Media Brown-Out

I probably should have written on this a week ago when it was still news, but I didn't. Deal with it. For those who aren't familiar with the situation, you can read about it here and here. Essentially, WOIO, Cleveland's CBS affiliate lost their preseason contract with the Cleveland Browns. The Browns wanted to end the contract after WOIO's news department played a 9-1-1 call made when the owner's sister called about her missing child who drowned in her pool.

The case poses a number of interesting problems as they pertain to the relationship between the media and the organizations that they deal with. On the one hand, it certainly seems to be an example of Herman & Chomsky's Propaganda Model at work. More specifically, the influence of ownership and advertising revenue on news departments. The Browns were absolutely exerting their financial influence from the area of sports programming on the news department. More importantly, they were going after WOIO's very identity. The station has identified itself for years as the "Home of the Browns," and by taking that away from them, the team was making its influence felt on the station as a whole.

Even without the identity and financial aspects, the Browns were going after WOIO's ability to function as a television station. Given the popularity of NFL teams, and the Browns in particular, it stands to reason that the Browns preseason games would be highly rated programming for WOIO. With that in mind, the broadcasts would provide an excellent opportunity for the station to plug CBS' new fall lineup. By ending their relationship with WOIO, the Browns were certainly attempting to influence the news department of the station by exerting pressure on other areas.

The flipside of the argument however, is that the WOIO news department has no justification for airing that 9-1-1 tape, and by ending their relationship with the station, the Browns were taking a stand on a news department run amok. Far too often these days, news departments seem to believe that because they are permitted to air something, that means that they should. But airing this tape was not news. It was not done to inform the public. It was not done to encourage public discourse. It was done so the news station could try to grab ratings, and shock people into continuing to watch their news programming. Nothing at all benefited the viewers of WOIO by broadcasting that tape.

In a sense, it could be argued that the Browns decision is actually a victory for responsible journalism. Perhaps other stations will consider whether or not they should do some of the things they do. The question lies in whether they will be reluctant to air pieces because they are concerned about the financial impact of those decisions, or whether they are actually considering issues of the public good when making their decisions.

Of course, this isn't the only issue regarding sports and the media to have arisen in recent weeks. Two other notables involve the so-called 'new media'.

The first is the decision by the University of Kentucky to report themselves to the NCAA for potential recruitment violations. This was done because some UK boosters/fans found the MySpace home for high school player Patrick Patterson and posted messages encouraging him to sign with the Wildcats. While some may argue whether or not this is an actual violation, the fact remains that UK chose to play it safe and report themselves to the NCAA in an attempt to avoid any penalties.

Whats more important is that this makes clear that the NCAA needs to address these sort of issues now, before they become a serious problem. Even if the schools make it clear to their fans that they shouldn't go looking for a recruit's MySpace/Facebook/Blog to plead their case, it doesn't mean those fans will listen. Plus, given the anonymity of the Internet, whats to stop some lowdown, dirty Michigan fan from disguising themselves as a fan of The Ohio State University to get the Buckeyes in trouble?

Archaic institutions like the NCAA need to reevaluate their regulations, and prepare themselves for these challenges, rather than waiting until they are tried in the courts, whether they be legislative, or public opinion.

The other issue is that of recently dismissed Oklahoma QB Rhett Bomar. Evidently young Mr. Bomar was receiving pay from a car dealership, despite not actually doing any work. Now, despite the fact that this sounds like he was the dealerships executive producer, evidently this is a bad thing. And when Oklahoma found out a few weeks ago, they dismissed Bomar. Now its been revealed that news of this actually came to light back in January, on a Texas A&M message board.

Stewart Mandel raises the most important question about this issue. "How it is that some random Texas A&M fan could have known about Bomar's arrangement more than six months ago, yet Oklahoma officials claimed to be unaware until recently." If some guy knew a girl who worked at the dealership who blabbed, doesn't it stand to reason that she told more than one guy? Or that someone else said something? Wouldn't it come out at like a Chamber of Commerce shindig or a similar soiree? Hell, after the Drudge Report reported on Big Willie Clinton's underdesk fellatio, it became a big story. So doesn't it stand to reason that someone else should have heard about Bomar's own special job?

One of the reasons I bring all these issues up is because, despite the fact that I am in a MEDIA faculty, I am confident that nobody at my school is aware of these issues. Despite the pervasiveness of sports into popular culture, too many people (particularly those in my faculty) seem to think that sports and the media do not address larger social issues. If I go ask any of my political economy profs about WOIO, I am confident they will stare at me with big doe eyes. And if I ask a cyberculture prof about Bomar or UK, they won't know what I'm talking about. Oh well, I guess it gives me something to talk about at the orientation wine & cheese party.