Excellent and thoughtful analysis. Thanks. Do you know if journalists are limited to a certain number of questions per media conference? How about: You spent last night at the pub instead of preparing for your match against Rafa on centre court today at Wimbledon. Do you think if you had not gone to the pub you would have won? The first statement was incorrect (he left at 11 pm and drank mineral water); the second was...absurd. The entire world had just watched what had gone into the record books at Wimbledon as one of the finest second round matches ever played there. And they wonder why he's turned his back on the sport?
What astonishes is how little there is written about the tennis being played on the court. I'd like to hear about that.
As to press conferences, golfers used to just begin by going through the round (which they can do with perfect detail) and tell what shot they had and what they tried to do and what went wrong if it didn't work. I'd like something like that to start press conferences. Please, provide us with an analysis of the match. Or, please take us through the main moments in the match. Could have the moderator just always begin with that. Then journalists can ask follow-ups. At least it would begin on something substantive.
1. Imo, given the thorough mess across the board that was the "Osaka saga", direct damages and collateral damages have been and are being felt first, which is both normal and expected, before those like yourself who are truly interested in investing themselves towards a meaningful/positive evolution of both professional tennis and tennis journalism onwards can actually get across the opportunity that mess did create for self-examination/evaluation, re-assessment, solutions/recommendations/etc. = you're a pioneer at this point in time in your forward-looking position = congratulations and please do keep at it.
2. As far as the "Osaka saga" goes = perso, I hope both for Osaka herself and for professional tennis that she takes whatever means and whatever time she feels she should to be OK to get back to work = professional tennis competition.
3. As far as press conferences are concerned, a key point imo is to clearly differentiate between post-match press conferences and other more general/promotional/social/etc press gatherings. Press conferences after matches s/b focused on the match just played or matters directly related to it (injury, incident, etc), period. That's what's often rather frustrating about those press conferences = the least discussed matter is the match itself, from the player's perspective.
Also imo, post-match press conferences s/b compulsory only for the winner = post-match press conferences should always remain optional for the loser, that seems rather obvious to me. Players should really consider moving forward with tennis organisations/structures/etc to implement ASAP for all tournaments, at all levels.
4. Concerning your 2 specific examples of collateral damages, imo there's a fundamental difference between those.
a) In Oddo's case, imo Dimon's reaction is totally uncalled for and an overkill in the circumstances. Whatever Dimon's reasons were for his 100% unnecessary/dumb published comment on Oddo's question to Djokovic = Dimon's own personal problem, not Otto's professional problem. Granted Otto did miss the word "active" in his question, but anyone who reads a minimun about tennis (and Dimon certainly should as part of his own job) knows Otto is not only a top-notch journalist but an extremely respectful, well documented, thorough and interested/interesting tennis journalist/writer = I obviously automatically inserted the word "active' mentally when reading his question. And Djokovic's reaction was perfectly OK = he did make the correction about Söderling, but no big fuss/deal (which he's always more than prepared to, when he feels a specific situation calls for it), and was more than pleased to confirm himself what was the whole point of Oddo's question to start with = he, Djokovic, had actually defeated Nadal at Roland Garros, a very rare achievement indeed, and hence could achieve it on Philippe Chatrier at Roland Garros.
In Pinfield's case, let me make it clear that I know Pinfield's work a great deal less than Oddo's (the latter being one of the very few tennis journalists/writers whom I have been following/appreciating for years now) = my comments in Pinfield's case of a more general nature = imo, after-match press conferences should focus solely on issues directly related to the match (= the match itself and issues directly related to it). Questions of a more general nature s/b asked at general/promotional/social/etc press gatherings, which there are actually quite a few of at any tournament, and more so every year.
There is also a specific issue here that I feel is crucial at post-match conferences = these are compulsory for the players = this is a 100% business situation for both players and journalists = let's stick to business related matters and make sure there is a clear segregation between business and private life = matters relating to a player's name, religion, race, etc s/b totally off-limits imo in an after-match press conference (in general, in fact, as far as we're dealing with a business/work environment).
True that some of a specific tennis journalist/writer/blogger might highly appreciate more personal, different, etc type of questions to their idols, but there are other far more appropriate gatherings for that type of exchanges (blogs, twitter, etc). Perso, I very much doubt that Sinner himself appreciates questions/comments/remarks of the "sinner"/"angel" type = much more likely that he's more than had his share of all variations of school yard/sports/parks/etc bullying/nastiness/etc throughout his childhood and youth to expect to be treated now as who he has worked unbelievably hard to become = an excellent professional tennis player at one of his workplaces, fulfilling one of his work functions.
I think your dissection of the examples you used is right on, but not a complete enough sample.
My perception is that there are far too many hacks (to call them journalists is a misnomer) in the mix, simply because they're looking for sensational copy to sell, who look for trivial dirt, not genuine issues of principle, to generate controversy. This fact is why this overcorrection, however inappropriate, is happening. It's considered normal to tolerate this crap, but many of us are fed up with it.
These hacks, and then more who don't begin with this approach, just to keep up with sales, or hits, join this pack of hyenas, all with same purpose, who once drawing blood, go in together for a kill. It's disgusting, bullying behavior, forgetting that who they are pillaring is a fallible human being, not a target for them take out their own pitiful inadequacies on.
Furthermore, this describes too much of the media everywhere, not just sports. And as far as the relationship between media consumers and media generators, it's a chicken and egg thing. Most of us, unfortunately, devolve to the lowest common denominator if it's available, and the media has catered to this and generated an audience composed of a large contingent of mean idiots (thanks to Rush Limbaugh, etc.) who, for bluntly commercial reasons, they feel compelled to keep feeding. If correcting this puts said hacks out of a job, great, there will be more positions for people of integrity, who can ignore trivial sensationalism and rightfully hold the feet of people in power to the fire, something which barely happens in any kind of thoughtful, deep, analytical way now.
Excellent and thoughtful analysis. Thanks. Do you know if journalists are limited to a certain number of questions per media conference? How about: You spent last night at the pub instead of preparing for your match against Rafa on centre court today at Wimbledon. Do you think if you had not gone to the pub you would have won? The first statement was incorrect (he left at 11 pm and drank mineral water); the second was...absurd. The entire world had just watched what had gone into the record books at Wimbledon as one of the finest second round matches ever played there. And they wonder why he's turned his back on the sport?
Hear, hear!
What astonishes is how little there is written about the tennis being played on the court. I'd like to hear about that.
As to press conferences, golfers used to just begin by going through the round (which they can do with perfect detail) and tell what shot they had and what they tried to do and what went wrong if it didn't work. I'd like something like that to start press conferences. Please, provide us with an analysis of the match. Or, please take us through the main moments in the match. Could have the moderator just always begin with that. Then journalists can ask follow-ups. At least it would begin on something substantive.
Hello Matthew,
1. Imo, given the thorough mess across the board that was the "Osaka saga", direct damages and collateral damages have been and are being felt first, which is both normal and expected, before those like yourself who are truly interested in investing themselves towards a meaningful/positive evolution of both professional tennis and tennis journalism onwards can actually get across the opportunity that mess did create for self-examination/evaluation, re-assessment, solutions/recommendations/etc. = you're a pioneer at this point in time in your forward-looking position = congratulations and please do keep at it.
2. As far as the "Osaka saga" goes = perso, I hope both for Osaka herself and for professional tennis that she takes whatever means and whatever time she feels she should to be OK to get back to work = professional tennis competition.
3. As far as press conferences are concerned, a key point imo is to clearly differentiate between post-match press conferences and other more general/promotional/social/etc press gatherings. Press conferences after matches s/b focused on the match just played or matters directly related to it (injury, incident, etc), period. That's what's often rather frustrating about those press conferences = the least discussed matter is the match itself, from the player's perspective.
Also imo, post-match press conferences s/b compulsory only for the winner = post-match press conferences should always remain optional for the loser, that seems rather obvious to me. Players should really consider moving forward with tennis organisations/structures/etc to implement ASAP for all tournaments, at all levels.
4. Concerning your 2 specific examples of collateral damages, imo there's a fundamental difference between those.
a) In Oddo's case, imo Dimon's reaction is totally uncalled for and an overkill in the circumstances. Whatever Dimon's reasons were for his 100% unnecessary/dumb published comment on Oddo's question to Djokovic = Dimon's own personal problem, not Otto's professional problem. Granted Otto did miss the word "active" in his question, but anyone who reads a minimun about tennis (and Dimon certainly should as part of his own job) knows Otto is not only a top-notch journalist but an extremely respectful, well documented, thorough and interested/interesting tennis journalist/writer = I obviously automatically inserted the word "active' mentally when reading his question. And Djokovic's reaction was perfectly OK = he did make the correction about Söderling, but no big fuss/deal (which he's always more than prepared to, when he feels a specific situation calls for it), and was more than pleased to confirm himself what was the whole point of Oddo's question to start with = he, Djokovic, had actually defeated Nadal at Roland Garros, a very rare achievement indeed, and hence could achieve it on Philippe Chatrier at Roland Garros.
In Pinfield's case, let me make it clear that I know Pinfield's work a great deal less than Oddo's (the latter being one of the very few tennis journalists/writers whom I have been following/appreciating for years now) = my comments in Pinfield's case of a more general nature = imo, after-match press conferences should focus solely on issues directly related to the match (= the match itself and issues directly related to it). Questions of a more general nature s/b asked at general/promotional/social/etc press gatherings, which there are actually quite a few of at any tournament, and more so every year.
There is also a specific issue here that I feel is crucial at post-match conferences = these are compulsory for the players = this is a 100% business situation for both players and journalists = let's stick to business related matters and make sure there is a clear segregation between business and private life = matters relating to a player's name, religion, race, etc s/b totally off-limits imo in an after-match press conference (in general, in fact, as far as we're dealing with a business/work environment).
True that some of a specific tennis journalist/writer/blogger might highly appreciate more personal, different, etc type of questions to their idols, but there are other far more appropriate gatherings for that type of exchanges (blogs, twitter, etc). Perso, I very much doubt that Sinner himself appreciates questions/comments/remarks of the "sinner"/"angel" type = much more likely that he's more than had his share of all variations of school yard/sports/parks/etc bullying/nastiness/etc throughout his childhood and youth to expect to be treated now as who he has worked unbelievably hard to become = an excellent professional tennis player at one of his workplaces, fulfilling one of his work functions.
I think your dissection of the examples you used is right on, but not a complete enough sample.
My perception is that there are far too many hacks (to call them journalists is a misnomer) in the mix, simply because they're looking for sensational copy to sell, who look for trivial dirt, not genuine issues of principle, to generate controversy. This fact is why this overcorrection, however inappropriate, is happening. It's considered normal to tolerate this crap, but many of us are fed up with it.
These hacks, and then more who don't begin with this approach, just to keep up with sales, or hits, join this pack of hyenas, all with same purpose, who once drawing blood, go in together for a kill. It's disgusting, bullying behavior, forgetting that who they are pillaring is a fallible human being, not a target for them take out their own pitiful inadequacies on.
Furthermore, this describes too much of the media everywhere, not just sports. And as far as the relationship between media consumers and media generators, it's a chicken and egg thing. Most of us, unfortunately, devolve to the lowest common denominator if it's available, and the media has catered to this and generated an audience composed of a large contingent of mean idiots (thanks to Rush Limbaugh, etc.) who, for bluntly commercial reasons, they feel compelled to keep feeding. If correcting this puts said hacks out of a job, great, there will be more positions for people of integrity, who can ignore trivial sensationalism and rightfully hold the feet of people in power to the fire, something which barely happens in any kind of thoughtful, deep, analytical way now.