OT: Media and its relationship with athletes: does it need to change?

[joestevens29]

The only issue that I have with reporters are the ones who ask questions that they hope will kind of get lost in translation, and then take the reply out of context in their article.

we saw it happen with Yakupov, Omark, and most recently Pulju on the Oilers alone. Too many “journalist” who are just looking for hits so they try to create a controversy.

As for the tennis player I have never heard of...good for her I guess. Will she still want the media to leave her alone when she wins and when there’s magazine deals and she’s able to use the media to her advantage?

Well I was going to say the same. Something along the lines of fans want access to athletes and the more you get your face out there through the media the better for you.

Unfortunately it's a non-issue for her. She's already the highest paid female athlete with regards to endorsements. Something like 10th overall including men.

She got her money now doesn't need to worry.

 

[doulos]

Good for her. More athletes should do the same. Most of the media are meatheads.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

This is basically the players strategy with the media these days...

 

[Senor Catface]

This is basically the players strategy with the media these days...

Oddly enough when I saw that, I thought more of Terry Jones trying to force a question out

 

[Zaddy]

I don't care if they do or don't. But to asshurt write out a long memo about how you refuse to do interviews is just looking for, and craving attention. "Oh look at me, the big bad media hurt my health" If she doesn't want to do interviews just walk away. We don't need or require an official memo in which she's just looking to go viral for publicity points on how much the poor girl has been harmed. I means thats really at work here and where most people will lack sympathy. its first world problems of the highest paid. I dont' expect we'll agree on this one.

Or, you know, she is doing this publicly to highlight an issue that affects far more people than just herself. Regardless of what you think I highly doubt this is a "woe is me" type thing. She is making a stand and one that she feels that she can make because she is in a privileged position compared to many other athletes who would be far more vulnerable if they tried to pull something like this. Media can effectively end a player's career if they really have it out for someone.

I'm just speculating here but I don't think she hates media, she just thinks it has gone a bit far, and it's probably not just media either but social media too. I mean this comes only days after Ethan Bear was targeted with racist remarks and felt the need to make a statement. Formula 1 drivers did the same thing a couple of weeks ago and had a blackout on social media to highlight the prevalence of racism in sports. You have to understand what these people are being subjected to in this day and age with constant access 24/7. At the end of the day they're humans too no matter how much they're paid. Somewhere you have to draw the line and say "this is not okay".

 

[Drivesaitl]

Or, you know, she is doing this publicly to highlight an issue that affects far more people than just herself. Regardless of what you think I highly doubt this is a "woe is me" type thing. She is making a stand and one that she feels that she can make because she is in a privileged position compared to many other athletes who would be far more vulnerable if they tried to pull something like this. Media can effectively end a player's career if they really have it out for someone.

I'm just speculating here but I don't think she hates media, she just thinks it has gone a bit far, and it's probably not just media either but social media too. I mean this comes only days after Ethan Bear was targeted with racist remarks and felt the need to make a statement. Formula 1 drivers did the same thing a couple of weeks ago and had a blackout on social media to highlight the prevalence of racism in sports. You have to understand what these people are being subjected to in this day and age with constant access 24/7. At the end of the day they're humans too no matter how much they're paid. Somewhere you have to draw the line and say "this is not okay".

I'm still asking a full page later exactly Naomis issue. was. What specifically. She stated she "feels" as if media queries impact the mental health of her and others and cites such evidence as what she stated " this rings true"

That is a logical or circular fallacy. As well as confirmation bias. But somehow this is news, which you seem is worthy of a thread here. There was already a thread on the Bear instance I thought.

So other than Naomi "feels" that "this rings true" what is it actually about, which several people have asked.

heres my concerns with what Naomi has said, semantically;

1) that people have no regard for mental health (her opinion)

2) that media are allegedly insensitive re concerns about mental health (her opinion)

3) That media have been so rude or insensitive that she is stopping talking to them (her action))

4 ) That this is justified by what she "feels" "rings true" (her absolute opinion.) but which is DENOUNCING the media. I mean this is an ACCUSATION she is makign about the tennis media, and without any substantiation whatsoever.


But expectedly Naomi is getting a lot of points for this speaking out about alleged issues.


She's actually appropriating mental health issues as her little soapbox, as several pundits have suggested. Short of her disclosing perhaps what her mental health issue is, how its been trampled upon, and how she's been impacted. Without which she's complaining, stamping it with "mental health" and getting automatic brownie points for it.

Gee, if I was still working I would call it a mental health month refuse to come into work citing mental health alleged concern, Attach some nebulous feels to it, simply state that all my concerns, "ring true" without elucidating on any, and expect to be paid. Thats the life...

 

[Zaddy]

I'm still asking a full page later exactly Naomis issue. was. What specifically. She stated she "feels" as if media queries impact the mental health of her and others and cites such evidence as what she stated " this rings true"

That is a logical or circular fallacy. As well as confirmation bias. But somehow this is news, which you seem is worthy of a thread here. There was already a thread on the Bear instance I thought.

So other than Naomi "feels" that "this rings true" what is it actually about, which several people have asked.

heres my concerns with what Naomi has said, semantically;

1) that people have no regard for mental health (her opinion)

2) that media are allegedly insensitive re concerns about mental health (her opinion)

3) That media have been so rude or insensitive that she is stopping talking to them (her action))

4 ) That this is justified by what she "feels" "rings true" (her absolute opinion.) but which is DENOUNCING the media. I mean this is an ACCUSATION she is makign about the tennis media, and without any substantiation whatsoever.


But expectedly Naomi is getting a lot of points for this speaking out about alleged issues.


She's actually appropriating mental health issues as her little soapbox, as several pundits have suggested. Short of her disclosing perhaps what her mental health issue is, how its been trampled upon, and how she's been impacted. Without which she's complaining, stamping it with "mental health" and getting automatic brownie points for it.

Gee, if I was still working I would call it a mental health month refuse to come into work citing mental health alleged concern, Attach some nebulous feels to it, simply state that all my concerns, "ring true" without elucidating on any, and expect to be paid. Thats the life...

I'm honestly surprised at your reaction to this. You have followed hockey, and sports in general, for how many decades? You really don't believe there is an issue with media? Or you just think that if you're paid big money then that makes it okay for other people to treat you however they want? I don't know if you're jealous of these players or what but I find it to be a rather strange take. Even putting aside the really grotesque stuff that comes out of the press at times, a lot of it is just a complete waste of time too for everyone involved. We've seen McDavid do interviews here for six years now and being asked the most stupid questions over and over and over and over again. It's pretty obvious that McDavid hates it and for me personally as a fan I wouldn't mind it at all if he could avoid most of those press obligations and focus on his game instead.

This media nonsense is just a tedious distraction at best. It's not about dodging media responsibilities, it's about getting it back to a more normal level where the two can co-exist in harmony. And I'd love to boot all the trash journalists out of this profession too. How many in the Oilers media landscape are even pulling their weight? I'm not even from Edmonton so I don't get it as much as you do but it's pretty clear that most of the Oilers media are talentless hacks. If I was a player I'd be really annoyed having to put up with them and their stupid questions on a regular basis. They don't add any insight or value to us fans, and they annoy the players, so what purpose do they really serve? Why can't we cut down on this and respect the player's time a bit more and let them focus on their craft?

And maybe if media wasn't so attached to sensationalism and clickbait these players would actually feel they had the room to be themselves in front of the cameras instead of being trained for years to avoid saying anything that could be construed one way or the other because they know what media will do if they say something even remotely controversial.

 

[Zaddy]

Btw, here's an example that was linked in that Twitter thread.



Do you think this is a good interview @Drivesaitl ? This is the type of shit athletes like Naomi and many others have to put up with on a regular basis. Do you really blame them for at some point saying enough is enough? Like you have absolutely no idea what these people go through and the immense pressure they're under, yet you find it easy to imply that Naomi is just being dramatic and feeling sorry for herself. You realize negative comments, and especially pointed ones by journalists, get to you after a while, especially if you're underperforming and not in a good place mentally? Why should athletes accept that? Are they subhuman? Not worthy of respect because they happen to make a lot of money?

 

[Delicious Pancakes]

I'm honestly surprised at your reaction to this. You have followed hockey, and sports in general, for how many decades? You really don't believe there is an issue with media? Or you just think that if you're paid big money then that makes it okay for other people to treat you however they want? I don't know if you're jealous of these players or what but I find it to be a rather strange take. Even putting aside the really grotesque stuff that comes out of the press at times, a lot of it is just a complete waste of time too for everyone involved. We've seen McDavid do interviews here for six years now and being asked the most stupid questions over and over and over and over again. It's pretty obvious that McDavid hates it and for me personally as a fan I wouldn't mind it at all if he could avoid most of those press obligations and focus on his game instead.

This media nonsense is just a tedious distraction at best. It's not about dodging media responsibilities, it's about getting it back to a more normal level where the two can co-exist in harmony. And I'd love to boot all the trash journalists out of this profession too. How many in the Oilers media landscape are even pulling their weight? I'm not even from Edmonton so I don't get it as much as you do but it's pretty clear that most of the Oilers media are talentless hacks. If I was a player I'd be really annoyed having to put up with them and their stupid questions on a regular basis. They don't add any insight or value to us fans, and they annoy the players, so what purpose do they really serve? Why can't we cut down on this and respect the player's time a bit more and let them focus on their craft?

And maybe if media wasn't so attached to sensationalism and clickbait these players would actually feel they had the room to be themselves in front of the cameras instead of being trained for years to avoid saying anything that could be construed one way or the other because they know what media will do if they say something even remotely controversial.

So here are the main Edmonton media guys who get regular access to Oilers players, as well as the percentage of good questions they ask (IMO) and how many stupid/aggravating questions they ask in 2021:

Ryan Rishaug - 65% - 15%
Jason Gregor - 65% - 10%
Mark Spector - 50% - 25%
Jim Matheson - 35% - 50%
Terry Jones - 35% - 50%
Daniel Nugent-Bowman - 50% - 20%
Jack Michaels - 45% - 30%

Again this is just my perception from the interviews I watch on the Oilers website and I probably only watch about 5-10% of the content. You can definitely see nearly every interview there are questions where the players or Tippett are put off by some questions. Curious to hear other posters thoughts who tune in more frequently. I also haven't listed some media guys because I haven't heard them ask questions in media availabilities much in the past year.

 

[doulos]

I wonder what Darryl Sutter thinks.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I'm honestly surprised at your reaction to this. You have followed hockey, and sports in general, for how many decades? You really don't believe there is an issue with media? Or you just think that if you're paid big money then that makes it okay for other people to treat you however they want? I don't know if you're jealous of these players or what but I find it to be a rather strange take. Even putting aside the really grotesque stuff that comes out of the press at times, a lot of it is just a complete waste of time too for everyone involved. We've seen McDavid do interviews here for six years now and being asked the most stupid questions over and over and over and over again. It's pretty obvious that McDavid hates it and for me personally as a fan I wouldn't mind it at all if he could avoid most of those press obligations and focus on his game instead.

This media nonsense is just a tedious distraction at best. It's not about dodging media responsibilities, it's about getting it back to a more normal level where the two can co-exist in harmony. And I'd love to boot all the trash journalists out of this profession too. How many in the Oilers media landscape are even pulling their weight? I'm not even from Edmonton so I don't get it as much as you do but it's pretty clear that most of the Oilers media are talentless hacks. If I was a player I'd be really annoyed having to put up with them and their stupid questions on a regular basis. They don't add any insight or value to us fans, and they annoy the players, so what purpose do they really serve? Why can't we cut down on this and respect the player's time a bit more and let them focus on their craft?

And maybe if media wasn't so attached to sensationalism and clickbait these players would actually feel they had the room to be themselves in front of the cameras instead of being trained for years to avoid saying anything that could be construed one way or the other because they know what media will do if they say something even remotely controversial.

I was speaking specifically of Naomi as that was your big illustrative example. Since I've rebutted that she basically had nothing apparent, legitimately, as a concern your moving the goalposts to some others. Now Kournikova, and No I don't think that interviewer was particularly rude. I think Kournikova herself was reacting to nearly anything asked and was just in a shitty mood. So decline the interview then, don't act like an asshat trying to turn it around and confront the interviewer. That was the Classic Lou Reed technique, and he was high all the time, and later admitted he was an ahole for decades, because of drugs, and apologized for all the people he was vicious to.

No I don't think hockey players get treated all that bad in interviews. Really I don't. Hockey media is notorious for softball questions all day any day. Again come up with some good examples because it doesn't seem like you are. The Ethan Bear instance had nothing to do with media, it was some asshats on twittery making jerk comments. What does that have to do with media?

So we're back at square one. What exactly was Naomi offended by. Isn't it OFFENSIVE for her to CONCLUDE what she did about media, and just assume that. You didn't respond to my post at all, or to any of the points I raised. You're instead moving goal posts. Still waiting for some smoking guns on how hockey media today are so awful in interviews.

Now if your point instead is SOLELY that the interviews shouldn't exist because they are about nothing all the time its your view. frankly I think most sporting interviews are inane, but they make up a lot of sports network content and people watch it, and advertisers comment on it. For instance its not for accident that the oilers, and every other pro team put up pregame postgame comments because for some reason people eat it up, it sells advertising, and it is sellable content. ANY teams site even REQUIRES viewers to watch adds before the content. Which is revenue. Essentially viewers pay with their time to see such interview content and tons of people do watch those. never underestimate the dreck that people will pay for, or spend time watching. its the only reason the interview content exists. There is a wide audience consuming it. if people werent' watching they wouldn't do it.

 

[The Panther]

I live in Japan, where Naomi Osaka's name and image are, of course, media-saturated, to put it mildly. What I dislike about celebrity culture, in general -- and it seems to be worse in sports -- is that 18-year-olds are asked ridiculous questions about aspects of themselves that don't have to do with their sporting ability.

In Osaka's case, because she's "mixed-race" (as if we all aren't mixed "race") and represents Japan, and has thus had cultural influence in popular perception of diversity among Japanese people, she was often being asked ridiculous questions about her national / ethnic / cultural / linguistic ability by Japanese and international media. What does this have to do with tennis?

I think those kind of questions really got her down because she wasn't prepared for them, didn't understand why she was being asked, and resented the fact that she was being forced to address such topics -- on camera, with potentially millions watching -- while non mixed-race athletes never have to address such topics. Which I understand.

I have no idea about her mental health, or specifically why she doesn't want to talk to media right now, but of course I don't think athletes should be forced to talk to media. Why should they?


As other have kind of alluded to, the days of any high-profile hockey player saying anything remotely interesting or brutally honest have died with the advent of social media and the all-powerful players' union. The result of these things is bland media and bland answers for all eternity. Who is this benefiting? No one. If the athletes don't want to talk to media, then more power to them, I say.

 

[rboomercat90]

I'm still asking a full page later exactly Naomis issue. was. What specifically. She stated she "feels" as if media queries impact the mental health of her and others and cites such evidence as what she stated " this rings true"

That is a logical or circular fallacy. As well as confirmation bias. But somehow this is news, which you seem is worthy of a thread here. There was already a thread on the Bear instance I thought.

So other than Naomi "feels" that "this rings true" what is it actually about, which several people have asked.

heres my concerns with what Naomi has said, semantically;

1) that people have no regard for mental health (her opinion)

2) that media are allegedly insensitive re concerns about mental health (her opinion)

3) That media have been so rude or insensitive that she is stopping talking to them (her action))

4 ) That this is justified by what she "feels" "rings true" (her absolute opinion.) but which is DENOUNCING the media. I mean this is an ACCUSATION she is makign about the tennis media, and without any substantiation whatsoever.


But expectedly Naomi is getting a lot of points for this speaking out about alleged issues.


She's actually appropriating mental health issues as her little soapbox, as several pundits have suggested. Short of her disclosing perhaps what her mental health issue is, how its been trampled upon, and how she's been impacted. Without which she's complaining, stamping it with "mental health" and getting automatic brownie points for it.

Gee, if I was still working I would call it a mental health month refuse to come into work citing mental health alleged concern, Attach some nebulous feels to it, simply state that all my concerns, "ring true" without elucidating on any, and expect to be paid. Thats the life...

Naomi has played in 2 tournaments this month. She lost in the second round to Karolina Muchova in Madrid in the first one and then lost to Jessica Pegula in the first round in Romania. I suspect that has something to do with why she doesn’t want to talk to the media right now. She’s #2 in the world and those mean reporters might want to know what’s up. I’ve seen her do a lot of interviews in the last few years and she doesn’t handle herself very well when she isn’t playing well. She comes across as immature at the best of times. I don’t think the majority of the media (there’s always the odd idiot out there) treat her poorly at all. If they did, some might ask her how she got so big in the last year and a half.

 

[Soundwave]

This is basically the players strategy with the media these days...

lol this was like Holland's presser.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I don't know why we are still doing interviews. Does anyone care what players say after a game, Win or Lose?

Basically this. There's never anything to glean from any interview at any time. Always canned answers no matter the situation and the media we employ in Edmonton are absolute chodes.

 

[The Panther]

Naomi has played in 2 tournaments this month. She lost in the second round to Karolina Muchova in Madrid in the first one and then lost to Jessica Pegula in the first round in Romania. I suspect that has something to do with why she doesn’t want to talk to the media right now. She’s #2 in the world and those mean reporters might want to know what’s up. I’ve seen her do a lot of interviews in the last few years and she doesn’t handle herself very well when she isn’t playing well. She comes across as immature at the best of times. I don’t think the majority of the media (there’s always the odd idiot out there) treat her poorly at all. If they did, some might ask her how she got so big in the last year and a half.

So, you're saying that because she been losing a bit, she's in a foul mood and therefore doesn't want to talk to the media.

And... where's the problem? If I'm her, I wouldn't want to talk to the media either. If I'm winning, maybe I would because my mood would be relaxed and lighter. And again, where's the problem?

She's 23 and has global attention. She is immature. As any 23-year-old focused on sports would be.

Finally, it's predictable that a thread about a female athlete would have multiple posters commenting on her body image as a character flaw.

 

[harpoon]

I seem to remember a basketball player (maybe it was Rodman) saying that in his mind he played the game for free. His salary was for putting up with all the off court stuff including media availabilities. I guess there is some truth there.

Probably not totally fair to compare a team sport like b-ball or hockey to an individual game like tennis. Tennis is a lonely game, and when you’re playing poorly it must feel like there is no rock big enough to climb under. That said tennis seems to have more than its share of divas (male and female) who seem to feel like they should come in for special treatment.

Not a fan of Ms Osaka or her decision to skip the media questions. 20K is chump change to her so the penalty will mean nothing. Wonder what her sponsors think.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Basically this. There's never anything to glean from any interview at any time. Always canned answers no matter the situation and the media we employ in Edmonton are absolute chodes.

I have sneaky suspicion that the only people who care are the writers who want access to the players/dressing room.

The writers lost their mind when COVID started because they didn't have the ability to physically go in the room to ask questions in person. Seems like asking over zoom has been fine even though these interviews are completely useless.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I have sneaky suspicion that the only people who care are the writers who want access to the players/dressing room.

The writers lost their mind when COVID started because they didn't have the ability to physically go in the room to ask questions in person. Seems like asking over zoom has been fine even though these interviews are completely useless.

I can't remember the last time I listened to any interview with a degree of interest. If there was a Stanley Cup for talking this team would be in the middle of a dynasty, but it's always the same emotionless drivel. You'll get the odd player cracking back at the media but I would be happy if they just did away with interviews altogether.

"Ahh gee Connor, too bad about getting swept."

"Yeah, but we'll be better next year."

And don't even get me started on the GM.

 

[redgrant]

My biggest issue with the media is lack of holding oilers management accountable.

For example only when we absolutely knew chairelli was going to be fired did they find their voice that week. I remember after the embarassing manning trade no one called him out. They were scared.

Let's not forget Lowe's equally cringe worthy "no one has won as much cups as I have" nonsense and no rebuttal.

If anything the media should have called out Ken Holland's acquisitions for example. Turris, stalock, Kulikov and asked him to evaluate the pro scouts.

 

[TB12]

 

[bone]

I seem to remember a basketball player (maybe it was Rodman) saying that in his mind he played the game for free. His salary was for putting up with all the off court stuff including media availabilities. I guess there is some truth there.

Probably not totally fair to compare a team sport like b-ball or hockey to an individual game like tennis. Tennis is a lonely game, and when you’re playing poorly it must feel like there is no rock big enough to climb under. That said tennis seems to have more than its share of divas (male and female) who seem to feel like they should come in for special treatment.

Not a fan of Ms Osaka or her decision to skip the media questions. 20K is chump change to her so the penalty will mean nothing. Wonder what her sponsors think.

Good point. Anyone who's any good at a sport likely loves playing the game enough that they would be willing to pay to play it if their skills weren't such that it allowed them to make money doing it. Many of us regularly pay money to participate in the sports we love. So I think it's completely valid to say their salary really pays for their commitment to practice, their time away from family to be on the road and public responsibilities whether it be advertising or media availability.

I don't think it makes the athletes fair game to unwarranted attacks by the press and when that happens the reporter should be called out by either the athlete or others representing the sport, but general questions around accountability to their customers (the fans) that are ultimately responsible for them drawing the money they do should be fair game.

Hearing that there were some mixed-race questions that upset her, those are perfectly valid concern that if the reporter stepped across the line they should be reprimanded by fellow athletes and the sport in general. Were they framed as the type of questions that could be used to make her a role model for others coming into the sport from a similar background, if so, I don't think it should be viewed as bad. If it was asking about whether she does enough for that demographic, that's definitely not right because she shouldn't have to do it if she doesn't want to.

 

[Drivesaitl]

So Wayne Gretzky commonly stated that media access, PR, all that was part of the privelege of being a star. He didn't shirk it and was in constant demand, and maybe more than Naomi. He had it his whole life and to some degree still today. But the degree of attention he got in 80's, 90's was off the charts and he didn't turn them away. Often times when others were getting drenched in Champagne he was having to do the circuit of interviews that rarely stopped for him. There was so much expectation on this youth, he was bombarded with it already by the time he was around 10. By 12 it was a constant in his life and didn't stop.

Amidst all this he did fine with it. People have said things about him his whole life, including the recent thread. Wayne will rise above it as he has publicly. For Wayne it was all part of the same package.

I mean I can't even begin to think that in present day somebody could endeavor to be in pro sports and think that media attention and hounding was not in some way going to be a part of that.

Lastly I'll add that Wayne is also interesting example as his first contract was coined a "personal services" contract. Specifically written up that way so that Puck could get the most out of the kid in many ways.

Its a strange notion that highly paid celebrities, athletes, ought to defer that focus and refuse it selectively, when it suits them. The media hits is what influences relative fame, exposure, and even the relative fortunes of the sports. Tennis had been in a long time ebb, less people playing it, less people watching it, and Ms Osaka is making the decisions, now, at this time, a time where most people couldn't even name a dozen players on the circuit. This is classic biting the hand that feeds you. But I'm sure she'd be the first to complain about prize money, rights money, sponsorship money etc.

 

[Zaddy]

I was speaking specifically of Naomi as that was your big illustrative example. Since I've rebutted that she basically had nothing apparent, legitimately, as a concern your moving the goalposts to some others. Now Kournikova, and No I don't think that interviewer was particularly rude. I think Kournikova herself was reacting to nearly anything asked and was just in a shitty mood. So decline the interview then, don't act like an asshat trying to turn it around and confront the interviewer. That was the Classic Lou Reed technique, and he was high all the time, and later admitted he was an ahole for decades, because of drugs, and apologized for all the people he was vicious to.

No I don't think hockey players get treated all that bad in interviews. Really I don't. Hockey media is notorious for softball questions all day any day. Again come up with some good examples because it doesn't seem like you are. The Ethan Bear instance had nothing to do with media, it was some asshats on twittery making jerk comments. What does that have to do with media?

So we're back at square one. What exactly was Naomi offended by. Isn't it OFFENSIVE for her to CONCLUDE what she did about media, and just assume that. You didn't respond to my post at all, or to any of the points I raised. You're instead moving goal posts. Still waiting for some smoking guns on how hockey media today are so awful in interviews.

Now if your point instead is SOLELY that the interviews shouldn't exist because they are about nothing all the time its your view. frankly I think most sporting interviews are inane, but they make up a lot of sports network content and people watch it, and advertisers comment on it. For instance its not for accident that the oilers, and every other pro team put up pregame postgame comments because for some reason people eat it up, it sells advertising, and it is sellable content. ANY teams site even REQUIRES viewers to watch adds before the content. Which is revenue. Essentially viewers pay with their time to see such interview content and tons of people do watch those. never underestimate the dreck that people will pay for, or spend time watching. its the only reason the interview content exists. There is a wide audience consuming it. if people werent' watching they wouldn't do it.

Moving goalposts? This thread is about media and its relationship with players, as the title clearly states. It's not about Naomi Osaka specifically. I just came across her post on Twitter and thought it was worth having a discussion about how media treats athletes in this day and age. To that end the Kournikova example is highly relevant. And no, I'm not here to dig through footage or to prove to you that media is bad, I've followed sports since I was a little kid, I know how vicious they can be. And if you really want to find out you can literally just go to youtube and search for it, there's plenty there. And you realize that the media that you see is not all media players do right? There's far more out there that they engage in than you see or hear about.

Btw I find it ironic that you don't think hockey media is bad because a lot of them ask softball questions. Wonder how players have been run out of Edmonton then if these media guys are so soft and cuddly. Reality is media either do hit pieces on their own accord (or at least build a negative narrative around certain players) or pick up on fan sentiment and service them. Again, I'm not saying that you can't criticize players when it's warranted, but when it becomes a habitual thing it's a problem.

Social media is also part of that because, guess what, reporters write a lot of tweets opining on things and they have the power to amplify certain sentiments. That's how social media works. The more controversial something is, the more engagement it gets, so there's always an incentive there both for tweets themselves as well as pushing controversial articles (or podcasts for that matter) or at least things they know will get traffic. This means athletes can now be attacked on all fronts and at all times. So I ask you again, how much is enough? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Zaddy]

So Wayne Gretzky commonly stated that media access, PR, all that was part of the privelege of being a star. He didn't shirk it and was in constant demand, and maybe more than Naomi. He had it his whole life and to some degree still today. But the degree of attention he got in 80's, 90's was off the charts and he didn't turn them away. Often times when others were getting drenched in Champagne he was having to do the circuit of interviews that rarely stopped for him. There was so much expectation on this youth, he was bombarded with it already by the time he was around 10. By 12 it was a constant in his life and didn't stop.

Amidst all this he did fine with it. People have said things about him his whole life, including the recent thread. Wayne will rise above it as he has publicly. For Wayne it was all part of the same package.

I mean I can't even begin to think that in present day somebody could endeavor to be in pro sports and think that media attention and hounding was not in some way going to be a part of that.

Lastly I'll add that Wayne is also interesting example as his first contract was coined a "personal services" contract. Specifically written up that way so that Puck could get the most out of the kid in many ways.

Its a strange notion that highly paid celebrities, athletes, ought to defer that focus and refuse it selectively, when it suits them. The media hits is what influences relative fame, exposure, and even the relative fortunes of the sports. Tennis had been in a long time ebb, less people playing it, less people watching it, and Ms Osaka is making the decisions, now, at this time, a time where most people couldn't even name a dozen players on the circuit. This is classic biting the hand that feeds you. But I'm sure she'd be the first to complain about prize money, rights money, sponsorship money etc.

You can't be serious comparing the media landscape of the 80's and 90's with today. It's not even remotely the same, no matter how famous Gretzky was. There was no internet, no social media, no 24/7 online presence. It's a completely different world today. McDavid is dealing with everything Gretzky was and then some. It's obvious that he hates it but hey as long as he doesn't come out and say it publicly who cares right?