From The Independent Review by Matt Nasca in SRM 334 (section 2)
This past week, on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 2013 Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius was involved in the murder of his current girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. She shot multiple times through a locked door while she was in a locked bathroom. The gun that was used to shoot her belonged to Pistorius and they were the only two that were known to be in the house at the time. The exact details and the trail have yet to start but currently Pistorius is sitting in a South African jail awaiting his bond hearing, which will most likely be set at a very high amount because the prosecution is trying to charge him with premeditated murder. So while we wait for he trail to begin and for the actual facts to come out, the media is having a field day coming up with all sorts of theories and reasons why Pistorius did what he did.
This should make you wonder where exactly they are getting their facts. Pistorius is currently locked in a South African jail and the only legal document to be released about the incident is an affidavit by Pistorius basically saying that he thought Steenkamp was an intruder in his house and that is why he shot her. The media did not seem to mind coming up with their own ideas. There were unconfirmed rumors about a possible ‘roid rage attack on his girlfriend which is what killed him, ignoring the facts that he got tested repeatedly for the Olympics and Paralympics. They said he used a cricket bat to beat her when he said he used the bat to pry open the door after he shot through it. The media also claimed she was having an affair which led to the murder.
All these stories are currently just rumors the media has started. So you must ask yourself, how good is the media? They are tarnishing Oscar Pistorius’ image based on an incident that no one knows the truth to just yet. Can Pistorius still be considered “innocent until proven guilty?” What happens to his reputation after the trial if he is found innocent? The media is getting viewer’s attention at the unfortunate expense on Oscar Pistorius. I am not saying that he is innocent or guilty, but I think the media should wait for the facts before they report on the case. Again if he ends up being guilty, because of the media he will always carry that negative image with him.
---
Review by Charles Higby in SRM 334 (section 2) This article goes over the facts and spins the media has provided of Olympic “bladerunner” Oscar Pistorius and death of his former girlfriend Reeva Steencamp. Since her death, Pistorius has been the center of negative media attention that created a horrible image in the public eye. Due to South Africa’s slow paced justice system, reporters have released multiple reports filled with accusations about Pistorius even though police have not issued any statements or spoken with media sources. These accusations have been repeated so many times that many who look to media sources for information have come to believe these rumors as facts. The allegations include a bloodied cricket bat, a secret love triangle, and even the role of steroids in a “roidrage” attack when in fact the only statements released by South African police were that there was a shooting accident involving Pistorius and his lover, she was dead, and the athlete had been charged with murder. The article also states in order to hold back the wide range of negative coverage, Pistorius hired PR expert Stuart Higgins who represented him during the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. Their main concern is that in this charged environment with most of the world’s news media reporting the story, the athlete will not receive a fair trial. The involvement of Mr. Higgins in this case can be seen as an example of the British news media’s power in influencing a global story. In my opinion, the media’s role in this case has already done its part in ruining Pistorius’ image, but due to a single judge making a decision on solely the facts of the case, I believe the trial will be fair and just. This article is relevant because it provides an example of how the media can take a major sport story with minimal facts, and use the power of media to influence and persuade its audience one way or another.
From The College Fix and Huffington Post Review by Eric Southard in KIN 332 In the article, “Paying College Athletes: Not If, But How”, Rachel Cohen and Ralph D. Russo discuss the controversial topic of should college athletes be paid and if so, how should they be paid. Being a big supporter of paying college athletes, I was happy to read that Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, is finally starting to realize that college athletes should receive some compensation while attending school. Emmert supports a stipend for these athletes, a stipend that would cover costs beyond tuition, books, and fees, which the athletes’ scholarships currently cover. Both coaches and players agree that college athletes should be paid, mainly stating that these athletes have no time to find a job and are always busy with school and their individual sports. They compare being a student-athlete to working a full time job.
The biggest impact sports marketing has on paying college athletes is through the television deals and all the money these deals generate for the universities. In the article, Cohen and Russo talk about the lucrative TV deals the NCAA recently agreed to for football and men’s basketball. To broadcast the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, more notably known as “March Madness”, CBS and Tuner Sports agreed to a deal with the NCAA that is worth on average 770 million dollars a year. As for the new college football playoffs, which starts in 2014, the NCAA agreed to a television deal worth around 470 million dollars annually to the conferences. Instead of using all this money towards increasing the salary of college coaches, upgrading facilities, etc, the money should be put towards stipends to pay the “workers”, the ones who actually generate the money, the athletes.
Review by Gene Daniels in KIN 332 David Beckham is arguably the world’s most popular soccer player, and when he does something it seems like it is covered on an even bigger stage; his actions are cosmic. At the age of 37, Beckham knows his days of playing the beautiful game are waning but there is still some good football (soccer) left in his legs. On the 31st of January, Beckham was introduced as the newest signing for Paris Saint-Germain. PSG had fallen on hard economic times in the late 90s and early 2000s but due to a restructuring of ownership and finances, the club has become one of the most lucrative and endowed clubs in the world over the last 4-5 years. Beckham answered several customary questions in his introductory press conference and seemed very at ease and excited for the newest chapter or his illustrious playing career. He then dropped the bomb on the whole room and informed the media that he would not be receiving a salary for his services during his 5 month contract but rather would be donating the money to a French children’s charity organization.
This decision is one that looks extremely good for both PSG and for Beckham. Many know him as a humanitarian and an overall good person, so this move is something that really fits the mold because we all know Beckham has enough money to live extremely comfortably for the rest of his life. PSG on the other hand has come to have a sinister reputation in the soccer world. Many believe that their wealth as a club and subsequent buying habits for players taint the game as we know it and undermine what many other clubs around the world are trying to do by developing young players and building club loyalty. This move comes at a very convenient time for the club, which leads many people to believe that it is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
In his press conference and ultimately in the article, Beckham discusses that he made the move for “footballing reasons” and that his wife and children would be staying back in London. He also discusses the potential he sees in PSG and their players and his excitement to work with Carlo Ancelotti (a former manager of his with AC Milan) again. After listening to Beckham, one would think the move was made for soccer reasons and that the decision to play for free is just Beckham and the club being hospitable and fulfilling a social obligation to the community but we will never really know.
Wherever David Beckham goes the money will follow. His sponsorship deals will now increase awareness for and have a connection with his new team and I am sure they will see a ridiculous spike in merchandise revenue, as his jersey has been one of the most popular selling pieces of soccer merchandise since he bursted on the scene at Manchester United. The club will tap into his as a resource for their marketing campaigns and I’m sure the Paris business community will reach out to Beckham as well. More specifically to the contract, the public image and popularity of both Beckham and PSG will soar and they will definitely see benefits from the decision to play for free. Whether they have made this move for David Beckham the player, or David Beckham the personality PSG has done extremely well here. They have brought in the most marketed player in all of soccer, and while doing so have looked like the knight in shining armor by coordinating with Beckham to donate to charity.
