I recently attended a play that featured in the theater lobby sculptures and paintings commonly referred to as modern art.  I do not profess to be a connoisseur of modern art. In fact I stand in front of most modern paintings and ponder not only what is it, but why is it there? I understand meaning for the modern paintings to be a subjective conclusion. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. In the following opinion I will adopt the free thinking/interpretation inherent to modern art and apply it to the content, and perhaps the very purpose, of sports commentary/reporting on television and radio.

 

Marshall McLuhan announced in his 1964 seminal work, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, that "the medium is the message." By this he meant that it is the medium itself that impacts our world and not the content of the message carried by the medium. The question became how, for instance, does television affect/impact our culture, not how the reports of violence affects/impacts our culture. Unequivocally television and radio have become the message when it comes to sports because they are the nexus for wedding sports to our very existence.

 

Several recent incidents in sports called into question the state of, or the content as McLuhan might state, or the purpose of sports, both televised and broadcast. While watching the fourth game of the 2007 World Series, a report was inserted noting that New York Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez would opt out of the remainder of his contract with the Yankees. That, in itself, is a worthy sports news item. The fact that Rodriguez is a Yankee and the Boston Red Sox, their rivals, were playing in the World Series is a divisive issue. Never shall the twain meet when it comes to integrating Red Sox' fans and Yankees' fans on any issue pertaining to either team. Inserting the report during the game, although important, would turn out to be the catalyst for sports pundits', and fans', prolific commentaries on the situation. In turn it diverted from the World Series and created divisive feelings regarding the timing of the report, thus rehashing the chasm between the common fan and the elite athlete. (In fairness, Rodriguez' agent, Scott Boras, issued an apology that the report made its way into the World Series telecast).

 

A few days after the World Series, I listened to reports on national sports radio that Los Angeles Dodgers' manager Grady Little would probably leave the Dodgers because of rumors that the Dodgers might desire another manager. What made me uncomfortable with this situation? First, Little was under contract for at least one more year. Second, the media would be the disseminator of insensitivity ("Hey, that's baseball.") and divisiveness ("I don't like the Dodgers and now I don't like the other team."). Little resigned from his position with the Dodgers and not long after former New York Yankees' manager Joe Torre was announced as the new Dodgers' manager.

 

Is it part of the responsibility of sports talk radio and any sports play-by-play event to take note of any such report? Sure it is, because it is part of the sports landscape. It appears to me, however, that increasingly the nature of sports banter is dominated by the unique issues that divide, not mold, the listeners and fans. Conflict, it seems, is alive and well and selling in sports. The A-Rod example manifests this point.  Another example of divisiveness is embodied in the Grady Little incident, which emphasizes the transitory nature of sports job security and callousness shown toward individuals. This issue reiterates divisiveness in sports with one side maintaining, "That is unfair," and the other stating, "That is status quo for sports." 

 

Have the media become the purveyors of insensitivity reflecting the jadedness that seems to be encroaching more and more into our society?  I am saddened to say yes, the pendulum is swinging in that direction.  Am I pining for the halcyon days when baseball games on radio would resonate through urban neighborhoods?  Yes, because that galvanized communities. Would I enjoy World Series moments refocused on words like those of Russ Hodges in 1951 when the New York Giants beat the Brooklyn Dodgers on Bobby Thompson's ninth inning home run to win the National League pennant. Hodges declared, "The Giants win the pennant; the Giants win the pennant; the Giants win the pennant." During the 1988 World Series, Jack Buck exclaimed "I can't believe what I just saw" after Kirk Gibson hit a pinch-hit home run to help the Dodgers beat the Oakland Athletics in game one of the World Series. The Dodgers went on to win the World Series.  Yes, I do somewhat envy those sentiments because those were halcyon days for those who savor such moments and for those who wished they could live those memories.

 

I am not naive and I am not too sentimental regarding old time sports content. There are many fine announcers today - this is not an indictment of those individuals.  My angst would be less, however, if the fallout from hearing a baseball game or sports report would unite, not polarize, the brotherhood of man. Too much content of sports today divides us and perhaps we who listen and watch sports are at fault because the medium truly has become too much the message.

 

For the record, I did enjoy, and understand, that play I recently attended.