Collateral Damage

Sporting press overcorrects, but in a wrong and more convenient direction

You’ll have to excuse the extremely niche topic this week. I’m in the middle of writing part two of this, and the following is one of the only non-matchplay, topical things happening, outside of French tennis fans trying to Houdini their way out of curfew on court Philippe Chatrier by planking behind their seats.

Collateral damage

The fallout from the Naomi Osaka press boycott bombshell, ensuing Slam suspension threat, and eventual withdrawal from Roland Garros, will be long and hard to quantify at this stage. But some predictable collateral damage has cropped up in the short term that needs to be nipped in the bud.

The role of the press conference, and how the press interact with, and ask questions of, the players during tournaments, is being discussed now more than ever. This is a good thing. It needs modernisation and some self-reflection surrounding its purpose. But there has been a poorly-motivated overcorrection to the Osaka saga, which is hurting innocent members of the media.

First, Jonathan Pinfield got dragged over the coals on twitter for this question:

Jonathan Pinfield 🎾 @tweetsbyjp

🎾 Some of Jannik Sinner’s fans think he’s a Saint 😇, because he looks like an angel 👼 So after his #RolandGarros 3rd round win vs Mikael Ymer, I ask him, “Do you play better like a Sinner or a Saint?” @janniksin at @rolandgarros on @LiveSportsFM #SinnerOrSaint 🎾

And then Chris Oddo got similar treatment (here and here) for asking Novak Djokovic about players who have beaten Rafa Nadal in Paris, and mistakenly forgetting the word ‘active’:

Chris Oddo @TheFanChild

I asked it and I forgot to say "active" (I was weirdly nervous, I admit). And I was muted after that. Please don't ban me Ricky...

Ricky Dimon @Dimonator

This is -- and I'm not kidding -- how Novak Djokovic's press conference began. We really need to start cracking down on who is allowed to ask questions at press conferences. No wonder players hate them. https://t.co/oz4ZO66YeT

The first is an innocent, if unusual, way of asking Jannik Sinner if he plays better calm or fired up (I’ve seen his fans reference him as ‘angelic’, that was very much not a reach). The second is an honest (and rare) phrasing mistake from an excellent journalist caught up in the uncomfortable nature of zoom press conferences.

The reaction to both these events was absurd: ‘This is inexcusable’. ‘Like a snake looking for the next victim... if only we can start cracking down on who is allowed to write’. ‘how are these people even allowed to get a tennis credential???’ ‘Disgusting’. ‘Shameful’. ‘Osaka was right’.

Literally none of those comments, nor the mountains of others in the replies and quotes, are appropriate for either situation. And neither of these journalists should have to fear for their livelihoods, via threatening removal of their press passes, for such occurrences. What these dunks from other members of the media, and the resulting reactions from fans, show is that the wrong sort of overcorrection has taken place after Naomi Osaka’s press boycott. Innocent, if unusual or slightly incorrect, questions are not the areas where press needs to change. These are not the problem areas of sports media, nor what the players themselves have taken issue with. They are however, unfortunately for Chris and Jonathan, easy targets for silly virtue signalling about the topical nature of journalism in sport. But dunking on either of these scenarios doesn’t help tennis move forward at all.

The focus should instead be on these, and questions like them:

Question to 19 year old Genie Bouchard: “I noticed you tweeted a picture. Are you prepared that if you go on a long run you may be held up as a sex symbol, given you’re very good looking?”

Question to 17 year old Maria Sharapova: “You’re a pin-up now, especially in England. Is that good? Do you enjoy that?”

Question to Simona Halep, a journalist wondering whether her breast reduction had "served her on the court or outside"

Question to Caroline Wozniacki, asked about Rory McIlroy instead of her match.

Question asked of Serena Williams: '“After the Wimbledon match with Maria (Sharapova), I had the opportunity to interview Donald Trump on his L.A. golf course, and he said that Maria’s shoulders were incredibly alluring and then he came up with his incredible analysis: that you were intimidated by her supermodel good looks…. Have you ever been intimidated by anyone on a tennis court, and what are you thoughts about that occurrence?”

Question to Stan Wawrinka from a journalist wondering “what Martin Luther King would have looked like on Twitter.”

Question to Coco Gauff last week: “You are often compared to the Williams sisters, maybe it’s because you’re Black…”

Monfils in Australia this year, after losing in the first round: “Every time I arrive here, I feel judged. They tell me: 'You lost again, why?'. I am already on the ground and you shoot me.”

This is an extremely small sample in a sea of useless, shitty, unthoughtful, or straight up offensive questions that still to this day take place in tennis pressers.

If this sport is going to pick and choose what to be outraged by, it’s pretty bloody obvious what types of questions and reporters deserve that ire. And the two examples at the top of this issue, are not it. Dunking on these innocent members of the press is merely the route of pseudo-self-examination that doesn’t require any actual work or change. It’s convenient, and satiates some of the angrier and more clueless parts of the public caught up in this wider story. But doing so ignores the more introspective, difficult and substantive evolution required to weed out the damaging nonsense quoted above.

It’s worth stressing here that challenging players is very much part of the job for some journalists. A spiky or provocative question has its place if the topic is serious, or the player deserves to be challenged on a particular answer or action. But offensive, marginalising, clueless, or purposefully mean questions have no place here. De-prioritising that journalistic substance-vacuum should be one of the take-aways from the Osaka situation, not trying to cast blame and meaninglessly self-flagellate over unusual, light-hearted questions or honest mistakes.

I wrote a week or so ago, immediately after Osaka announced her boycott, about the slight identity crisis modern sports media has:

For the most part in tennis, journalism is focused on telling the stories of player careers, results, and on court drama. There are rare sightings of more serious reporting — domestic abuse allegations or match fixing convictions for example. However the majority of tennis journalism, as with much of sports media, is light and generally complimentary to the growth of the game in one way or another. People watch sport partially to escape some of the more serious media of the world, a welcome departure from important yet distressing geopolitical conflicts or global economic trends for e.g. As a result, sporting press is, generally speaking, necessarily more trivial and regularly promotional in nature. Rarely is it that deep.

There should be space in press conferences for a mix of serious and light hearted questions. Largely because they have different, if similarly important, audiences. Jonathan’s unusual question above, about Sinner’s ‘saintly or sinner’ mindset was very much appreciated by some of Sinner’s younger fans on social media. Seen as a much needed, comedic break from some of the poorly researched, stuffy, and repetitive questions that garner non-answers from players. On the flip side, when the situations do arise where a serious question needs a serious answer, those asking the questions should be given ample time and space to do so. How to prioritise these two sides to tennis media, serious journalism and promotional journalism, is something tennis needs to build into its current conversations about how the tennis press moves forward. Perhaps a rethinking of how and when access takes place (tennis is famously restrictive outside pressers compared to some other sports) is needed to help strike this balance more fairly, and more accommodatingly, for both types of media. After all, a lot of the coverage that these quotes turn into is good for the growth of the game. And despite a lot of bad press recently, there are countless hard working tennis journalists busting their poorly-paid arses, week-in week-out, to support both this sport and themselves.

So as the red dust settles in Paris, and the sporting world continues a self-examination in the wake of an especially tough couple of weeks for journalists — a microcosm of a tough last decade for the profession as it navigates deep technological upheaval — there will be plenty of chances to reflect and identify the best ways to move forward. But please, be wary of the easy, underserving targets among the collateral damage. And if you must step up on your soapbox to call out problems, be quicker to identify those partly responsible for the explosion in the first place, rather than those merely standing in the blast radius.

— MW

See you on Sunday

Twitter @MattRacquet

If you have any questions or thoughts about what you just read you can leave a comment below & I’ll answer it. No question is dumb.

The Racquet goes out twice a week, a (free) topical piece every Thursday and a (paid) analysis piece every Sunday/Monday.

Top photo credit: AP

// Looking for more?

(Most recent) Medvedev Loves(?) The Clay? https://theracquet.substack.com/p/medvedev-lovesthe-clay

Osaka Boycotts The Press: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/naomi-osaka-boycotts-the-press

Federer Redux - The Iceberg Flips: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/the-federer-redux

Rome Final Analysis - Nadal vs Djokovic: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/rome-final-nadal-vs-djokovic

Stop Screwing Umpires On Clay: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/lets-stop-screwing-the-umpires-on

Analysis of the Tsitsipas vs Rublev Monte Carlo Final: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/monte-carlo-final-tsitsipas-vs-rublev

Do Flatter Hitters Have it Harder On Clay? https://theracquet.substack.com/p/daniil-medvedev-does-not-like-the

The Modernisation Of Tennis: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/the-modernisation-of-tennis

Tennis’ Identity Crisis: The Umpire Problem https://theracquet.substack.com/p/tennis-identity-crisis

Analysis of the Djoković Medvedev Australian Open Final: https://theracquet.substack.com/p/the-racquet-micro-not-macro-match