Media Competency & Bias ...

[fly2themoon]

Disclosure. I am a mere fan of Women’s College Basketball, not an expert and as such have my own opinions but nothing more.

I have watched enough press conferences by the WCBB players and coaches, both the Huskies and opponents, and many times couldn’t help myself thinking how ridiculous and unprepared some of the questions are from the media. Fortunately, I have found the players and coaches able to come up with much more intelligent answers than the level of questions being asked. Of course, this is a very broad generalization but can the media be more professional, prepared, and unbiased? Or is it my wishful thinking?

We all have our own self interest including people in the media. But media professionals should be subjected to additional standards of objectivity and professionalism. Some folks at a particular sports channel covering WCBB too often exhibit lack of the above. Promoting rivalries that don’t exist, bias shown when stating So. Carolina should have won vs the Huskies, putting so much pressure on the 19-year old freshmen for the sake of rating, nonsensical bracket predictions, just to show some examples. I am not suggesting, by any means, the media coverage of WCBB is not up to par but just saying there are some bad apples and hope they get better. JMHO.

 

[UcMiami]

A lot of the 'local' media from the teams that have departed the tournament already write very few WCBB pieces in a year. Local media from SC, CT, ND, Baylor, Stanford etc are much more conversant with covering WCBB so hopefully it gets better from here out.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

. . . bias shown when stating So. Carolina should have won vs the Huskies, putting so much pressure on the 19-year old freshmen for the sake of rating . . .

I don't regard saying that S.Carolina should have won as making a biased statement - just stating
the obvious. In the final 10 seconds of regulation they had multiple chances to win the game by making
a one foot layup. They didn't get it done, but should have.

As to all the hype surrounding Paige and Caitlin, it has long been standard procedure to promote
your sports entertainment product by hyping the "stars" (LeBron, Tom Brady, etc.) ad nauseum.
After being centers of attention for so long, I suspect that the kids are sophisticated enough to regard
it as part of the deal.

 

[chrissaran]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but didn't. Who cares what SC should have done. They had more experience than UConn. Sucks for them.

 

[Huskee11]

I have noticed that the questions from the media tend to focus on relationships, motivation, what makes people tick, is this or that new coach good for women`s basketball, etc. Articles about that stuff probably get more clicks.

Many of us are more interested in talking about in game matchups, strategy, Xs and Os, how do you stop this, how do you take advantage of that, what do you expect to see.

Maybe the media is less interested in those things, or figures the other stuff attracts a larger audience. Or maybe they have figured out that coaches are not very forthcoming in those areas so they move on.

 

[JordyG]

In the final 10 seconds of regulation they had multiple chances to win the game by making
a one foot layup. They didn't get it done, but should have.

And if UConn would have just hit their season average from the perimeter those last few minutes would have been irrelevant and there would never have been an overtime. See, two can play that silly game. If if's and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a great Christmas.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

What annoys me about so many of the media is that when they are talking to players they do not ask open ended questions. What they do is put out a statement that is a narrative and ask the player to comment on it /confirm it. See, they have already written their story in their head and they know just what they want out of the athlete. Those that follow UConn are some of the worst.

 

[itsasport]

Reporters in general are generaly ignorant of the subjects that they are supposed to have knowledge of- why should sports reporters be any different.

 

[fly2themoon]

Why should So. Carolina have won against the Huskies? Because they played better? Because they are a better team? I think not. They could have won had they been able to capitalize on any one of the few opportunities presented to them. But they were not able to so they lost. No rational basis to state that they should have won unless biased.

The way the tournament seeding turned out, under a pure S-curve, it is presumed UConn had the 2nd overall seed and Baylor the 7th. A self-proclaimed bracketology expert who called it as such, and yet opined later that Baylor would prevail over UConn in Elite 8. Where is Professional Integrity? UConn vs Baylor game tomorrow should be one of the big games in the tournament and should be a close game (UConn 3.5-point favorite). Whoever plays better will win. No should have, no could have. Go Huskies!

 

[bluedevil]

Good reporter is an oxymoron..

 

[tomcat]

Okay, so my response is going to be a double-dose of cynicism. I own that, but it's the product of someone who spent 20 years in the media and another 20 preparing people to deal with the media.

It's not as simple as the reporters being ignorant. Yes, in some cases it's that, but in others, it just seems like laziness. Plus, it's a matter of being condescending, IMHO. I cannot tell you the number of questions reporters -- including Holly and the other ESPNers -- ask that are not only leading, but provide the athlete with the answer in the question, as if they don't trust the player to handle an actual probing question. So they ask questions like: "How much were you feeling the team really played together tonight?" Now, that's not a real question, but it's damn close to the kind of thing these women get asked almost every game. Then there is the ultimate non-question: "Talk about how you came back in the second half." These sorts of made-to-order questions are the laziest way to get a quote I've ever seen, and many if not most commentators now do it, instead of asking a real question.

By the way, my definition of a question is a group of words that legitimately should have a question mark at the end of it.

So let's unpack a question like the one above (playing together) for a second. There can only be one correct answer to that question, and that's "A lot." The commentator already has told the player that he or she believes the team played well tonight. so the player goes with it, because it's positive. And that's the answer the commentators (they are only reporters if they actually report things) wants to hear and wants the audience to hear. And of course the player goes along, even if she thinks they really didn't play well together. I am certain the players are coached to say certain things, because they all, very articulately, say the right things at the right time and (you'll notice) all wrap up their answers in the same way.

God forbid the commentator should ask an open-ended question, like: Do you think the team played together tonight?

So it's a dance. The commentators just want an answer that resonates with the audience, not a controversy and certainly not what the player actually feels. The player says what she has been coached to say, and says it again and again and again. All the answers end up in the same places. In the PR business, we call them "talking points." There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I'm dead certain that such coaching allows some players who otherwise would be fearful of interviews to participate in them without serious stress. It's just that anyone who thinks the "questions" and the answers are spur-of-the-moment is delusional.

The above points apply to media types who interview male basketball players as well. I cannot speak to whether those players have been coached on how to answer the "questions."

 

[tomcat]

Good reporter is an oxymoron..

Cute sentence. Dead wrong. It's mostly that the people you think are reporters aren't,

 

[Steve UConn72]

Speaking of reporters & commentators - maybe it's been mentioned elsewhere, but does anyone else find it ludicrous that, after 20 (or 40) minutes of 10 players bumping and banging each other sans masks, that the halftime/post-game on-court interview features a masked sideline reporter standing under the basket interviewing a player who is standing 100 feet away at mid-court? OK, be safe, but sheesh!

 

[UConn990411]

I don't regard saying that S.Carolina should have won as making a biased statement - just stating
the obvious. In the final 10 seconds of regulation they had multiple chances to win the game by making
a one foot layup. They didn't get it done, but should have.

As to all the hype surrounding Paige and Caitlin, it has long been standard procedure to promote
your sports entertainment product by hyping the "stars" (LeBron, Tom Brady, etc.) ad nauseum.
After being centers of attention for so long, I suspect that the kids are sophisticated enough to regard
it as part of the deal.

LeBron and Brady are exceptions, not the norms. They’re in the pantheon of their respective sports, so they tend to overshadow the games at times.

But generally speaking, I feel like the media tends to hype up great matchups in men’s sports, while the stars and storylines are secondary. In women’s sports, it feels like the opposite - the stars and storylines are the focal point of the coverage, and the games are secondary.

Notice how often this board complains about the announcers talking about anything and everything but the game? That’s not as common of an issue in men’s games unless LeBron or Brady are playing.

 

[CocoHusky]

Why should So. Carolina have won against the Huskies? Because they played better? Because they are a better team? I think not. They could have won had they been able to capitalize on any one of the few opportunities presented to them. But they were not able to so they lost. No rational basis to state that they should have won unless biased.

You have a extremely weak case for bias considering that Geno also stated after the game that UCONN could have lost this game.

 

[Cuango]

Why should So. Carolina have won against the Huskies? Because they played better? Because they are a better team? I think not. They could have won had they been able to capitalize on any one of the few opportunities presented to them. But they were not able to so they lost. No rational basis to state that they should have won unless biased.

The way the tournament seeding turned out, under a pure S-curve, it is presumed UConn had the 2nd overall seed and Baylor the 7th. A self-proclaimed bracketology expert who called it as such, and yet opined later that Baylor would prevail over UConn in Elite 8. Where is Professional Integrity? UConn vs Baylor game tomorrow should be one of the big games in the tournament and should be a close game (UConn 3.5-point favorite). Whoever plays better will win. No should have, no could have. Go Huskies!

Assuming the refs don’t take a hand!

 

[fly2themoon]

You have a extremely weak case for bias considering that Geno also stated after the game that UCONN could have lost this game.

Uconn could have lost the game but didn’t. Never should have lost it. Are you suggesting Uconn should have lost the game? If so, then on what basis? Why is my case extremely weak, may I ask?

 

[HuskyBaggins]

Speaking of reporters & commentators - maybe it's been mentioned elsewhere, but does anyone else find it ludicrous that, after 20 (or 40) minutes of 10 players bumping and banging each other sans masks, that the halftime/post-game on-court interview features a masked sideline reporter standing under the basket interviewing a player who is standing 100 feet away at mid-court? OK, be safe, but sheesh!

Nobody is allowed to comment on any such thing.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

. . . Are you suggesting Uconn should have lost the game? If so, then on what basis?. . .

On the basis of the reasonable expectation that a team, given three or four tries at making
a layup from one foot away, should have made one. Is that an untrue statement? Does making
that statement make someone biased against UConn? It doesn't have anything to do with
who is the better team or whether UConn shoulda/coulda made more shots. It's just a simple
and quite reasonable statement. Bias? I've been cheering for our girls for over a quarter
century. Do you think I'm biased against UConn?

 

[MooseJaw]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but didn't. Who cares what SC should have done. They had more experience than UConn. Sucks for them.

Sucks for them? I would have written it a little differently The sucks part that is. While I can't fault the team for what a delusional writer wrote, I do hold it against their program and coach for fostering the we need a banner mentality. If you're that good you don't have to toot your own horn. What matters in regards to the outcome of the SC vs UCONN game this season, yes SC could have won the game, yes UCONN could have won the ARK game, many games could have had a different outcome, but it ain't so is it. Could haves are for losers', the score board doesn't lie. So maybe I have talked myself into what chrissaran wrote. "Sucks for them".

 

[fly2themoon]

On the basis of the reasonable expectation that a team, given three or four tries at making
a layup from one foot away, should have made one. Is that an untrue statement? Does making
that statement make someone biased against UConn? It doesn't have anything to do with
who is the better team or whether UConn shoulda/coulda made more shots. It's just a simple
and quite reasonable statement. Bias? I've been cheering for our girls for over a quarter
century. Do you think I'm biased against UConn?

Are you saying So. Carolina should have won and Uconn should have lost? If so, then I do think you are biased in your thinking. There is no 100% sure shot in basketball. However improbable it may be they simply didn’t make those bunnies. It doesn’t mean they should have won. They could have won but they didn’t. Enough said.

 

[CocoHusky]

Are you saying So. Carolina should have won and Uconn should have lost? If so, then I do think you are biased in your thinking. There is no 100% sure shot in basketball. However improbable it may be they simply didn’t make those bunnies. It doesn’t mean they should have won. They could have won but they didn’t. Enough said.

 

[fly2themoon]

Since we had such a thrilling win against Baylor (certain media experts might have thought they should have won since they had missed a few layups and had some fouls uncalled), I will let it go.

 

[HuskyBaggins]

Just to be clear, the media is both biased AND incompetent. In every arena. Not just women's basketball.

They now wear it like some kind of badge of honor or something

 

[npignatjr]

Speaking of reporters & commentators - maybe it's been mentioned elsewhere, but does anyone else find it ludicrous that, after 20 (or 40) minutes of 10 players bumping and banging each other sans masks, that the halftime/post-game on-court interview features a masked sideline reporter standing under the basket interviewing a player who is standing 100 feet away at mid-court? OK, be safe, but sheesh!

How about the players from the same team sitting in the bench area are seated 6 feet apart.