook is going to win MVP. The Spun. Retrieved from http://thespun.com/nba/golden-state-warriors/skip-bayless-russell-westbrook-mvp-kevin-durant.

^[5] Evensen, B. J. (1993). ‘Cave Man’ meets ‘Student Champion’: Sports page storytelling for a nervous generation during America’s Jazz Age. Journalism Quarterly, 70(4), 767-779.

^[6] Kang. How do you tell a better story in sports?

^[7] Tsuji, A. (2016, October 26). Jordan Brand drops video of Russell Westbrook dancing like crazy to ‘Do What I Want’ before opener. USA Today. Retrieved from: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/10/jordan-brand-russell-westbrook-do-what-i-want-dancing-smiles.

^[8] Carson, D. (2016, October 26). Russell Westbrook sends less than subtle message in 'Now I Do What I Want' Nike ad. FoxSports.com. Retrieved from:  http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/russell-westbrook-sends-less-than-subtle-message-in-now-i-do-what-i-want-nike-ad-102716

A 20-Year Analysis of the Sports Management Field

In 1993, Packianathan Chelladurai presented a paper to the First European Congress on Sports Management titled, “Sports Management: Defining the Field” (Chelladurai, 1993)[1]. In this seminal work, Chelladurai elucidated the definition, status and classification of the sports management field in a comprehensive, practical and knowledgeable overview of what constitutes the sports management industry.

He provided a robust definition of what constitute ‘sports management’ (“the coordination of resources, technologies, processes, personnel, and situational contingencies for the efficient production and exchange of sports services” (Chelladurai, 1993:6) and presented an adequate classification framework of the various subdivisions of the industry. Additionally, he identified the nucleus of the sports management architecture as fundamentally being built around the coordination of ‘production’ and ‘marketing’ of sports related products and services with certain ‘technologies’ and ‘supporting units’ acting as facilitators in this process.  Chelladurai’s approach encouraged familiarity with content and literature of other disciplines and guided others to apply those as amplifying support for the specific focus on sports and the management of sports.

Some examples of production technologies include sport journalism, health sciences, consumer psychology, sports psychology, sports medicine, and others. Examples of supporting units include, but are not limited to, event management, facility management, personnel management, sport finance, public relations and brand merchandising.

While most of Chelladurai’s observations still hold true in today’s sports management landscape, much also has changed since 1993. The changes have added new and integrative layers of complexities to the taxonomy presented by Chelladurai.

One of the most striking areas of change has come with the introduction of new technologies that have enhanced both the production and marketing sides of the sports management industry. We have since seen the creation of the Internet, mobile computers, digital television, mobile phones and social media platforms. These media forms have changed the way in how sport is now delivered, often generating conflicting responses about how best to reach target audiences and respond to controversies that involve external stakeholders.

This evolution was particularly propelled by the Internet's formative development, Web 2.0 and, more recently, the connective intelligence possibilities of Web 3.0 applications. In summary, this has allowed for new distribution mechanisms via online platforms, video streaming services and content providers as well as effective remote and cheaper access for consumers and viewers. Ticket availability has increased and ticket purchasing has become easier with the introduction of digital services like StubHub, Vivid Sports and Main Event Tickets, where fans even can resell tickets. Additionally, the Internet has given rise to instantaneous and real-time information and reporting through the introduction of blogs, social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest), and statistical databases. In referencing Chelladurai’s concept of a “third place,” the Internet has certainly cemented its place as among the most prominent examples.

On the academic side of the sports management industry, technology has seen the emergence of online sports courses and complete online degrees. It has also seen the rise of sports analytics, which has revolutionized coaching, on-field play and improved scouting through the application and analysis of empirical performance-related data. Technology certainly has impacted and enhanced the officiating integrity of sports through the use of computers; cameras and other technologies that can be used to review plays and make exact determinations that can reverse faulty decisions made by humans.

On the support side, since 1993, sports management has witnessed the expansion and proliferation of both practical and academic sports management programs and literature. Blogs, scholarly journals, textbooks, conferences, dedicated sports management schools and courses have all seen dramatic increases in terms of content, breadth and depth of interdisciplinary perspectives and diversity of students and their respective interests. Similarly, there has been tremendous growth in the number of sports management practitioners (i.e., those who research, teach, and practice) and the opportunities available to them.

The past 20 years have also seen the surge of sports governing bodies and other professional organizations for sports. These bodies cut across sports disciplines and are also broken down along many demographics not just limited to players, ethnicity and gender.

On the professional side there also are numerous marketing, communications and sports technology groups that advocate for their specific fields. Even academia has seen its fair share of sports management organizations such as the North American Society for Sport Management. Sports agencies have also seen astonishing growth over the past 20 years and are involved in almost all aspects of sports management including sports law, marketing, endorsements, contract negotiation, crisis and image management of players and sports firms, financial planning, sponsorship and advertising procurement, event management and other areas.

Sports philanthropy and social responsibility is also becoming a prominent feature of the sports management landscape with many individuals, firms, NGOs, teams, governing organizations and other sports actors committed to integrating social and philanthropic initiatives to help develop societies, build brand value and to improve their competitiveness. Entire divisions and academic programs are being created to deal specifically with this rapidly growing branch of the sports management landscape.

With the growth and advancement in technology and the myriad of support units in sports, there has been a concomitant increase in the intensity of the commercialization of sports. This commercialization spans merchandising and ranges to amateur sports. It is estimated that sports merchandising brings in annual revenues of around $19 billion annually and in total the entire global sports industry generates around $80 billion annually directly and the multiplier effect would suggest an even more formidable impact. The impact of commercialization has not always been a positive trend, as issues of corruption, use of performance enhancing drugs among athletes, school dropouts, long-term medical problems resulting from play on the field, and the responses to high-profile problems of sociocultural and sociopolitical significance that often intersect with college and professional athletics.

The sports management field has increased and diversified ten-fold since Chelladurai’s taxonomy in 1993, especially as the focus has shifted away from the dominant logic of goods and services to the development of a values framework in sports management. As some researchers have suggested (Woratschek, Horbel and Popp, 2014), the nature of the industry and the technologies today have raised strategic questions for managers who are only becoming more aware of just how limited their control is in creating value for their respective sports organizations and teams.[2] There are so many stakeholders now involved – fans, consumers, civic partners, media and clubs, just to name a few – that the challenge is to figure out the most effective collaborative strategies and tactics for enhancing brand value and equity. But, the cumulative impact of all of these technologies and the corresponding voices and influences associated with such diverse stakeholders has yet to be properly assessed and understood. With the introduction of new technologies and the growth of support units that have propelled the production and marketing of sports, we can expect even more growth, diversification and development in the field as we head into the future, especially as we focus on how these groups individually and collectively enhance or challenge the value of sporting events and the branded communities associated with creating that value.

---

[1] Chelladurai, P. “Sports Management: Defining the Field”. Paper presented at the First European Congress on Sports Management. Groningen, Netherlands. September 23-25, 1993.

[2] Woratschek, H., Horbel, C., & Popp, B. (2014). The sport value framework – a new fundamental logic for analyses in sport management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 6-24. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2013.865776.

What If The OJ Simpson Trial Happened Today?

“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