Week 34 - US Open Qualifying (hard)

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

RE: Week 34 - US Open Qualifying (hard)

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Good post by Sheddie there. The right wing press and the LTA and British Tennis being 'Toryish' will never support Naomi and players like her, the agenda has been set. Good on Naomi by sticking by her principles. I'm not a fan of Davis Cup or Fed Cup, it's not tennis for me. Any 2 fingers up at the establishment wins my support if justified and Naomi's meets my criteria.

-- Edited by Jaggy1876 on Sunday 27th of August 2017 12:56:32 AM

All the press are as bad as each other and there are plenty of champagne socialists around.

Sheddie · administrator

Indeed, it would be the same whatever the political leaning of the media outlet....whether it's the Sun or the Daily Mirror....the Telegraph or the Guardian. When it comes to most sports coverage I'd say that's largely irrelevant.

Lets say (out of 12 questions), Naomi was asked 8 about the Bebo-gate incident and subsequent fallout with the LTA where journalists were really pressing for answers, and she was asked 4 about the match.

Even if she spoke at length about the match, her coaching plans, next opponent etc in those 4 questions, that would largely be seen as irrelevant. "The story", as it were, is the Broady family feud with the LTA. That creates the headlines, drives the reads, and earns the ad revenue (which all papers, independent of political leaning, depend on to survive).

That is essentially how the media works. You might get a slightly more considered piece in the traditional broadsheets (Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent etc) which incorporates more of the full press conference quotes, compared to the tabloids, purely because their journalists are allowed more words in which to cover the story (800-1500 say rather than 300-500). And that's because they have more print space, invest more in slightly longer-form pieces because of their target audience.

In terms of the quality of tennis coverage of the various outlets (and I speak from experience having worked for a lot of them), it mostly comes down to money. I'd say the NY Times has possibly the best coverage of all, in terms of sheer diversity of stories, and unusual stories (disclosure: I wrote for them in 2013 and still contribute on an ad-hoc basis), but that's because they still generate more print and online subscriptions than almost any outlet, and therefore have the cash to pay 2 staff writers for every single slam (most outlets can only afford to send 1 staffer). Plus they have a budget which allows them to take chances on a more diverse range of stories, without worrying about whether they're gonna convert into ad money, which gives their brilliant range of staff writers (Chris Clarey, John Branch, Harvey Araton etc), and superb freelancers like Ben Rothenberg, the freedom to chase those stories.

It's exactly the same when it comes to magazines. TENNIS magazine, have more subscriptions than any other, and so more resources to 'take chances' on stories rather than being forced to go headline-hunting, eg: they invested in me to write this long-form feature about the Syrian Davis Cup team last year (if you haven't seen it, please give it a read!) : www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/02/horror-redemption-and-hope-story-syria-davis-cup-team/57641/

In contrast, that kind of feature wouldn't have been viable at the now defunct Tennis View Magazine, where I was the lead writer for a couple of years, there simply wasn't the financial resources. Instead we were limited to chasing interviews with the big names, often conducted via phone/email as speciality magazines come fairly low down the pecking order when sports agents grant interview access for their star names, in an attempt to sell magazines....and relying on a network of unpaid bloggers who covered tournaments for the fun of it. There wasn't the money to attract the really experienced pros with the insights and contacts to tell the very best stories. And ultimately the print magazine folded in 2015.

Sheddie · administrator

In terms of Naomi's story, I think the whole situation was extremely badly handled and allowed to blow far out of proportion. She was guilty of no more than naivety, back in those days social media was in its infancy, Bebo had only been mainstream for a year or so. Few journalists at the time even thought of turning to it for stories, that took a few years, and as such many "celebrities" thought little of posting what we'd now consider 'ill-judged' photos or content on pages which were open to view for all, never mind a 16-17 year old junior tennis player who was probably little known outside of this forum.

To put Naomi's story into context, its worth remembering that back in 2006-2007 Kim Sears had a Bebo page, open to public view without thinking too much of it. While hers didn't have anything like the same content which eventually landed Naomi in hot water, it had a lot of jokes and quips which were clearly intended just for her friends, not the wider public.

Kim only thought to make her page private when the owner of an Andy Murray fansite spotted an opportunity to cash in, and attempted (and possibly even did) sell a story to a national newspaper based on things she'd written on her page, and members of that fansite sent her messages via Bebo to warn her of what was happening.

indiana · Tennis legend

The LTA probably handled it very badly and went OTT. The Broadys made it the long running saga which would otherwise have been long forgotten.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

And that is why if I was Naomi I would still find the whole situation painful enough to not really want to engage with the LTA despite it potentially being in my best interests.

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

Sheddie wrote:
Indeed, it would be the same whatever the political leaning of the media outlet....whether it's the Sun or the Daily Mirror....the Telegraph or the Guardian. When it comes to most sports coverage I'd say that's largely irrelevant.

Lets say (out of 12 questions), Naomi was asked 8 about the Bebo-gate incident and subsequent fallout with the LTA where journalists were really pressing for answers, and she was asked 4 about the match.

Even if she spoke at length about the match, her coaching plans, next opponent etc in those 4 questions, that would largely be seen as irrelevant. "The story", as it were, is the Broady family feud with the LTA. That creates the headlines, drives the reads, and earns the ad revenue (which all papers, independent of political leaning, depend on to survive).

That is essentially how the media works. You might get a slightly more considered piece in the traditional broadsheets (Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent etc) which incorporates more of the full press conference quotes, compared to the tabloids, purely because their journalists are allowed more words in which to cover the story (800-1500 say rather than 300-500). And that's because they have more print space, invest more in slightly longer-form pieces because of their target audience.

In terms of the quality of tennis coverage of the various outlets (and I speak from experience having worked for a lot of them), it mostly comes down to money. I'd say the NY Times has possibly the best coverage of all, in terms of sheer diversity of stories, and unusual stories (disclosure: I wrote for them in 2013 and still contribute on an ad-hoc basis), but that's because they still generate more print and online subscriptions than almost any outlet, and therefore have the cash to pay 2 staff writers for every single slam (most outlets can only afford to send 1 staffer). Plus they have a budget which allows them to take chances on a more diverse range of stories, without worrying about whether they're gonna convert into ad money, which gives their brilliant range of staff writers (Chris Clarey, John Branch, Harvey Araton etc), and superb freelancers like Ben Rothenberg, the freedom to chase those stories.

It's exactly the same when it comes to magazines. TENNIS magazine, have more subscriptions than any other, and so more resources to 'take chances' on stories rather than being forced to go headline-hunting, eg: they invested in me to write this long-form feature about the Syrian Davis Cup team last year (if you haven't seen it, please give it a read!) : www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/02/horror-redemption-and-hope-story-syria-davis-cup-team/57641/

In contrast, that kind of feature wouldn't have been viable at the now defunct Tennis View Magazine, where I was the lead writer for a couple of years, there simply wasn't the financial resources. Instead we were limited to chasing interviews with the big names, often conducted via phone/email as speciality magazines come fairly low down the pecking order when sports agents grant interview access for their star names, in an attempt to sell magazines....and relying on a network of unpaid bloggers who covered tournaments for the fun of it. There wasn't the money to attract the really experienced pros with the insights and contacts to tell the very best stories. And ultimately the print magazine folded in 2015.

Excellent post Sheddie. I actually live about 100 yards from a now retired national newspaper tennis reporter[whose articles were a darned sight better than much of the sensationalist stuff churned out these days]. I remember vividly him telling me about all the interviews he conducted with big names from his office/upstairs room at home as well as at the actual tournaments.

-- Edited by hoots on Sunday 27th of August 2017 08:00:16 PM

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
The LTA probably handled it very badly and went OTT. The Broadys made it the long running saga which would otherwise have been long forgotten.

But why ,if you were treated as badly as Naomi was with the ramifications it caused,should the family just ''forgive and forget'' as if nothing happened? Sorry but don't agree with the second part of your post.

KK · Club Coach

Perhaps because the people in charge at the time have long gone.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, and it's the old cut off your nose to spite your face argument, which has been aired before regarding all this. The alternative was to take the short term punishment ( making very clear how much they disagreed with it and how she had really been slurred over the whole matter by some out of touch old fogies - maybe leave that last part out ) for the much bigger picture and then move on within the system. You're not necessarily either forgiving or forgetting. You are managing and restricting the longer term ramifications.

Anyway, they chose ultimate principle. It no doubt made the journey much tougher for many years but whether she would have been ultimately in a better position tenniswise, better funded and ( I accept very arguably ) better coached for a few years, we will never know. She has overall done very well and can say done it holding to such principles. It wouldn't have been my choice, I am maybe too big picture thinking and with that hmm maybe too unprincipled.

hoots · Intermediate Club Player

Ok-I think agree to disagree is the best way to conclude this subject.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Yes it's good to have a flavour of opinion some very good posts from Sheddie, Oakland and Coup Droit on the topic. I believe in standing by principles in life and I have a lot of respect for the Broadys in doing the same. I don't agree it's cutting off your nose to spite your face as has been suggested it's more a case of being true to yourself and what you believe. Anything else is a contradiction unless the circumstances change that would allow so and that's never going to happen in this country with the hierarchy we have.