Because many people often find the sports media industry as
an outlet and/or hobby to follow and participate in, it has become an aspect of
society that has influence on the contemporary political discourse we are
witnessing in today’s society. In 2016,
there is a reoccurrence of poor political speech present in certain segments of
the sports media industry, in particular, sports broadcasting and sports
analyst interviews. It is clear that the
responses and opinions of some sports analysts and broadcasters are not
accurate and concise, leading to bad speech, bad thinking, and bad politics.
While there are many instances that sports analysts and
broadcasters have reflected poor speech, I have pasted the link to a broadcast
that is an ideal example exhibiting speech that Orwell criticizes. The broadcast is from after the Thunder-Warriors
game 7 Western Conference Finals in the 2016 NBA playoffs, and the sports
analyst featured is ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith. Please click on the link below to watch the three minute video:
In the video, we can witness Smith’s repetition of key
points/phrases and lack of precision (as quoted by Orwell, “One is staleness of
imagery, and the other is lack of precision.”).
Additionally, and maybe most importantly, we can witness Smith’s attempt
to convince the audience of his acclaimed reason for the Thunder losing the
series – by “choking.” While it is
Stephen Smith’s job to communicate his opinion, his strong stance is in line
with Orwell’s point about “making lies feel truthful.” His belief and tone in that the reasoning for
the Thunder’s loss was because they “choked” is speech that tries to disallow
any other opinion on the subject. It is as if his opinion is the truth and any other
opinion is a lie.
The impact of Stephen A. Smith’s bad speech has an indirect result on the contemporary
political discourse we are undergoing in 2016.
It does not create contemporary political discourse in the same direct manner
as other current events. Current sport
events are not so often a topic of discussion in everyday conversation, and the
events are not necessarily important in the progress of society. Rather, the bad speech in the sports media industry
creates political discourse in that it can encourage any viewer to speak passively,
inaccurately, and untruthfully in any conversation one might have.
After watching the video of Mr. Smith, I found his speech to be interesting in terms of the points you bring up, because he uses facts to "validate" opinions. He lists several stats about the game including shots, points, etc. which invoke a sense of trust from the viewer. I didn't quite pick up on the vagueness and lack of precision while forming an opinion until the second time I watched it. This effect can be profound in any argument. If whoever is speaking or writing, can gain credibility early in a segment, it gives some credibility to the rest of what they say regardless of whether it's truthful or accurate. On the contrary, he's a reporter because he gets people's attention and is exciting to watch. He had far more emotion than the other two reporters and his argument still sounded somewhat structured which is his job. Nonetheless, I think this is a great example of how someone with a large audience can have an effect on his viewers and cause them to speak in a redundant, inaccurate, and passive manner as he does here, thus facilitating the degradation of the English language.
ReplyDeleteMichael I agree with you fully in the manner that Stephen A Smith is very bold and sticks out with over the top opinions on any team that ends up losing. I do agree with grant on this though that it is his job as a reporter to make stories more interesting with these opinions and he sticks out from any other reporter in the NBA in my opinion. I think his choice of language is not always the best way to get his point across and this is a problem for giving the audience facts about the game and not skewing the facts to his own opinion. It was rather refreshing to read a post that was not about the upcoming election though and found it to be a good example for the discussion. Thanks.
ReplyDelete