Good read. Thanks for the calm analysis. But not sure anything will change having read some of the worst responses to his deportation. Scary judgement by so many. Debate has gradually been eroded over the past 2 years. Sad state of affairs and yes, no winners.
"No winners" really does sum up this situation. I myself have cycled through many of the contradictory perspectives outlined in this piece, and in the end they don't cancel out; I'm just left saddened and exhausted by it all. But I'm glad to see someone acknowledge in writing how complex all this is, and how many ways this can be seen. It's entirely possible and justifiable to be furious at/disgusted with Djokovic, and also to be disappointed with aspects of the Australian government's handling of the situation, to say nothing of much of the media coverage surrounding this event.
I still think Tennis Australia have a ton of explaining to do, especially as I've read in various sources that December 10th or thereabouts was the original deadline for submitting health exemption paperwork ... so how was Novak even allowed to obtain an exemption with test results dated the 16th and 22nd? So many things still don't add up, but at this point I think most of us are done and just want to leave this sorry affair behind.
Once more, Matthew, thanks. I've preferred your commentary on this situation to the reporting of the major media outlets, including the New York Times, precisely for its nuance and thoughtfulness and scrupulous treatment of the facts. It's been a rough week for tennis fans, but reading this piece has given me, at least, the beginnings of some form of closure, and I look forward (hopefully) to some good tennis in the next fortnight and to your analyses of it.
I agree with your statement: "I’ve been amazed over the last week or so watching how simple, or black and white, many people (journalists, fans, players et al) seem to think this saga is. Good vs evil." I call it the plague of either-or thinking. While I question whether the approach Australia has taken in dealing with the pandemic is effective, I also have little sympathy for anyone who tries to enter the country knowing the stand the Australian government has taken. To me you have three choices: 1. get the vaccinations needed to enter, 2. submit valid paperwork to justify why you can't get a vaccine, or 3. don't go. I'm not a mind reader so I can't say what is Novak's motivation but I'm sure some people think he was trying to "game the system."
Given the resources we can reasonably assume are at the command of someone (anyone) who's garnered some $62M+ in lifetime prize money earnings, I don't think it far-fetched to believe TA winked at Team Djokovic in making the exemption while Team Djoko winked back when handing in their papers. Believing otherwise means believing both parties agreed that absent a recent positive test, which prevented Nole from being vax'd at the moment, he'd have been allowed into Os, which is clearly not the case. This doesn't include Nole's having blown past the cutoff date of 12/10 (a "soft" deadline or not) by some 6 days (which is undisbuted), or any questions re the validity of his positive test (perhaps debatable).
As to there being plenty of egg to go on the faces of all concerned, I have no disagreement. As to where the fundamental fault lies for this debacle, I fail to see how it does not land at the feet of Novak Djokovic.
This doesn't at all change the point you made, but I think your characterization of “stodgy paper(s) of record into juicy collection(s) of great narratives” as a "self-description" of the Times is incorrect. That was written by Ben Smith, who in his role as media editor acted more like a public editor, often criticizing the Times in the paper.
I think your point is a fair one, it may well have been more accurate to leave out or rephrase the 'self-description' wording. But I also don't think he's wrong and that the internal staff reference to it in the publication itself, even through someone with his reputation for critical introspection, is more significant that if it had been an outsider.
Thanks Matthew for your level-headed commentary throughout this entire saga.
Well Said! Well Said! Thanks for weighing in!
Phenomenal read.
Good read. Thanks for the calm analysis. But not sure anything will change having read some of the worst responses to his deportation. Scary judgement by so many. Debate has gradually been eroded over the past 2 years. Sad state of affairs and yes, no winners.
"No winners" really does sum up this situation. I myself have cycled through many of the contradictory perspectives outlined in this piece, and in the end they don't cancel out; I'm just left saddened and exhausted by it all. But I'm glad to see someone acknowledge in writing how complex all this is, and how many ways this can be seen. It's entirely possible and justifiable to be furious at/disgusted with Djokovic, and also to be disappointed with aspects of the Australian government's handling of the situation, to say nothing of much of the media coverage surrounding this event.
I still think Tennis Australia have a ton of explaining to do, especially as I've read in various sources that December 10th or thereabouts was the original deadline for submitting health exemption paperwork ... so how was Novak even allowed to obtain an exemption with test results dated the 16th and 22nd? So many things still don't add up, but at this point I think most of us are done and just want to leave this sorry affair behind.
Once more, Matthew, thanks. I've preferred your commentary on this situation to the reporting of the major media outlets, including the New York Times, precisely for its nuance and thoughtfulness and scrupulous treatment of the facts. It's been a rough week for tennis fans, but reading this piece has given me, at least, the beginnings of some form of closure, and I look forward (hopefully) to some good tennis in the next fortnight and to your analyses of it.
I agree with your statement: "I’ve been amazed over the last week or so watching how simple, or black and white, many people (journalists, fans, players et al) seem to think this saga is. Good vs evil." I call it the plague of either-or thinking. While I question whether the approach Australia has taken in dealing with the pandemic is effective, I also have little sympathy for anyone who tries to enter the country knowing the stand the Australian government has taken. To me you have three choices: 1. get the vaccinations needed to enter, 2. submit valid paperwork to justify why you can't get a vaccine, or 3. don't go. I'm not a mind reader so I can't say what is Novak's motivation but I'm sure some people think he was trying to "game the system."
Given the resources we can reasonably assume are at the command of someone (anyone) who's garnered some $62M+ in lifetime prize money earnings, I don't think it far-fetched to believe TA winked at Team Djokovic in making the exemption while Team Djoko winked back when handing in their papers. Believing otherwise means believing both parties agreed that absent a recent positive test, which prevented Nole from being vax'd at the moment, he'd have been allowed into Os, which is clearly not the case. This doesn't include Nole's having blown past the cutoff date of 12/10 (a "soft" deadline or not) by some 6 days (which is undisbuted), or any questions re the validity of his positive test (perhaps debatable).
As to there being plenty of egg to go on the faces of all concerned, I have no disagreement. As to where the fundamental fault lies for this debacle, I fail to see how it does not land at the feet of Novak Djokovic.
Excellent, Matt, thank you. Here’s hoping for some good narratives to emerge over the next two weeks as the tournament gets underway.
This doesn't at all change the point you made, but I think your characterization of “stodgy paper(s) of record into juicy collection(s) of great narratives” as a "self-description" of the Times is incorrect. That was written by Ben Smith, who in his role as media editor acted more like a public editor, often criticizing the Times in the paper.
See here: https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/03/in-his-first-media-column-for-the-new-york-times-ben-smith-says-journalisms-problem-might-be-the-new-york-times/
I think your point is a fair one, it may well have been more accurate to leave out or rephrase the 'self-description' wording. But I also don't think he's wrong and that the internal staff reference to it in the publication itself, even through someone with his reputation for critical introspection, is more significant that if it had been an outsider.
Agreed.
I still can't believe this is the timeline we are in