I’ve been reading a lot of criticism regarding the beltway press and their coverage of the upcoming presidential election.
It’s made me think quite a bit about the ways that sports media might be coming up short in our coverage.
After floating this thought to my Twitter followers, I got a lot of good feedback.
People suggested that we need greater diversity, a greater willingness to dig for root causes, more impartiality, less sensationalism.
My personal pet peeve is that sports reporters, and I am not immune to this, tend to stick to established narratives.
I’ll give you an example from this week: After Urban Meyer’s Buckeyes beat Bowling Green 77-10 in the season opener, Meyer gushed about the performance of defensive back Malik Hooker. It was amazing, Meyer said, that Hooker had gone from a player who once floated the idea of leaving the program to the guy who intercepted two passes in his first collegiate start.
When Hooker himself sat down with the media, he confirmed that he had discussed transferring with his Mom, but she talked him down.
The narrative of this type of comeback is well worn by now, so we accepted it uncritically.
Was Hooker sincerely considering bolting? No, he eventually clarified.
He pointed out that he isn’t the type of man to quit, he’d never cleaned out his locker, never even discussed the idea with anybody but his Mom.
Meyer later conceded that 95-99 percent of young players blow off steam like this.
But, oh, the narrative.
The idea of a guy with one foot out the door turning things around is much more compelling than the story of a player who was simply a bit frustrated.
We talk about how the athletes we cover battle complacency. I’m going to try harder to do that myself. At the same time, I will admit, it’s sometimes hard not to fall for these types of stories Hooker, line, and sinker.