Too many thoughts this past week that I couldn't fit into separate posts, so I'll combine them into one long post, and hopefully they'll thread together. Or not. No judgments, just spurious thoughts... I need something to write about until basketball season is here again!:
Ballhype took a survey of sports bloggers (135 participants), and found some interesting, but not too surprising, data. For example, I just found out I'm one of the 50% that makes less than $20 per month from blogging. I'm underpaid! This despite being in the middle in terms of traffic. I guess we can conclude that if traffic=$$$, then I'm on the cusp of getting some cheddar.
But let's get to the not-so-surprising stuff: The race and age demographics. 87% of bloggers are white. Only 3% are black, and only 2% Latino. As a matter of fact, SML participated in this survey; being that I filled out "Latino" for myself, I think we can safely say that there is only one other Latino blogger out there. Damn, son!
The number of black bloggers is also very small. Although, to be fair, I doubt MJD or any of The Starting Five participated, so there are other black bloggers out there; they just aren't affiliated or marketing themselves hard on Ballhype, which means they are not getting as many opportunities to build a following as white bloggers are. Sort of like real life in that way - again, not blaming Ballhype, which is easy to join, just pointing out that in real life the biggest challenges for minorities trying to get ahead (or just even) in the workplace is networking, and the lack of opportunities (compared to whites) for networking. Same thing seems to hold true in the blogging world, too.
The age thing was a little surprising. I always figured bloggers to be young, in-school types, not people close to my age with full time jobs. Yet it turns out that there are a lot of 26-29 year blogs, and 23-35 accounts for almost 70% of bloggers, with the rest being either around 18-22 or over 36. Makes sense, though, just looking at this network: Depressed Fan, Cobra Brigade and SML are all in the 26-35 category, I believe. Rickhouse is in the younger category. I don't know Becky's exact age, but I'll put her down as 26ish.
But seriously - only 5% of bloggers are black or Latino. Wow.
So what does this mean? Well, it loosely ties into another episode that occurred a week ago. I was at the bar having some drinks with friends. ESPN was harping on Michael Vick again. One of my friends turns to me and we shake our heads:
SML: This coverage of this is ridiculous.
Friend: Seriously, though. When have you ever seen the Feds go after dogfighting before?
SML: Good point.
Friend: It's a local or state police matter... for the Feds to be involved is just preposterous.
The point being this: I recognize that black people find the media bias in the coverage of this case a little over the top. It's hard not to wonder what is up when everyone wants to vilify and executed/punish Vick without any evidence being presented in court yet. It's not that black people, or I, are condoning dog fighting... we own and love pets, too. But it's like "why the rush to metaphorically hang someone"... don't you think you think you could be a little sensitive to how that might be perceived by black people, given their past experiences here in America?!?
Which brings us to the tying thread: Most sports bloggers are white (just like sports reporters). That's fine. But a lot of them, particularly some of the more influential ones, might not have many really good friends that are minorities, especially black. Does that have an impact on how they write?
Listen, I couldn't write some of the BS that I've seen on the internet written about Vick, about Bonds, et al without one of my friends calling me out on it, taking me to task. Just like I can't right something offensive about white people, or Asians, or Jews. I have to answer to my friends, okay?
Look at what some of the larger sports sites have written about Vick:
On Vick's possible suspension from the league: "And next thing you know, we're talking about what we missed from Vick... back before he decided he'd rather slam dogs to the ground - until they died - than be a revolutionary football player" (nice, where to make unproven allegations sound like fact)
On Vick's posing for pictures with his tattoos: "Silly Mike, now you'll never get that Jewish cemetery plot. But seriously, it's not as if a "Puppy Eichman" tattoo on a guy's back is any indication of guilt." (Um, nice subtle metaphor - yes, the Michael Vick case is akin to the Holocaust...)
But the real key to propaganda is to silence anyone who would criticize the critics: Just watch how the MSM has taken shots at Clinton Portis, Emmitt Smith, Deion Sanders, and most recently Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporter Paul Zeise, for "defending" Michael Vick. Even though everyone of them denounced dogfighting, and were speaking out against the media bias in the coverage of Vick, not the actual crime:
Deadspin on Deion Sanders: "Remember Deion Sanders' completely batshit bonkers "defense" of Michael Vick for dogfighting" (No, but I do remember reading his opinion piece on the different issues involved in this case, and how the media is covering them, which focused on many things, not just "defending" Vick).
Deadspin on Emmitt Smith: "Honesty Emmitt: Just shut up and DANCE!".
Is it fair to assume that the editors of Deadspin might not be aware or sensitive to how their coverage of certain athletes might be perceived by minorities, particularly black people? Well, on the one hand, one of their editors was a black blogger (MJD). But he no longer works there, and since he left the tone of the coverage has shifted, from being very apolitical and impartial to suddenly... well, I'll just redirect you to those quotes above.
Some side info: Mattoon, Illinois has a population of just under 19,000 people. That population is 97% white. Only 1.42% are African-American, and 1.27% Latino. That's even whiter than the results of the blogging survey.
Furthermore, Gawker Media itself is a pretty white organization. They have minorities, no doubt, but I would be surprised, based on what information about Gawker Media is known, if they have more than 3% minority (black/Latino) employment. I'm not implying or stating it as fact - again, I don't have the actually numbers... I'm just basing it on the prominent names that are credited on the website.
And f*ck it... I've been to Gawker parties over at Denton's loft in Soho... there aren't many black people around... the only Negro (s) who has ever been there might just be limited to The Assimilated One.
None of this makes anyone a "racist" or anything, so don't misunderstand the point. I don't have any reason to believe that the editors of Deadspin, or most bloggers in general, are racist. That is most definitely not what I think or believe.
I don't walk around thinking all white people are racist; nor that they have "a hidden agenda" against minorities or anything like that. I have lots of white friends, as well as minority friends. I can honestly say that 99% of white people I've met aren't "racist", including the editors at Deadspin. I try to see everyone's perspectives.
What I am saying is that sometimes, if you don't have exposure to a certain culture that you write about a lot, it can happen that you might not realize how insensitive your words or coverage or the manner in which you are covering a topic can be perceived by that "culture". This is always a problem in writing about other people. If I was writing about the Inuit people of the Arctic, and made a silly Eskimo joke out of ignorance, I might be guilty of being a little insensitive. Now imagine if 90% of the writers that write about Inuit people were also guilty of the same ignorant mistakes (or a large number, at least).
African-Americans are clearly unhappy with the coverage of the Vick case:
Michael Vick's Story is Filmed In Black & White.
Or framed in it, at least. This Yahoo article from a week ago talks about the racial divisions in the perception of Michael Vick, and more importantly, the perception in the coverage of this story.
At the courthouse where Vick was arraigned on Friday, there were two angry crowds. One crowd, the one which was "emotional, angry, passionate anti-Vick" was "overwhelmingly white". They screamed "burn in hell" at Vick, and held signs that "aadvocated his murder, torture, and neutering". Not sure why they would advocate for Vick's neutering... lots of people are in favor of neutering dogs, like Bob Barker. That's not really "eye for an eye" there. But I digress. They shouted stuff like "Burn in hell you (expletive) (expletive)" and "Die like those dogs" at Vick.
The other crowd, according to Dan Wetzel, in one of the most impartial, unbias articles I've read from the MSM on Michael Vick, was "almost all... African American", and held signs "pleading for "due process" and "innocence until proven guilty".
On the one hand, again, I don't think all them white folk screaming for Vick's head are racists. Nor are all those people on the internets (see ESPN, AOL, and Deadspin) racists. But there is a racial divide in the perception of this situation.
"I wouldn't say it's a racial thing" said David Williams, an African America... "It's not racial. But for these animal rights people to take one person and crucify him isn't fair."
And that sums up our view. I said a couple of weeks ago that this was a dog issue, that people who don't care about animal rights are vilifying Vick. I can't believe these mo-fos out there screaming at Vick are all members of PETA, or vegans. In fact, most vegans and animal rights people I know are not getting as worked up by Vick as these people are. So who are they?
The media has turned Michael Vick into the face of evil for a cause (animal abuse/rights) that they themselves look the other way at 99% of the time, while eating their steak, or chicken, or wearing their leathers. Sort of like Bud Selig has done with Barry Bonds, making him the face of steroids while he and his fellow owners all cashed in on the so-called "steroid crisis" (tip of the hat to TSF for that link).
Not everything is a racial issue. Not all racial issues are about racism. Sometimes you have two different perspectives clashing, because they are coming from two different cultural backgrounds. In this case, white people are (hopefully just) seeing this purely about "animal abuse", while black people are seeing this as being about something else - the vilification of yet another black man (the Willie Horton effect) before he's had his day in court. Ask most any black person - "Isn't justice suppose to be color-blind?"; "innocent until guilty"; et al.
Without having insight into the other, one can easily fail to see how their words and actions might offend the other. I'm reminded of what another friend of mine once said: "Black people have to deal with white people every single day - at work they have to go to work with a majority white coworkers, or deal with white customers (generally). If they want to go out after work with their work friends, they usually have to go to a white bar, a white restaurant for business meetings. White people don't really have to deal with black people if they don't want to. They don't have to go to a black bar/club ever, if they don't want to. They don't have to interact with black people, beyond little pleasantries here and there, or business meetings, ever."
And that, in essence, is why I believe you have so much discussion about race in sports today. The lack of general understanding and bridging the gap between both white and black culture.
Leave a comment
|
25 Comments
Comments
That's not true... I love the crackers!
Even Sarah Silverman finds SML offensive....
Okay...I'm going to have to remove SML from the starting rotation. 45% of all Americans have dogs for pets. Urlacher would receive the same treatment. Bye.
So Gerry Clark - all those black people that are unhappy with the coverage of Vick (and Bonds, too) according to polls and surveys? They're just irrelevant, huh? Their opinions - totally irrelevant to the discussion, huh? That's where you stand?
I had a dog for a pet... is my opinion irrelevant?
The point is whether you want to admit it or not, there is a racial divide in the discussion of the big topics in sports - in Vick, in Bonds.
I'm not doing anything else here with this post but theorizing that there is a racial divide, and that one of the reasons the divide might be so large is because a lot of the MSM (online or print) isn't getting direct feedback or interaction with very many minorities... you can disagree with that, but at least discuss the issue.
I didn't know bloggers could get paid LOL
btw I am 36 y/o, white, and really ugly
Great post SML.... I am on BallHype and no they didn't contact me, or us at TSF.
As far as sports bloggers go, unconscious or not, racism is rampant in the sports blogsphere (I love it how MSM in their mispronunciation of blogsphere - blog-o-sphere - has created an alternate spelling now copied by bloggers).
Gerry Clark's statement is representative of part of the argument used to dispel the notion that the Vick case has nothing to do with race.... amazing.
And before any of you outright crackers try to jump down my throat, I grew up with hunting dogs and have owned dogs all my life, so don't go there with me.
It's almost funny that the shift from "let's see how it plays out in court" shifted to "the court of public opinion is what truly counts" came when O.J. Simpson was found innocent. Suddenly, courts weren't to be trusted - only mob rule and hive thinking counts.
It's a sure sign of desperation when the game gets shifted and manipulated and twisted whenever white male-dominated America feels it's somehow defeated by minorities, especially black people.
Mike Greenberg's reaction today to Mike Golic's pointed questions and ripping apart of Greenberg's fallacious arguments was a perfect example of what I'm talking about....
Again, thanks SML!
The Ballhype survey was posted to the Ballhype blog and promoted in an orange box on the right sidebar of the home page of Ballhype for one week. The only people I sent it to were to our advisors, 40% of whom happen to be minorities. (The Ballhype team is 2/3 minority.) A couple of other bloggers picked it up and put the link on their sites and encouraged others to fill it out. We didn’t email the link to bloggers because we didn’t want to clutter people’s inboxes.
I had no idea that I was such a pioneer. And I also never thought about the fact that I was one of the very few black/african-american (or whatever we're being called these days. By the way I didn't get a vote about that)who was contributing to the congestion that is the internet. Perhaps I should use my position to make more important statements about society and discrimination or racicsm. Nah, I can't be bothered. That would probably require me to actually pay attention to something besides sports and get out of bed before 11.
umm.. when you and your boy are asking each other why the feds get involved in the Vick case, I guess the answer never was because he crossed multiple state lines... the answer was probably always either "they're making an example out of him" OR " they're doing it because he's black"...
I haven't pronounced him guilty, but then again, he is indicted in a federal court for an illegal activity. Should his case not get covered at all? Like all athlete or movie star cases, they get shoved front and center, down our throats. You may not know, because you watch sports stuff, but you can't turn it on regular network TV without seeing an advertisment for Entertainment Tonight with Paris Hilton or Britney Spears offering up no panty pictures... They cover these cases the way they do because the people have a right to know if a role model in their kids life is doing something like killing dogs or people... or driving drunk.
It's not up to bloggers (by the way, what kind of nerds came out with a term for the world of bloggers anyway... who cares if it's the blogosphere or the blogsphere? that's like calling your mom and dad roommates, yet you still live in your parent's house with no job) or the MSM to coddle these millionare athletes and not cover their cases... it's up to the smart people in this country to take the news report and do with it what they want.
Hey Boney,
I'm not arguing that the case shouldn't get covered; I'm fine with the case getting covered by the media.
I'm not fine with the rhetoric that has already convicted him without a trial or a shrewd of evidence being presented in court. Every quote I cited in this post, and tons more I didn't cite, has the weight of Vick being guilty already.
See the difference? I can do without the rhetoric.
At no point in my post did I let on to whether I thought Vick was innocent or guilty - that's called "impartial writing", without personal biases. Does the MSM write like that? Not anymore....
As for "the feds"... yeah, I know why they are supposedly involved. But once again, since when is the federal gov't interested in dogfighting? You can't expect people to really believe "Crossing multiple state lines" is the primary reason for the federal gov't's involvement?!?
average every day joes wouldn't think that it's a federal offense to conduct an illegal activity across multiple states, but it makes it easier to sort out if it's a federal offense... that way if 1 state's laws are more strict than others it's fair OR there's not a concern about jurisdiction.
You're right about the convicting him before he's guilty part... but when you really think about it, there's always going to be some group out there that's waiting for a chance to get in the spotlight to stand on a soapbox and piss and moan. PETA is quite possibly the biggest offender of trying to make mountains out of molehills, along with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (and that's not a knock against them or their causes... it's just that as soon as a so called injustice occurs, everyone is quick to slam a finger at someone else... white people do it too). Al and Jesse were the 1st names to pop to my mind, it wasn't a slight or a knock against anyone.
Very thoughtful writing, SML. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of your sports bloggers are male vs. female?
As any dog lover, the allegations against Vick evoked an angry and emotional response in me. Speaking only for myself, the response would be the same whether it was Mike Vick or Peyton Manning or some other white icon. But I do agree... the coverage is sordid and excessive. Did we have to know the graphic details of how the dogs were tortured and executed? UGH. That hardly gives Vick a chance for a fair trial.
But on the flip side, I believe the white Duke Lacrosse players experienced the same hatred and response from the black community that Mike Vick is receiving now from the whites and look what happened there. Point is... Everyone is Innocent til proven guilty and everyone is entitled to his/her day in court.
Mike Vick is entitled to a defense and his day in court, just as anyone else. I think when most people get past their emotional response to the allegations, they think the same way. The emotional response is a hard one to overcome though. As you said in a previous article on this matter, "Don't mess with our dogs and cats."
There is also an unfair nastiness directed at anyone who speaks positively of Mike Vick. No one wants to say a positive word about Vick lest they be called dog haters. Donovan McNabb was on the receiving end of some bad press for innocuous comments that Vick was a friend of his. Of course, the media jumped all over McNabb for his comments... That guy can't win. He was forced to issue a statement that he is a dog lover and owns dogs himself to try to limit the attack on himself....
JJ, good analogy on the Duke Lacrosse rape case.
And thanks for reminding me about McNabb... you are right, he's another one that was immediately vilafied for "defending" Vick, when he wasn't saying anything more than "Hey, this guy is a friend of mine, I can't believe he would do that kind of thing, let's wait until the trial..."
Thanks for your comments, they are always welcomed.
Boney, I understand on what grounds the gov't is involved, I just don't understand why they are involved. There was already one local police/law agency involved - for the gov't to take the reins in a dogfighting case seems... excessive. That's all. I agree with ya on the legal reasons why, but it doesn't seem like standard policy either, right? Like if this was a low level drug case, would the feds also get this involved?
As for PETA getting involved, I agree with you - they tend to jump up and use a story like this to spotlight their organization. Generally, however, the media would ignore them or marginalize them... the sports press doesn't treat PETA's protests against other sports-related entities with this much seriousness.
For example, the same Deadspin that is now making PETA seem heroic and reasonable has written this about PETA in the past:
"A few people out there wondered if the entirely reasonable and in no way dramaticatlly and insanely overstepping in the name of a somewhat noble (occasionally) cause folks at PETA have an opinion on David Stern's decision...to switch basketballs."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I detect a hint of sarcasm and dismissiveness in their tone towards PETA when it came to that topic. Of course, as I have mentioned before, dead abused cows don't bother people (especially people who love to wear that same beat up leather coat) as much as dead dogs....
Tonight's comment on CN8 with Lynn Doyle is about the Michael Vick dogfighting case. Included in the discussion are Jerrold Colton, sports agent, Fortunato Perri, Phila. defense atty., a guy representing the Humane society and some guy that must be a Fed.
The Fed said that in May, they actually busted a larger dog fighting ring in Ohio... eight locations, more dogs seized, more people indicted. But no one heard about that case to be outraged, he said, as those involved were not celebrities.
The Humane guy made a distinction very important about the way people perceive dogs in this case. Those of us who grew up with the family dog view a dog as a pet or family member. Then there are those who view a dog as a tool or weapon of destruction.
It's a good discussion for anyone interested...
CN8Live .
As much as I believe in innocence before proven guilty, I couldn't be objective to sit on a jury in this one.
SML, great post as usual.
Boney, I think that SML already made the point in the article that it is not just PETA folks driving this Vick train. Of course the case should be covered. The issue is HOW its covered. Every other SPORTS (not PETA)commentator is bypassing due process, and that should worry you tremendously.
PS: Under the "Mann Act" Jack Johnson was also charged with a federal crime for transporting his wife "across state lines" before their marriage in 1912. I am sure that back then there were people who didn't believe race had anything to do with it.
Race and religion definitely matters for story coverage. Let's not pretend it doesn't. I would also say geography matters; there is definitely an East Coast Bias to a lot of the sports coverage, even on the bloggosphere. Look at the map of the blogger study; lots and lots of East Coast bloggers, then some significant concentration in the Great Lakes Midwest and in Cali. Definitely affects what gets reported and what people say.
Now, I will argue with you on the Michael Vick case. I'm not so sure that race should be the dividing line. To me, it's more of a country/city line, actually. But that argument takes a while to make, so I'll skip making it.
Would there had been much of a difference in coverage had a state-level agency indicted Vick as opposed to the Feds?
I'm not sure there would be because Vick has a huge name and the charges are pretty despicable.
Mark Chmura's career was over after having sex with an underage girl. It didn't take the feds, and it didn't take people screaming about him in front of a courthouse somewhere. It took an act of utter stupidity, one that pretty much everyone in society sees as wrong.
I would venture that the feds are involved because they have a very high conviction and jail rate and perhaps they just didn't trust that any local agency would get a conviction. I'm no lawyer, but if the feds fail to convict, people who are indicted (including Vick) can still be tried at the state level, correct?
Good article, btw.
This is what I get for posting while at work. My point on the Mark Chmura thing is that when you're caught doing something that the majority of society sees as evil, you're going to become universally hated.
That is all.
Jon: My understanding is that yes, the local can indict (and still might) Vick on charges even if the feds already did. And I agree, it doesn't matter in terms of media coverage that the feds are involved. I was pointing out that there is a perspective out there that wonders why there is a sort of "witch hunt" if you will to get this man... like why call in the feds when the local police were already on the case? For dogfighting?
So most people agree there is a double-standard, it's just that some people attribute it to the fact that Vick is a rich celebrity ("and if he was white he would be treated the same way") whereas others wonder if there might be another reason for the double standard. Unless someone comes out from the gov't, and honestly explains "Yes, we are trying to make an example of Vick because he is a celebrity", people will speculate. And You can't blame them if they don't necessarily see it the same way, because they have different experiences....
As for Mark Chmura, he never played again, but that's because he wasn't a star. Had he been a star he probably would have gotten a second chance.
I don't think he's "universally hated", though. People who know of him hate him because of his action; fair enough. But can random people who probably don't know much about football, or even know any football player, get upset at the mere mention of his name. Do you think people were as venomous to Chmura as they are towards Vick right now? That's an interesting question, right?...
Thanks for your feedback.
I just wanted to point u toward this post I did discussing the Black blogosphere (or lack thereof). http://www.leavethemanalone.com/2007/05/its-hard-enough-being-blogger.html
I also was not included in the ballhype survey, although I participate in ballhype. It doesn't matter though. There aren't a lot of sports blogs written by Black people.
I will agree with you that a lot of the bias in the MSM is reflected in the blogosphere, whether the irrational persecution of Vick (I also didn't see any lack of logic in Sanders' or Riese's statement) or the constant focus on the crime blotter. At least on a blog like TBL, a forum exists for commenters to intelligently challenge the writers. That is not the case at all on Deadspin. And don't get me started about the comments on Fanhouse. I think it says something awful when ESPN or FoxSports has a more intelligent commenter forum that you.
Sadly, the blogosphere is becoming a reflection of the MSM, whether because of the predilections of the writers or the desire to maintain audience/drive traffic. Consequently, whether it's limiting ESPN or skimming the MDS articles on Fanhouse or segregating yourself to TSF instead of feeling free to participate at Deadspin, it's all the same fundamental reaction.
Great post, HCIC - thanks for the link. For what it's worth, I'll add my two cents to the debate in the comments section over there, namely - I think both MC Bias and D-Wil have valid points:
One, there is a dearth of black talent in the pipeline. I've taken grad classes at Columbia, and seen their journalism school (though I haven't actually taken a class in the their j-school). I don't recall seeing any black faces there... if there was any, chances are they were international students, not African-Americans (meaning they would probably be writing overseas postgrad, not in the US). If you graduate from Columbia's j-school, chances are with those credentials you'll get a job and do what you want in a lot of places. Chances are that a lot of top journalism schools probably mirror CU's in terms of minorities.
So the pipeline is an issue.
But then, of course, D-Wil is right... even when a talent (black) writer makes his way into the fold, he still has many barriers to deal with. He'll probably not be allowed to write in "his voice", unlike a lot white writers are allowed to, unless his voice is Whitlockian. That is a real pressing problem, especially in the all-(white) boys club that is the sports press.
As for the blogsphere mirroring the MSM - I've definitely felt that way for a while now. I also agree with your take on the over reporting of the negative that goes on in both the MSM and the blogsphere. In fact, Deadspin has not one, but two posts in the past week about obscure, insignificant players being busted for solicition. One was an NBA player so insignificant, not only was he in no one's Fantasy B-ball league last year, but even NBA experts probably have no idea who he is. And the second one was a college kid who plays football for Notre Dame, and probably will never make it to the NFL.
It strikes me as unneccesary to put a spotlight on these players, who nobody knows anyway, much less "idolizes" (Deadspin's excuse for profiling athletes behaving badly), just for cheap laughs. It's especially alarming when they, at the same time, failed to do any posts about Rod Beck's crack filled home. Isn't that worth milking for cheap laughs, too?...
wait ... HOLD UP!
MJD is black???
where did you get this info from?
I'm months late on this, but I need confirmation ...
I just wanted to say kudoos! I was clicking around on some different forums when I found this site. After checking out your blog I've come up with some good ideas for my blog. I just thought I'd let you in on it
If you liked this post you'll doubtless like this site too: http://www.winfreegiftcardsonline.com . Its an awesome site for earning gift cards on the internet.
SML does not care about white people.