שרשור עדכוני גביע דיוויס (כלל עולמי)
- פותח הנושא תפוחית עץ
- פורסם בתאריך
punky brewster
New member
צודקת. רוגר לא הטוב בעולם
תוכל להגיד שעד לפני ההפסד לרודיק הוא היה החם בעולם
תוכל להגיד שעד לפני ההפסד לרודיק הוא היה החם בעולם
שמאור סימון
New member
וואלה?הייתי בטוח שאתה אוהד רוג'ר...
שמאור סימון
New member
עלית עליי, אני משקיעה שעות על גבי שעות...
בסגידה לנולה, כתיבת הודעות שמהללות אותו (לא רק פה אלא גם בפורום הרשמי שלו ובעוד כמה פורומים) והשמצת פדרר כי אני בעצם אוהדת פדרר שרוצה ש-100 ומשהו האוהדים שקוראים פה ישנאו אותו...כל הכבוד!
ממש הצחקת אותי, אז תודה...
אתה רוצה לדעת מי אני...אני אגיד לך - "חושפת צביעות ושחיתויות". אני שונאת את השחיתות של המדיה המשוחדת (כן, כן, הם משוחדים לטובת פדרר - יחה"צ עובדים שעות נוספות לטובתו בכל מקום כמעט והמארגנים והספונסרים ורשתות השידור, כולם תומכים בו במאת האחוזים...נמאס לי ואם אני לא יכולה לשנות את המצב אני לפחות אנסה לפתוח לאנשים את העיניים ולבטח לא אשתוק על דברים כאלה ואמחה כי זכותי - "חופש הדיבור"). אני גם לא אשתוק לגבי ההגרלות, הן בהחלט מסודרות לטובת פדרר, לפחות בסלאמים ולא אכפת לי שיקראו לי "חובבת תיאורייות קונספירציה" ויזכירו לי שב-AO האחרון הייתה סטיית תקן...הם עשו את זה רק כדי שאנשים יפסיקו לחשוד. גם כשמדובר בלו"ז של טורנירים יש שחיתות, או למי שלא אוהב את המונח הזה, חוסר הגינות - עובדה שב-IW שם הוא שיחק כל יום בחום, נראה אומלל והפסיד בחצי ופדרר ששיחק בערב זכה בטורניר...ואילו במיאמי שם נולה זכה לכבוד ושיחק בלילה 3 מתוך 5 המשחקים לפני הגמר בערב, הוא זכה בגביע - זה אומר הכל מבחינתי ולא אכפת לי איך אני נשמעת...
לסיום, אפילו ג'ון וורטהיים מודה שיש ניגוד אינטרסים וחוסר מקצועיות בהתנהלות של עמיתיו, שדרני וכתבי הטניס...בבקשה:
Jon Wertheim
Mary Joe Fernandez sitting in Roger Federer's box looks bad for the sport
Tennis' incestuous makeup compromises objectivity and hinders growth
What's your takes on Mary Joe Fernandez sitting in Roger Federer's box? Conflict/unprofessional though not calling match?
-- Aleph Alpha
• Variations of this question come up fairly often and -- proving the ultimate thesis -- I confess that I've resisted addressing the issue, in part because it means critically examining some friends and sources. I know the "conflict issue" was much discussed in Tennis World during Indian Wells last week, especially on Twitter. So here goes...
I begin by saying that Mary Joe Fernandez is good people and, I think, someone of integrity. Despite her ties to IMG and despite the fact that her husband represents Roger Federer (and Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport and Anna Kournikova before that), I've never detected bias in her commentary. And let the record reflect: she does not work his matches, though she sometimes interviews him before and after them.
All that said, you can't be a commentator and sit with a player's wife during the match. (Even if technically, you're sitting in a tournament suite, not the official players box.) You just can't. That's just so fundamental, it barely needs to be discussed.
As a former ESPN'er once complained to me, when this has happened in the past, it diminishes the entire enterprise, portraying the broadcast team as partial fans, not impartial journalists. It causes some viewers to wonder what questions aren't being asked and information isn't being imparted, given the relationship. It predictably triggers a wave of questions about objectivity on social media. At a bare minimum, the optics are lousy. It just plain looks bad. If I'm advising MJF, I'm telling her to take pains to steer clear of any appearance of conflict, even the slightest whiff. She has amassed too much good will to have her work called into question by the tennis vox populi. This is the opposite.
If I'm ESPN, I'm sensitive to this, too. Yet, the network repeatedly showed the image. As SI.com's tennis blogger Courtney Nguyen tweeted on Saturday night during the Federer-Rafael Nadal semifinal match: "ESPN really needs to quit with the shots of MJF sitting next to Mirka in Fed's box. For its own sake. #bnppo12". Kathleen Sullivan, the Emmy winning ABC sportscaster and CNN pioneeress, went a step further on Saturday night: "Mary Joe Fernandez should not make one comment on Nadal or Federer. ... A HUGE ESPN conflict of interest."
To me, this is the real disappointment. ESPN tolerates a level of conflict (often undisclosed) in tennis that would never be tolerated in other, bigger sports. Consider an analog. It's highly unlikely that the wife of NFL agent Tom Condon ever would be part of the network's Monday Night Football crew -- even if she were somehow a former player in her own right. It's even less likely that, while working an event as a journalist, she would watch games alongside the wife of her husband's client, Peyton Manning, in the Colts (or Broncos) section, thus mortally wounding the appearance of objectivity. It's unimaginable that the cameras would repeatedly pan to her, tacitly approving all of this.
But let's reserve judgment on Mary Joe. She's hardly alone. Pat McEnroe -- again, an authentically good guy -- is a USTA executive and former Davis Cup captain. Understandably, he might be uneasy speaking freely about, say, the players' quest for more money at the Slams or Serena Williams' dubious commitment to Fed Cup or the need for a new roof at the U.S. Open. Though rarely mentioned, the reliably excellent Darren Cahill (still another good guy) works with the adidas team. You'd be within your rights to wonder whether this might impact the opinions he offers about adidas and non-adidas players.
At the Tennis Channel (full disclosure: I do periodic work for TC), Justin Gimelstob is very good A) at his job and B) at disclosing his dual roles. But he is on the ATP Board. Is he willing to criticize a player whose support he might be seeking for a crucial vote? To criticize an event, knowing that it has paid a sanctioning fee? It's about now that we cue the famous John Helyar piece on Donald Dell, an account of Dell's broadcasting a match of a player he represented at an event he promoted. Ick. In all these cases, one wonders: what questions aren't being asked, given the financial ties? What information is the commentator privy to that they might be suppressing?
(This, incidentally, is another reason why Chris Fowlers and Ted Robinsons and Mary Carillos and Bill Macatees are so important. They may not have played Wimbledon. They may not share the experience playing deep into a Grand Slam. But at least you can be assured you are getting unvarnished commentary.)
The defense of the conflicted goes something like this: the same relationships that some of you find problematic also help make these commentators good at their jobs. When your husband represents a top player, you certainly have a unique perspective on that player, as well as an unrivaled level of access. When you're USTA royalty and have been inside the White Plains Sausage Factory that is the headquarters, you are the consummate insider. When you're on the payroll for a shoe company and work with those players in Las Vegas, you know a great deal about their physical and emotional make-up.
But I worry that the subtext is this: it's "just tennis," a sport no niche and clubby and nutty the usual rules don't apply. It's "just tennis," so incestuous and conflicted that everyone is somehow in the sofa bed with someone else. All bets are off, no need to disclose financial relationships and moonlighting positions that might compromise objectivity. It's not much of a way to grow a sport and restore relevance. And, worse, it's not much of a way to serve the fans.
LIKE
נ.ב. אז יש שחיתות או לא?
בסגידה לנולה, כתיבת הודעות שמהללות אותו (לא רק פה אלא גם בפורום הרשמי שלו ובעוד כמה פורומים) והשמצת פדרר כי אני בעצם אוהדת פדרר שרוצה ש-100 ומשהו האוהדים שקוראים פה ישנאו אותו...כל הכבוד!
אתה רוצה לדעת מי אני...אני אגיד לך - "חושפת צביעות ושחיתויות". אני שונאת את השחיתות של המדיה המשוחדת (כן, כן, הם משוחדים לטובת פדרר - יחה"צ עובדים שעות נוספות לטובתו בכל מקום כמעט והמארגנים והספונסרים ורשתות השידור, כולם תומכים בו במאת האחוזים...נמאס לי ואם אני לא יכולה לשנות את המצב אני לפחות אנסה לפתוח לאנשים את העיניים ולבטח לא אשתוק על דברים כאלה ואמחה כי זכותי - "חופש הדיבור"). אני גם לא אשתוק לגבי ההגרלות, הן בהחלט מסודרות לטובת פדרר, לפחות בסלאמים ולא אכפת לי שיקראו לי "חובבת תיאורייות קונספירציה" ויזכירו לי שב-AO האחרון הייתה סטיית תקן...הם עשו את זה רק כדי שאנשים יפסיקו לחשוד. גם כשמדובר בלו"ז של טורנירים יש שחיתות, או למי שלא אוהב את המונח הזה, חוסר הגינות - עובדה שב-IW שם הוא שיחק כל יום בחום, נראה אומלל והפסיד בחצי ופדרר ששיחק בערב זכה בטורניר...ואילו במיאמי שם נולה זכה לכבוד ושיחק בלילה 3 מתוך 5 המשחקים לפני הגמר בערב, הוא זכה בגביע - זה אומר הכל מבחינתי ולא אכפת לי איך אני נשמעת...
לסיום, אפילו ג'ון וורטהיים מודה שיש ניגוד אינטרסים וחוסר מקצועיות בהתנהלות של עמיתיו, שדרני וכתבי הטניס...בבקשה:
Jon Wertheim
Mary Joe Fernandez sitting in Roger Federer's box looks bad for the sport
Tennis' incestuous makeup compromises objectivity and hinders growth
What's your takes on Mary Joe Fernandez sitting in Roger Federer's box? Conflict/unprofessional though not calling match?
-- Aleph Alpha
• Variations of this question come up fairly often and -- proving the ultimate thesis -- I confess that I've resisted addressing the issue, in part because it means critically examining some friends and sources. I know the "conflict issue" was much discussed in Tennis World during Indian Wells last week, especially on Twitter. So here goes...
I begin by saying that Mary Joe Fernandez is good people and, I think, someone of integrity. Despite her ties to IMG and despite the fact that her husband represents Roger Federer (and Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport and Anna Kournikova before that), I've never detected bias in her commentary. And let the record reflect: she does not work his matches, though she sometimes interviews him before and after them.
All that said, you can't be a commentator and sit with a player's wife during the match. (Even if technically, you're sitting in a tournament suite, not the official players box.) You just can't. That's just so fundamental, it barely needs to be discussed.
As a former ESPN'er once complained to me, when this has happened in the past, it diminishes the entire enterprise, portraying the broadcast team as partial fans, not impartial journalists. It causes some viewers to wonder what questions aren't being asked and information isn't being imparted, given the relationship. It predictably triggers a wave of questions about objectivity on social media. At a bare minimum, the optics are lousy. It just plain looks bad. If I'm advising MJF, I'm telling her to take pains to steer clear of any appearance of conflict, even the slightest whiff. She has amassed too much good will to have her work called into question by the tennis vox populi. This is the opposite.
If I'm ESPN, I'm sensitive to this, too. Yet, the network repeatedly showed the image. As SI.com's tennis blogger Courtney Nguyen tweeted on Saturday night during the Federer-Rafael Nadal semifinal match: "ESPN really needs to quit with the shots of MJF sitting next to Mirka in Fed's box. For its own sake. #bnppo12". Kathleen Sullivan, the Emmy winning ABC sportscaster and CNN pioneeress, went a step further on Saturday night: "Mary Joe Fernandez should not make one comment on Nadal or Federer. ... A HUGE ESPN conflict of interest."
To me, this is the real disappointment. ESPN tolerates a level of conflict (often undisclosed) in tennis that would never be tolerated in other, bigger sports. Consider an analog. It's highly unlikely that the wife of NFL agent Tom Condon ever would be part of the network's Monday Night Football crew -- even if she were somehow a former player in her own right. It's even less likely that, while working an event as a journalist, she would watch games alongside the wife of her husband's client, Peyton Manning, in the Colts (or Broncos) section, thus mortally wounding the appearance of objectivity. It's unimaginable that the cameras would repeatedly pan to her, tacitly approving all of this.
But let's reserve judgment on Mary Joe. She's hardly alone. Pat McEnroe -- again, an authentically good guy -- is a USTA executive and former Davis Cup captain. Understandably, he might be uneasy speaking freely about, say, the players' quest for more money at the Slams or Serena Williams' dubious commitment to Fed Cup or the need for a new roof at the U.S. Open. Though rarely mentioned, the reliably excellent Darren Cahill (still another good guy) works with the adidas team. You'd be within your rights to wonder whether this might impact the opinions he offers about adidas and non-adidas players.
At the Tennis Channel (full disclosure: I do periodic work for TC), Justin Gimelstob is very good A) at his job and B) at disclosing his dual roles. But he is on the ATP Board. Is he willing to criticize a player whose support he might be seeking for a crucial vote? To criticize an event, knowing that it has paid a sanctioning fee? It's about now that we cue the famous John Helyar piece on Donald Dell, an account of Dell's broadcasting a match of a player he represented at an event he promoted. Ick. In all these cases, one wonders: what questions aren't being asked, given the financial ties? What information is the commentator privy to that they might be suppressing?
(This, incidentally, is another reason why Chris Fowlers and Ted Robinsons and Mary Carillos and Bill Macatees are so important. They may not have played Wimbledon. They may not share the experience playing deep into a Grand Slam. But at least you can be assured you are getting unvarnished commentary.)
The defense of the conflicted goes something like this: the same relationships that some of you find problematic also help make these commentators good at their jobs. When your husband represents a top player, you certainly have a unique perspective on that player, as well as an unrivaled level of access. When you're USTA royalty and have been inside the White Plains Sausage Factory that is the headquarters, you are the consummate insider. When you're on the payroll for a shoe company and work with those players in Las Vegas, you know a great deal about their physical and emotional make-up.
But I worry that the subtext is this: it's "just tennis," a sport no niche and clubby and nutty the usual rules don't apply. It's "just tennis," so incestuous and conflicted that everyone is somehow in the sofa bed with someone else. All bets are off, no need to disclose financial relationships and moonlighting positions that might compromise objectivity. It's not much of a way to grow a sport and restore relevance. And, worse, it's not much of a way to serve the fans.
LIKE
נ.ב. אז יש שחיתות או לא?
Copyright©1996-2021,Tapuz Media Ltd. Forum software by XenForo® © 2010-2020 XenForo Ltd.