Said Charissa Thompson, a Fox Sports commentator, in a recent podcast, quoted in "Why Charissa Thompson’s comments on making up sideline reports are so damaging" (The Athletic).
“I feel bad about not reaching out to Charissa before posting [my tweet],” Okmin said.... "The hardest thing about this is you never want it to be woman against woman.... It’s a really uncomfortable thing because Charissa is in the middle of it right now, and I do feel horrible for her. But I’m speaking about the role. Our title is sideline reporter, and it’s important for any journalist, upcoming or current, to understand what comes with that definition...."
And Deitsch is pointing at something that I assume is woman-related but he declines to be clear:
Where [Thompson's] comments are particularly damaging... is that so many sports viewers still see sideline reporters in 2023 as useless or in dehumanizing terms.
What exactly is this opinion that he somehow knows viewers have and why the sideswipe at the viewers? At least spell out what you think they think. Is it "dehumanizing" to believe that the sideline reporters were hired because of their gender and their looks?
By the way, what about that principle "you never want it to be woman against woman"? Isn't that dehumanizing?! We'll never be equal until we can oppose each other as freely as men can oppose other men.
Posts
79 comments:
So she hasn't established rapport with the Coaches. Once you do that, maybe they seek you out to give you a comment. If not, you can just say "Well, the coach had no comment for me" -- is the true so hard for a journalist to utter?
I love Charissa Thompson, and I don't believe anybody is seriously mad about this "scandal".
We'll never be equal until we can oppose each other as freely as men can oppose other men.
Once in a while you get it. The corollary is that you’ll never be equal as long as valid criticism, made made by a man, is accepted as valid and not rejected because it came from a man.
Does anyone pay attention to those sideline chicks ? I don't.
"I haven't been fired for saying it ..."
That's the key takeaway. Leave the nice woman who's trying not to be a dick on twitter alone and go after the employer who lets the journalist who lies stay on the job.
so, just to be CLEAR.. everything (Every Thing) in professional "sports" is fiction.
This is why, i only watch WWE. At least wrestlin' is still pure.
Female sideline reporters are eye candy. It doesn't matter what they say.
I see no evidence. All debunked. Lets move on. Fast.
I want to kiss you. I couldn’t care less about the team struggling … I want to kiss you.
Hey, you want to read about a real issue of discord within the feminist's movement? Have a look at Hinderaker's post on Powerline this morning "The Women's Movement Is Worthless."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/the-womens-movement-is-worthless.php
I thought that his assessment of the movement as a means of advancement for only a select group of upper class progressive women was particularly insightful. When I read it I immediately came here believing that surely the professor would have a post and commentary on this piece that would be worth reading. I would love to know what her thoughts are and I'm using this as as way of bringing it to her attention
Deitsch's writing consistently pits himself against what he imagines is a less sophisticated sports fan.
Years ago he stepped in it, gushing on Twitter over an article that was later deemed transphobic and his team came after him just as if he was one of those troglodyte sports fans he hates.
1) If viewers think sideline reports are useless, then sideline reports are useless. The viewer's response is how we decide.
2) The sports reporter is generally considered to be one of the hardest jobs in news because they have to be able to write the same story over and over and make it sound fresh each time. (This is why she thought it would be ok to make up quotes--because you don't need to ask them to know what they're going to say.)
3) She should not have admitted she made up quotes--even though, as a practical matter, she quoted them accurately. She's still saying this is what they told her on this occasion, and that part is not true.
4) I see a theme--people being uncomfortable about something said not because it's not true, but because, in our hyper-sensitive society, someone might construe it as bigoted due to the biological status of the person criticized.
The fact that no one can point to which games Thompson made up the halftime communication with the coach is because that's one of the more vapid parts of sideline reporting.
If trailing: "Our offense needs to stop [describe negative thing], and start [opposite]. And on defense, we have to avoid giving up the big play."
If leading: "He told the guys they are where they wanted to be, but there's still 30 minutes of football to be played, and we can expect other team's best punch right out the gate."
99% of coach-speak is cliches, especially when they're trying to avoid giving any insight which might get relayed to the other team. They might as well be talking to AI.
You mean, because she knows so little about the sport that she cannot extemporize on camera? She can't synthesize a thought about the sport or the game that adds insight and value for the consumer? So she just makes up a story and pretends the coach actually said it, instead - she confects dramatic interest?
Great t*ts though. Equal in every way.
many sports viewers still see sideline reporters in 2023 as useless or in dehumanizing terms.
Good grief. Sports is entertainment. "Reporting" on it is like "reporting" on a TV soap opera. Sideline "reporting" is even less important. As she revealed, it's simply passing on canned comments from a coach. The coach could walk up to a mic stand and utter the words without any human interaction.
you never want it to be woman against woman.
So, feminism says Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris can never oppose each other for president.
Is it "dehumanizing" to believe that the sideline reporters were hired because of their gender and their looks?
Most are out there because of their looks. One exception is Holly Rowe; she is very good.
I've always liked Charissa, too. Tempest in a teacup.
Like anyone believes reporters don't ever make things up. . . . .
I spoke to a number of top media personalities I know, and they said that the media just needs to stop hurting themselves. They need to up their game in a number of areas. But they feel that if they stick to their gameplan and everyone does their jobs, they should be OK.
How many of you have read an article or a clip from an article from some news source who you know has a 'shaky' record for telling the truth? And so you have to go to one or two or three more sources to make sure that original source is not bullshit. I'm thinking...WaPo and the Russia Collusion 'leaks'. Or maybe the New York Times and any random Tuesday.
Making things up, as far as I can see, is a doctrine of modern Journalism schools. We have so many fabricators posing as 'news reporters' these days, it's completely unsurprising to me that Charissa (whom I've never heard of) is admitting this is what she sometimes does. With a shrug.
And...for the record, no actual fan of football gives a whit about the sideline reporters and their 30 seconds of nothingness. There was one good one- Pam Oliver. The rest are unnecessary.
Oh no, an assault on the integrity of Sports Journalism! She put coaching cliches in the mouth of a coach before he actually uttered them. Did she get the order wrong? Did she forget "we just gotta play one game at a time?"
Sideline interviews are generally just an easy Honey Shot for the camera crew.
What would Joe Namath have to say about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc65NC44dSk
Why should sport journalists be any different from hundreds of years of reportage.
Never let "facts" or "truth" get in the way of a good story. Or a bad story, either.
"when the legend becomes fact, print the legend"
Newspaper publisher to young reporter about why he would not print the true story of Rance Stoddard.
Ending of the movie "the man who shot liberty valence"
Great movie with Vera miles, Strother Martin and Lee Marvin.
Good supporting roles by John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, too.
John Henry
With the made up quotes, perhaps this reporter gal is simply trying out on camera for a legacy media "news" reporter role?
This proves that sideline reporters are in fact real journalists in the post-modern sense of the word.
A. She was wrong in doing that. B. Sideline Reporters are generally useless and don't add any tangible benefit to the viewer. I'm shocked the coach that is losing thinks his team needs to play better! Shocked!
no coach is gonna get mad
I can't read their mind Charissa, but I don't sense acceptance. I sense apathy. Same with the producers that didn't fire you previously, and the fans that watch the game on mute.
May I say this as a fan of 1) pretty women and 2) televised football games?
The pretty girl doing sideline "reports" is really pointless and I hope we do away with it........maybe this will be the catalyst.
Both women are good looking blondes. It would be a big help in clarifying this issue if one were homelier. I think most men want to stand up for the good looking blonde, but these two could be sisters.....I don't think it's possible for any human being to be unbiased, but it is possible to be honest about your biases. In a meta way, was that one reporter who admitted to making up stories being a more honest reporter? I think she might be a little hotter than the other girl so I'm inclined to take her side.
The Sideline Reporter is one of the more useless jobs in broadcasting. Have we ever learned anything useful by throwing it down to the field where a fully dolled-up Katie or LaQuisha babble some meaningless,banal sportstalk for 20 seconds?
Someone once said that if you aren't reporting things something doesn't want you to print your aren't a reporter, you're a publicist. I view sideline reporters as publicists.
Doesn't she know that you are supposed to quote "anonymous sources"?
As if anyone paid any attention to TV football chicks...or to sideline reports...or, especially, to TV football chicks doing sideline reports.
Or for that matter, to the same ol' canned crap football players say to TV football chicks on the sideline.
Sports is entertainment and the sideline reports are just a way to insert (almost always) beautiful women into the picture. Also, being a beautiful woman increases the chances that a coach or start player will talk to you. Who cares if they make up crap.
Also, it's so much easier to find beautiful blondes than a once in a lifetime charmer like Craig Sager.
I did a google image search for Charissa and Laura. Although they are both blonds, in genera, Charissa shows more skin and boob than Laura, making her a superior sideline reporter babe.
Keep on doing what you're doing, Charissa.
It's all about entertainment, and you all are doing a great job.
Go Steelers (who need to get their offense going and give their defense more time off the field)
Sideline football reporters are useless and always have been. Might as well make them a chick, at least they're pretty to look at. One positive about the NBA is there's little for "Sideline reporter" to do except tell us that that coach X wants to do ABC after halftime.
The only sideline sports reporters that are good are the ones in golf. Because they can tell you the lie of the ball and how difficult a shot the Pro Golfer has. Of course, half the time they're making inane comments like "So and So is really mad at himself for misjuding that shot".
BTW, except for the masters, USA TV Golf broadcasts have become so horrible, I just turn the sound off. Oh, for the Days of Dave Marr and Jim McKay. Or Peter Aliss.
To be fair, she wasn't hired to be a journalist, she was hired to keep male viewers tuned in. She knows that which is why she has no qualms admitting she lacks journalistic ethics. I would not be shocked to see Trump interviewing her for a press secretary position….
Holley Rowe is definitely not eye candy.
'No coach is gonna get mad if I say, 'Hey, we need to stop hurting ourselves, we need to be better on third down, we need to stop turning the ball over … and do a better job of getting off the field.' They’re not gonna correct me on that.'
And that's all you need to know about football.
"Michael K said...
Does anyone pay attention to those sideline chicks ? I don't."
I miss Jack Arute doing the sideline reporting.
For a couple years the Golden State Warriors had Ros Gold-Onwude. She was great, asked real questions and elicited real information. But then she went to ESPN or somewhere and got crushed by corporate politics. Sad.
LOL! Thompson is just doing what most journalists today (and probably in the past, too) are doing- just making shit up and reporting it as factual. Thompson is, at least, honest about the practice unlike all the rest.
"We'll never be equal until we can oppose each other as freely as men can oppose other men."
And pigs will never fly until they have stronger pectoral muscles. Bench press, pigs. Bench press, and maybe a few sets of flies. Believe me, it's worth it. The view from up here is like, intense.
I watch with the sound off, usually.
Madeleine Albright knows where insufficiently supportive women go. Look out for the side eye before you say that thing you think. Remember to be professional.
Does anyone pay attention to those sideline chicks?
Well yeah, I pay attention to Pam Oliver, even if she's not talking. And before ESPN fired all their good people, Suzy Kolber of course. I shared Joe Namath's opinion of her.
To the point the faker was making though, about putting words in the coaches mouths, just about every NFL fan could also accurately fake the jargon and generic coach-speak we get as they rush onto or off of the field. It's so easy this "reporter" did it...over and over.
Just for fun some network should get a couple of unattractive, overweight women to do these reports.
Ya know.......for laughs!
"The pretty girl doing sideline "reports" is really pointless and I hope we do away with it ...".
Back when I watched football, I used to think they should have a separate cheerleader channel;
"It looks like this is gonna be a pyramid-stack triple flip, that cute little tight end will be going up for the two-point split, and -- uh-oh, busted play! Oh, she really took a fall there! But she's right back on her feet, no harm done. Well, lets take a look at the game; so. The one guy threw it, and the other one caught it! Nice! Now they're all running around. OK, back to the action! That's Sukie Brown in the tight top with the piping, looks like she has a little tape on that hand, and they are now ... setting up for a ..... a double-fake aerial spreadeagle flip with costume malfunction! Oh, these girls are GOOD!"
Joe Namath knew how to handle those sideline interviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc65NC44dSk&t=1s
I was sports editor of my college newspaper. I made up football qoutes frequently. Pretty much no quotes in game stories. Features and opinions were different.
As a varsity athlete myself, nearly all the main characters were pals. I could have dropped quote bombs left and right but I would have lost access, immediately.
So, I would make up harmless versions of what guys were saying. People in the athletic department (players, coaches, etc.) could read between the lines but no one suffered because words spoken in haste, frustration or anger were never subjected to public scrutiny. No one objected. I was trusted.
This extended to our Collee Football Hall of Fame coach. I called him at home every Monday evening and we had a casual conversation about football, sports and people for about an hour (during which he might have refreshed a beverage). He knew I would report a few things he said - in my words not his. He was happy as a clam because he knew that whatever I shared, on his behalf, would not discredit the program or anyone in it.
I owed my readers the facts and my understanding and opinion of them. I was not their surrogate peeping Tom.
NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox... is it all one big act of journalistic legerdemain?
I think it's outrageous that a sideline "reporter" would feel comfortable enough making up reports that she would actually talk about it on podcasts. I'm generally not interested in what sideline reporters have to say, but it's an insult to viewers for one of them to talk about making up reports as if it should be regarded as an acceptable practice. She should be fired.
Something else I can't stand about football broadcasts is all of these pregame, halftime, and postgame shows that feature a panel of 6 or 7 former players and coaches, all wearing ridiculous suits, all competing with each other to see who can come off as the most egotistical buffoon on the planet. We don't need six or seven guys telling us about the game we are about to see or that we have just seen with our own eyes. Geez Louise. Just find one person -- doesn't have to be former player or coach -- who is intelligent, articulate, and can discuss the game without needing to feed his own ego or impress us with his sartorial choices, and that will be more than sufficient.
The hardest thing about this is you never want it to be woman against woman...
When it comes up scissors vs. scissors, sometimes you have to go again.
She should have a Charissa puppet and a coach puppet, and if she can't get an interview she could put on a puppet show!
I know I would be rooting for the puppet show.
On a more serious note, many aficionados lost interest in sportswriters and commentators when Ray Barone retired.
I'm remembering an 'up and coming' black football analyst, who made up a story about having breakfast with a head coach. He got the boot.
I can't find the story on the internet.
"[Y]ou never want it to be woman against woman..."
But what if mud or jello is involved?
Have to agree that sideline reporters in NFL games are as functional as nipples on a bull. Doesn't matter whether they are male or female. And frankly even if they do corral Joe Coach for a few quotes as he is hustling off to the half time locker room, what Joe has to say is usually inane. "We need to do a better job on defense". Well duh, his team is down 35 zip at half time. "We need to keep the momentum going". Well duh, his team is up 35 zip at half time.
Look a girl (and the sideline reporters are usually female these days) has to make a living somehow. And if running around on the sidelines of an NFL game carrying a microphone is how she does it, I won't object to that.
But I'm not terribly impressed with the doofuses up in the booth either. They are usually a retired jock for color and a sports announcer for what passes for play by play. Often the two of them are (justifiably) bored by what they are seeing on the field, and they wander off in verbal digressions.
I've got a friend who routinely watches NFL games with the sound off. Says he enjoys it better that way. I think he's on to something.
Dan Rather would smile up at her admission of fact-free reportage from his afterlife, were the scummy liar not still alive.
Wince, you made me laugh.
Yeah, the point is it's almost never worthwhile to pay attention to interviews of coaches or players in any circumstance; pregame, sideline, post-game ... it really matters not. You're rarely going to learn anything you didn't already know if you follow the sport closely.
And, if you were them, you'd do the same thing.
My concept for football on TV has been unchanged for decades - play by play announcers during game action, followed by cheerleader reality show the remainder of the broadcast. Pre-1973, long, loving shots of cheerleaders, combined with time in the cheerleader locker room. No need for sideline reporters at all. Women who want to be in on the action can do the needful.
Sideline reporters work for an entertainment company in the business of broadcasting football games. They are not real reporters, and if they add some excitement to watching the game, they are doing their job. I would imagine the players and coaches actually appreciate being injected into the commentary without having to spend the time talking to the reporter during the game. However, telling people that is what you are doing is a little like a magician giving away the secret to a magic trick.
Thompson is, at least, honest about the practice unlike all the rest.
She's done.
Yes it obviously happens a lot, the problem is she pulled back the mask. That is a sin in the journalism profession which no-one can be granted amnesty.
Dan Rather lost his career for something similar and it was one of his producers sources, not his source and certainly not him.
They rely on the faith that the viewer/reader believes what they say is true. She will become a non-entity. She has to fail to save the tribe.
"What exactly is this opinion that he somehow knows viewers have and why the sideswipe at the viewers? At least spell out what you think they think."
Maybe he has sources familiar with our thinking. Similarly it sounds like Thompson is her own source familiar with the coaches' thinking. It's sources familiar with their thinking all the way down.
""you never want it to be woman against woman"? Isn't that dehumanizing?!"
Not at all. Cultivating the sisterhood.
"We'll never be equal until we can oppose each other as freely as men can oppose other men."
Who said anything about equality? Feminism is the theory that women are special, so this kerfuffle fits right in.
Thesis: women will never "oppose other women"as men do men--for worse, but also for better.
Have to agree that sideline reporters in NFL games are as functional as nipples on a bull. Doesn't matter whether they are male or female. And frankly even if they do corral Joe Coach for a few quotes as he is hustling off to the half time locker room, what Joe has to say is usually inane. "We need to do a better job on defense". Well duh, his team is down 35 zip at half time. "We need to keep the momentum going". Well duh, his team is up 35 zip at half time.
Look a girl (and the sideline reporters are usually female these days) has to make a living somehow. And if running around on the sidelines of an NFL game carrying a microphone is how she does it, I won't object to that.
But I'm not terribly impressed with the doofuses up in the booth either. They are usually a retired jock for color and a sports announcer for what passes for play by play. Often the two of them are (justifiably) bored by what they are seeing on the field, and they wander off in verbal digressions.
I've got a friend who routinely watches NFL games with the sound off. Says he enjoys it better that way. I think he's on to something.
"Say it ain't so, Charissa! Say it ain't so!"
"I'm sorry, kid, I'm afraid it is."
I watch a lot of college football - and since the advent of the female, sideline reporter - I cannot remember a single time when I went, "Damn. Thanks for that information. It's very helpful."
Best I can tell it's just eye candy ... which is an insult to those reporters because I've seen many of them do better work in other situations.
Dan Rather lost his career for something similar and it was one of his producers sources, not his source and certainly not him.
Sorry, but there's a big difference between making up some coachspeak and trying to swing a Presidential election.
And to this day, Rather insists his fake, made-up bullshit was accurate.
Lowered expectations and productivuty is a common fallacy observed with individuals of both sexes and in the transgender spectrum.
"Just makin' stuff up" qualifies her for a White House assignment if Trump gets back in.
Broadway Joe: "I want to kiss you."
Don't most males translate this into "I want to f**k you"?
Because, what is a kiss anyway (in this situation, but a prelude to sex?)
I have spoken to Joe about that incident.
I'm not revealing what he said.
Or making up a fake quote for anyone.
He was drunk.
He's now sober.
This sideline babe is okay with fake quotes.
And she's not drunk.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
To participate in high level sports requires exceptional physical talents, and a capacity to live with the boredom of doing the same thing over and over. Most of coaching consists of seeing to it that your talented players keep doing the same thing over and over and over. There is thus quite a bit of predictability about what coaches and players will say pregame, at halftime, and postgame.
I'd be interested in an AI bot being assigned to do both coaches' and media commentary.
More people have weighed in on this subject than people who actually care about sideline reports.
What the hell?
The only reasons there are women commenting on what is an entirely male enterprise are:
1. The grorls (my then toddler son's word for those people) complained about being excluded from the treehouse, and
2. They are often quite attractive.
So a quite attractive woman spills the beans that nobody really cares what she says. Not a big deal, as long as she doesn't get in the way of the football.
This is not really about "journalism", which has its own issues.
It's about the boys and the grorls.
The boys want their own treehouse, but if you are a cutie, OK. Maybe.
It's just football.
Zogball really is all fake and gay huh
"Yeah, the point is it's almost never worthwhile to pay attention to interviews of coaches or players in any circumstance; pregame, sideline, post-game ... it really matters not. You're rarely going to learn anything you didn't already know if you follow the sport closely."
There's a reason the players and coaches cover their mouths when they meet on the mound in baseball. *That's* the kind of talk that would be interesting to hear, but you never will- at least, until the game is over.
I'm assuming this will get her a Pulitzer.
At least she knows her football, and how many runs each team has...
I’ve always been impressed by the really awful looking outfits Charissa wears.
Adults acting like children on national television during sporting events! The main broadcast team - consisting of the play-by-play announcer and the color commentator - always does more dishonest things than the sideline folks. Broadcasters make some notes overexaggerating the importance and capability of a few players from each team and repeat and repeat the bull for three hours.
"There ain't no good times, there ain't no bad times . . . " but the biggest repeater of all is none other than Colin Cowherd going on and on every day for three hours all a thunder.
This thread has run it's course but I'd like to finish it off with a few more thoughts about "quotes".
They are a snapshot of reality at the instant they are spoken and divorced from reality if not considered in context prevailing at the instant they're uttered.
They have destroyed lives, careers and reputations because what people really think (say) "in the moment" may be light years apart from how that person lives and makes decisions.
Can you think of a person who lost a job/career/promotion/opportunity/"friend" because of a single remark (even if said remark were true). Think Jimmy the Greek. Think John Gruden. Think of all the people who, when asked their opinion about Black Lives Matter, responded, "All lives matter." Think NFL players who slipped in the draft because some asshat found a social media quote with a "bad word" used by the person when he was 13 years old.
I've been communications advisor/spokesman for more that a few people in high places. You tell them that microphones are ALWAYS "ON". There is ALWAYS a microphone in the room (and now a phone that makes excellent video). Mostly, I make it clear that most of their fast-track contemporaries who got derailed were ruined not by budget overruns or operational failures - they were detroyed by words they'd spoken that had been recorded. I had a list.
I made it clear that it would be better if they let me speak for them (and stand at the center of any Cat V Shitstorm that might ensue). At times when "The Man" had to face the camera or microphone, personally, he knew he had to keep it short, simple and ON SCRIPT. If there was a speech involved, I wrote it and reminded that spontaneous elaboration/explanation was a NO. Q & A sessions after the speech were an absolute NO.
Not all my bosses loved me but they all listened to me.
I want to make it clear that "my" words NEVER included false or misleading statements. Events and policies were conveyed explicitly. When more details were requested that could compromise operations or diplomacy, I would honestly reply, "It is the policy of the US government to not comment on..."
My previous post about "quotes" was meant to convey that the words I put in the mouthes of coaches and players probably revealed their thoughts about a subect better than some insane, emotional outburst. I had total access because I had total trust.
In wrapping this up, I'm reminded of a kinda hilarious tape that parodied relations between combat participants, news media and public information officers in Vietnam.
As I recall, a guy who'd just encountered his physical and emotional limits and was still high-in-the-sky on adrenaline, climbed down from the cockpit of his fighter plane and met the outstretched microphone of a newsie. What followed was a wild description of how his icredible skill,cunning, determination and big brass balls had resulted in blowing one or more evil, mother******* commie ass***** to hell. At this point, the public inormation officer steps between the pilot and the microphone and begins, "What the Captain meant to say..."
Post a Comment