I think that there are a few things to consider about "the real" and the "artificial" in this debate. Sports are a form of entertainment, but some forms are more entertaining than others and some sports are more legitimate than others-- the WWE compared to the NFL. The NFL is a league that is more legitimate since it is not scripted. However, the league suffers with any attacks to the legitimacy in the league (steroid use for example).
While sports may be a form of entertainment, the Shakespearian drama of our time, and while sports may focus the spirit (think Plato's thymos) and passions of our time, to only consider them as entertainment deflects away from how sports interact in the larger cultural context, especially in terms of the political and economic culture. Think back to when comedian Rush Limbaugh appeared on NFL Gameday until he made remarks about Donovan McNabb. These comments were not "challenged" nor "refuted" with any depth on the show by other members of the show; however, ESPN kicked him off the program. The following week, the members of the show denied the existence of "the political" in the show and in the sport; they stated "That is not what this show is about," meaning this show and this sport is only about entertainment. (This is not a defense of what Comedian Rush said just an example).
But, what ESPN overlooks in its coverage are the politics and economics of the game. Major sports are monopolies that do not have to adhere to anti-trust laws. (Ask Maurice Clarett and others about this). Any team adds to the economic impact of their area; if a small market city lost its team, the area would lose a major source of revenue. Because of the economic benefits of the team, the politicians offer owners and leagues certain extra incentives that may hurt the markets citizens. Citizens who live in NFL market are subject to blackout laws and cannot watch the the local team if the game did not sell out in time even though they have "a stake in the team" since their tax-dollars pay for the stadium. While citizens elect politics, those politicians enact policies that hinder the citizens but may help the owner. Also, citizens have many choices about where to spend their money- their family, their selection of entertainment, etc. If there are illegitimate actions within one form of entertainment (if the sports is not perceived as being legitimate) then the sport and the market may suffer.
In terms of steroid, these are illegal substances. Even though baseball is entertainment, it needs to play ball according to state and federal law. While society overlooked the drugs for a time (especially when MLB needed to increase its fan base after the cancelled season in the 1990's and allowed home run races) it reached a point where it needed to face the problem, especially when high school and college athletes increased their use of steroids and citizens contacted their representatives about the problem.
While the media may contribute to sports as "raw power" it can also help regulate that power to contain its legality and support its legitimacy. While the media may overlook certain "artificial" aspects of the sport that effect the game, such as the position of fences, the height of the mound, etc., these aspects do not effect legal rules in society (though they may contribute in a minor way to the economics of the game). Once sports become a legal issue and political issue, then it necessitates more coverage, which will only try to reinforce the legitimacy of the sport.
3 comments:
Solon, your post is thick, and you touch on several themes that I hope to address in the coming weeks. You wouldn't believe the maelstrom of emails I've already received from our readership over this very controversial topic! I think the fact that two of the three bloggers on The Rhetorical Situation have taken slightly opposed stands is really juicing things up for everyone else.
But because the rhetorical situation dictates that I noit get ahead of myself (one theme a week), much of your content I will not respond to here. But I do want to respond to this statement that you maske, because it really gets to the heart of my concern with framing the "real":
You write:
"Sports are a form of entertainment, but some forms are more entertaining than others and some sports are more legitimate than others-- the WWE compared to the NFL. The NFL is a league that is more legitimate since it is not scripted."
Now, what strikes me as odd here is the ever constant refrain in our media, echoed eloquently by you here, that the presence of performance enhancing drugs somehow leads us into a concern over whether or not competitions are "scripted," and therefore "less real."
But isn't there a huge logical fallacy at work here? Let's say you have a football game with a bunch of doped up players, does this translate into a "script"? No, indeed! The outcome still depends on a miscellany of factors.
To elaborate a bit I'll take a parallel example from my initial post, the shrinking of the strike zone. Well, that affects the baseball game, causes more homeruns, higher ERA's puts fannies in the seats and all that. But there can be no doubt that the hitters still have to hit the ball solidly, and then hit it "where they aint." Pitchers and Catchers too get a say, even with the shrunken zone. So they are altering the parameters of the game but still not scripting it.
But heavens to Betsy, who are "THEY?" Why, the league brass, the owners, the sponsors, and such. They shrunk the strike zone in 1998 (the year, you will recall, that McGuire and Sosa went beserk and the beginning of Bonds's resurgence as THE MAN YET AGAIN). THEY, by the same token, knew about the drugs, this is clear. They don't mandate drug use, you say? Well, what do you call rewarding power numbers over everything even as you turn a blind eye to the problem?
It was only when the media blitz kicked in that all of a sudden you had "tough talk" emanating from all these sports czars. Because media FRAMED this as though it means what we're seeing isn't "REAL."
And while I have a lot of problems with steroid use, the issue of warping the real is just ridiculously shallow. Especially considering how rampant it is (next week's topic)--if it were only one guy on steroids and he was dominating a sport, you MIGHT would have an argument about reality becoming fake. But it is rampant (next week's topic), and as the famous song goes,
It's like that and that's the way it is.
Peace.
The force of my argument is not on whether or not a sport is scipted or not scripted; however, the force is directed towards the legitimacy of the sport (hence, the implied warrant: scripted sports are not legitimate sports).
The strike zone example does not have the effect that performance enhancing drugs do on the legitimacy of baseball.
Well, I suppose we'll just have to disagree, as to the second point you raise. As someone who watched baseball avidly throughout the mid-eighties, I remember well a game dominated by pitching, defense, and the stolen base. Moving the fences in, expanding the league with more teams (and thus watering down quality of pitching), and, yes, shrinking the stike zone all contributed to the highly dramatic shift we now see in the year of our lord 2006 (which, btw, they have expanded the zone again this year, which one could argue has had just as much, if not more, of an effect on the power dropoff as the media-driven scrutiny on steroids).
Ultimately it's hard to tell what has affected the game more, just as it would be hard to tell if today's outside linebacker is so much more badass, so much faster bigger stronger tougher than his predecessors because of the newfangled training techniques, or because he's doped up on something THEY have yet to detect.
But I strongly resist your implication that the drugs are obviously more dramatically game-altering than such factors, that just seems pretty unprobvable at this point.
Post a Comment