If you follow this blog you  might of known I went to Chicago last weekend to attend the Blog With Balls 3.0 (BWB) Conference, and was invited to be part of the “You’ve Gotta Fight For Your Right…to Blog?: A Legal and Ethical Primer to Sports Media in 2010” panel. I wasn’t sure what to expect. I certainly was feeling like the odd girl out (literally One Sport Voice), as I explained it to the audience:  I represented a ‘Trifecta of Tokenism’ as 1) one of the few females in attendance (~15 of 150 attendees were female), 2) an academic who studies and critiques sport media, and 3) someone who writes and advocates for women’s sport. I’d add one more…I don’t blog to make money, my blog is an offshoot of my teaching, research and outreach. After this weekend where I learned that some blogs get +3 million unique visitors a month, I’m fairly certain I’ll never make money from my One Sport Voice blog.

As my fellow panelists and I were attempting to discuss various legal and ethical issues in an engaging way, the best part of the panel is that we did not agree on anything. You can see a video of most of the panel here courtesy of Justin.tv I think there are not enough instances where people can disagree publicly and have an engaged discussion-I’ve written about this in a previous blog. Our panel I think accomplished this task. I enjoyed meeting my fellow panelists and some have posted their thoughts of their experiences at BWB 3.0 including Alana G of Yardbarker and Josh Zerkle of PUNTE. I learned a great deal from them and others in attendance.

Whether you thought the panel was great or stunk (follow the Twitter hash tag #bwb3 to tweets about conference and our panel), there were some big  picture BWB take-aways for me.

1. Most people (including mainstream sport bloggers) do not care about women’s sport, female athletes, gender issues or the sexualization of women in general. I did not hear ONE mention or discussion of female athletes or women’s sport in the entire conference. When females were mentioned it was as a) sexual objects of professional male athletes or, b) “mommy bloggers”. It seemed the assumption at BWB was that if women blog, they blog about mom stuff but if you are a male blogger you blog about sports. I did not hear anyone refer to themselves or other male bloggers in attendance as “daddy bloggers”. This may seem trivial, but the language used to describe “mommy” bloggers marginalizes them and makes it seems as if what they write about isn’t valued or important. I could get into a long blog about how the opinions and domestic work of mothers is under valued in society but I won’t. It also erases the fact women do blog about men’s sport (in fact most of the women at BWB wrote exclusively about men’s sport) and that men do blog about women’s sport (although I didn’t meet any of them at BWB).

To witness the many women and men who blog about women’s sports go to the Women Talk Sports Network.

Call to action: Those who blog about women’s sport and those women who call themselves sport bloggers, get yourself to the next Blogs With Balls conference.

2. I mentioned before my fellow panelists did not agree on much, which was both good and bad. As I listened to the opinions and thoughts of my fellow panelists discuss what kind of (ethical) decision making they engage in while deciding to post/not post or break a story, one theme was “everyone makes his/her own choices and decisions” which reflects moral relativism.  Those who adopt a moral relativistic perspective think there are fundamental and irreconcilable disagreements about right and wrong and may believe that respect for others means that we must tolerate value differences. This is obviously problematic and leads to many of the ethical issues which arise in the blogosphere.

Should there be a universal code of ethical decision making regarding what is posted on a blog? I would argue “yes”. Can sport bloggers reach an agreement about right/wrong and guiding principles which guarantee human rights and dignity… sadly, I think not.  I, and other scholars much more versed in moral education, believe there are universal moral principles such as care and fairness. So how do you get people to critically think about what they write about and consume?

Researchers have argued that critical thinkers are much more likely to engage in ethical decision making which have three criteria according to Ennis (2000):

• care that their beliefs are true and that their decisions are justified; that is, they care to get it right to the extent that it is possible;
• care to present a position honestly and clearly, theirs as well as others’; and
• care about the dignity and worth of every person.

Some bloggers may prioritize personal and financial gain and exposure over doing the right thing for the right reason, or doing what is best for all parties considered as a member of a collective society.  Call me naive and Pollyanna but I think striving to make moral and ethical decisions is a worthy endeavor, and one that the blogosphere in general could benefit from undertaking. I think this will increasingly become relevant as digital media becomes the primary source of news and information, and issues of blog censorship arise.

Photo from here.

PANEL

• Jonah Keri
• Dr. Nicole M. LaVoi (U. of Minnesota)…ME!
• Alana Nguyen (Yardbarker)
• Josh Zerkle (With Leather, House of Punte, Kissing Suzy Kolber)
• Moderator: Jason McIntyre (The Big Lead) (Jason’s blog was just purchased for a “low seven figure” amount)

I’m not exactly sure what we are tackling but some of the issues we’ll likely discuss from our varying opinions include: LeBron’s mom-Delonte West, coverage of the Hundley-Phillips relationship, Ben Roethlisberger, and FCC pending law on regulating political blog content and other exciting topics! What we won’t be talking about is the Kagan-softball-lesbian “issue” or how women’s ice hockey in the Olympics is continuing to be assaulted, the NCAA Women’s College World Series, or Venus Williams’ 2010 French Open outfit.

Stay tuned for post-conference thoughts.

p.s.- the bidding for One Sport Voice starts at six figures…

photo from here

One is about the scarcity of female coaches in youth sport and the other is about gender differences & similarities in coaching.

I’d love your feedback as this is a bit a work in progress. Here is what I’d like feedback on:

• Content
• Length
• How could these best be used?
• What other topics would you like to see in a DYK?
• Any other feedback you feel is relevant.

Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

(thanks to Austin Stair Calhoun for overlaying the cool music!)

Today’s piece was from Jonathan Klein, president of CNN, in which he discusses the power of images.

I have thought a great deal about this in the last year and a half, as a result of reading two good books Slide:ology and presentation zen. The authors of both books have challenged me to think about how I visually represent concepts when I give a lecture or workshop.

For example when I talk to coaches about writing a coaching philosophy, I use this image to portray that one’s philosophy is always changing and provides a road map for where you want to go as a coach and with one’s team.

Klein ends his TED presentation with showing  the one image he has hanging in his office. What would your image be?

picture from http://www.alltelleringet.com/

One Sport Voice is one year old!

Nearly one year ago at the urging a few tech saavy women around me, I decided to begin blogging. I wanted to, but needed a push. I desired to blog to create an outlet for sharing my thoughts and critical perspective on everyday things, hone my thinking and writing, and have a place to share with a wider audience some of the work I do that usually only shows up in academic journals. I felt I had a unique perspective about sports to share, and one not usually represented in many media outlets. I also wanted to answer Dave Zirin’s call he made in Contexts for academics, particularly sport sociologists, to “get off the bench.”

I am so glad for starting to blog for the following reasons, I have…

• met and connected with an entire network of creative, smart, and sports-minded women I would have never had the opportunity to meet if I didn’t start blogging (Thanks in part to Women Talk Sports Network!).
• sharpened how I make my arguments, including improving my ability to see and accept both sides of an issue.
• learned how to accept criticism of my work and my perspective, and not take it personally.
• learned that a critical perspective of sports is not a common one outside the ivory tower of academe.
• passed on what I have learned to my students and used my blogs as teachable moments in the classroom. This has helped connect abstract concepts to real life material, which I find enhances learning and increases student engagement.
• been invited to participate in blog panels and talk about my experiences in blogging.
• learned that everything I write is public, for better or worse…misspelled words, bad grammar, incorrect information and all!
• encouraged other women to make their voices heard in the blogosphere and claim what they know or think.
• thought about how easily I can be “found” on the WWW and how that is both good (i.e., brand recognition, marketing, relevancy) and bad (i.e., stalking, safety, can’t filter who reads or follows) for me personally and professionally.
• wondered who is reading my blog and the reasons behind what drives them to continue to visit.
• felt elated, proud, attacked, silenced, hesitant, skeptical, surprised, edified, and everything in between!
• (I hope) become a better writer, teacher, and researcher.
• thought about how digital media can both empower and further oppress marginalized groups who get so little attention in mainstream print and digital media.
• been honored and have enjoyed when blog readers send me stories they think I might turn into blog fodder or want to hear my “take” on a certain issue (keep sending me things!).
• wondered if I will run out of things to say.

…and most of all I have felt compelled to continue to blog.  Thank you for reading this blog–One Sport Voice. I hope you will visit often, comment when you feel moved to do so, and encourage others to do the same.

1. It has been noted elsewhere by colleagues at the John Curley Center for Sport Media and Pat Griffin that commentators (and female athletes themselves!) continually call the adult female athletes “girls”, rather than women. I have yet to hear male athletes referred to as “boys”. They outline why this is problematic in a very clear and concise way, and is worth a read.

2. Despite the fact the first-ever Pride House for LGBT athletes and friends at the Vancouver Winter Olympics (which does not have any official affiliation with International Olympic Committee or the Canadian Olympic organization), sport media commentators continue to make derogatory remarks about certain athletes masculinity and femininity (or more accurately, the lack thereof). This is particularly true when it comes to US men’s figure skater Johnny Weir, the target of many stereotypical jokes. I watch The Today Show on NBC most mornings and it never fails that Matt Lauer, Meridith Vieira and Al Roker will make a joke or imply something about an athlete’s sexual orientation–listen for it!

3. If you’re watching ski jumping, you probably won’t hear a word from sport commentators about female ski jumpers, as the IOC voted last year to not allow them to compete.  Much of the general public has no idea about this issue, as evidenced by the Huffington Post article a friend sent me last week. She thought I’d “want to know” and she was  surprised and a bit outraged these women were denied the opportunity to compete. I had to laugh, as I (and many others) have been following this story for some time it seemed like old news.

Sports Illustrated Covers of Olympic Skiers

In rebuttal to the “Vonn Watch” Sports Illlustrated cover blog post I made, many people commented and pointed out that A.J. Kitt was similarly posed in 1992 and no one called it sexual. I don’t recall  the media buzz, so I’ll have to take their word on this point, but I’m inclined to believe it to be true.

Many argued the cover of Kitt was “exactly the same” which provided evidence that male athletes, particularly skiers, can be similarly portrayed in the media.

I would argue from a sport media research perspective that these covers, while at first glance appear to be “exactly the same”, they are in fact not similar in many key facets. The reason why the Kitt photo is unlikely to be interpreted as sexualized, while the Vonn cover might, is the focus on this post.

1. Kitt is literally “in action” doing his sport, Vonn is posed in a tuck position–she is not literally skiing.

2. Kitt has his helmet on, Vonn does not. Skiers don’t ski without their helmets.

3. Kitt is looking down the hill as he would DURING COMPETITION, Vonn is posed looking sideways (not downhill) into the camera.

4. Kitt appears to be actually in context on the mountain, Vonn in her picture appears to be super imposed with the mountains in the background. (However, I am not certain of this)

5. Kitt is leaning down the hill which connotes forward motion during his event, Vonn is static and while she is in a tuck position there are many other positions she performs in the course of a race that could of been used that might be construed as less sexualized.

Another point many made on the blog about this photo comparison, is that we had to “see Vonn without her helmet” because otherwise no one would know who she is because skiing is such an obscure sport. However, Kitt is pictured with his helmet on where we can’t see his face. He is identified by a caption. I would argue skiing is no more or less obscure today than it was in 1992. Therefore, the argument that we need to “see Vonn’s face” to know who she is does not hold up.

I will make one last point that might lend credence to the sexualized argument (albeit subliminally). There is one ironic twist to the Vonn cover photo if you didn’t catch it prior. Someone who works in the media pointed out to me that if you look at how the text in the bottom right corner aligns, you can clearly see the word “AsS” is spelled out vertically (start with the capital “A” in America and look down to the next line of text). Is this coincidental?

Is it great that a female was on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Olympic preview issue–YES! Could the photo chosen been a better representation of the great athleticism and talent of Lindsey Vonn–YES!

Social media is both good and bad, both positive and negative. It challenges and reproduces gender stereotypes. It allows female athletes and advocates of women’s sport to control the message and it is also a residual of traditional media (meaning social media has converged with traditional sport media…like ESPN channel and its social media correlate ESPN.com so therefore it really is not different). Social media is a space to promote women’s sport in the abasence of traditional media coverage and it is a site of unedited and unmediated backlash towards women’s sports. It is a powerful tool to promte women’s sports and also a tool that can hinder its progress.

Discussing social media in binary terms of good/bad erases the fact that women’s sports are forced to turn to and use social media as a way to promote themselves and their sport because of the lack of coverage in mainstream media. I think that is the bigger issue.  How can we tap into more progressive notions and mobilize ourselves to create social change–both in mainstream and social media.

However, this notion is predicated on the idea that everyone involved in women’s sports is on the same page. This is just not true. Diverse viewpoints  fosters rich dialogue and how issues are taken up varies,  for example: “Serena on the cover of ESPN magazine is beautiful” to “Serena is setting back women’s sport”.

Here is my question: Is it possible to create social change and challenge the system if we’re not all on the same page? Who’s page counts? Who decides?

What do you think?

On Tuesday I was at my computer and looked over the TweetDeck and saw that WNBA player Janel McCarville was live on her UStream channel JMACTV. I’d heard about Candace Parker using UStream but hadn’t checked it out yet, so clicked on the link and….ta dah!…there was Janel. As a Minnesotan, two-time Gopher Alum and now Gopher faculty, huge fan of women’s basketball, and advocate/scholar of women’s sport, I’ve been a long time fan of Janel McCarville (no hate Janel, only love!). Who can forget the Whalen/McCarville dynasty in The Barn!

I thought, “This is really cool… instant access to an elite female athlete“, as I watched her looking at and responding to the comments and questions from the 60+ fans watching her. I shouted through my office door to my two graduate students to “check this out”. Then I took a harder look and wrinkled my brow, “Is she in the bathroom?” I asked them, “and is she really cutting her own hair?” (see screen shot)  Somehow I was a bit disturbed by this. I immediately wasn’t so sure this was cool anymore—or good for women’s sports. So given this subject has been top of mind, I tweeted about it—twice (see screen shot below).

I continued to watch for about 10mns, and then shut down for the day. I continued to think about it over the next day or so.  In the course of “doing my warm up activities” for the day (aka surfing), I looked at my @ replies on Twitter and saw that my tweets had incited quite a bit of outrage, and a direct response from Janel herself! (see screen shot right, it will enlarge if you click on it). The tone of the responses was “lighten up, this is just silly and fun and everyone but YOU thinks this is great”. Fair enough. I responded to Janel via Twitter:  “@JanelMcCarville No anger, just continuing conversation re: women’s sport & social media, both pro/con. See http://bit.ly/352s8T“. But I felt badly for criticizing her and it bothered me.

I learned a few valuable lessons which may be instructive as we all move forward and think about how to use social media effectively to positively promote women’s sports.

First, if social media is truly a two-way conversation, then I should of phrased my tweet “What is your opinion about @JanelMcCarville’s UStream videocast?”

Second, attacking people on Twitter is just in poor taste and not classy. My apologies Janel. This has played out for KC Chiefs NFL player Larry Johnson this week, as he is paying the price literally and in the media and  for using a homophobic slur. It will continue to occur with increased frequency as social media becomes part of the way we communicate.

Third, shortly thereafter I read a great piece by Q McCall of www.swishappeal.com on Feministing.com titled,  Is there a “feminist responsibility” to support women’s sports? It put into context some of the guilt I felt. Why was I attacking a female athlete?  I’m supposed to support women’s sport. But on the other hand, as a feminist, scholar, and advocate of women’s sport  I often feel I have the responsibility to wave the red flag and point out when I see something that may not be a “good thing”.  Perhaps my role is to raise the issue, provide an alternative viewpoint, and promote respectful discussion.

It also got me thinking about where female athletes and women’s sport might be headed in terms of social media. If everyone  “loves it” (all 66 viewers)—is this our new model of promoting women’s sport? Is that what fans really want to see? Is this how fans want to interact with athletes? Where is the line between “good access” and access that, to borrow from C + C Music Factory,  “Makes You go Hmmmm”? As was pointed out to me,  Ron Artest of the LA Lakers, got his hair cut that same day…which garnered media attention. But if the men do it, should the women follow? Should we always be trying to emulate our male counterparts? (I’m not suggesting that is why Janel chose to UStream, she’d have to tell us the inspiration). Is it possible male athletes use social media differently because of disparate patterns of traditional media coverage? What are the similar and different ways elite male and female athletes use social media? How can female athletes take control and use social media in positive ways to combat sexism, inequalities, and disparities that are well documented in sport contexts? Is this a responsibility they should bear? In conclusion, I highlight Janel not to criticize or judge, but to provide an exemplar real-life issue to promote discussion about social media and women’s sports.

I don’t have the answer, only a lot of questions. What do you think?