BLOG.SPEAKINGSPECIALISTS.COM
Tiger Woods deals with the media--finally
If there is one thing the media likes to talk about, it is the media.
It is with that in mind that one of the key elements of the instant analysis of Tiger Wood's much hyped apology news conference Friday morning that was overlooked was his attack on the media.
Woods' well-crafted statement did all the right things about his personal mea culpa; his focus on his foundation and how his relationship with his wife is private and should remain so. But the guess is -- based on our working with athletes and teams for 20 years in this area -- that he insisted to those who prepped him that he wanted to aggressively attack what he perceived as media inaccuracies throughout this melodrama.
We have always cautioned against going after the media. The reason is two fold: one, they always get the last word and two, more often than not that becomes the focus of an interview or statement. Lumping tabloids and the paparazzi into the mainstream media may sound good at first. It plays well with focus groups and a skeptical public who may love tabloid TV but dislikes their methods.
But, it is also fodder for reporters to go back on the attack on a superstar who has never sought or enjoyed a close relationship with the media. Woods always has thought he didn't need the media -- his spectacular achievements on the golf course coupled with millions of dollars of endorsements made him immune from press criticism. But it was those favorable articles about Woods early in his career that helped translate him from a great golfer who wins big on the tour to a cultural icon who reaped significantly more financial rewards through his commercials and endorsements.
Attacking the media, refusing to allow them to ask even screened or pre-written questions will not endear him to the reporters he will eventually have to face once he returns to the PGA tour. Kobe Bryant, always a source we use in our sessions as a good example of dealing with the media, was able to tap into that reservoir during his problems several years ago. Today it is generally forgotten by reporters. It is that source of good will Woods could have begun to cultivate beginning with Friday's news conference.
Just Kidding. Be Careful what you text, say
Hawaii Coach Greg McMackin, Gilbert Arenas, and even President Obama have learned it the hard way.
Saying "just kidding" isn't going to cut it with the media and the public.
In the world of texting, emailing, picture phones etc we teach to our professional and college athlete clients you are always on the record. Especially when you think you are speaking in jest.
President Obama last fall was being prepped for a cable interview when he was asked about Kanye West's comments that Beyonce should have won a music award. Unaware that the tape was rolling and his microphone was "hot", he said West was a "jackass." He later tried to backtrack, saying he thought it was off the record and was kidding.
At a WAC media event, McMackin saw there were no cameras around and made a joke about Notre Dame football players. Trouble was, print reporters had their mini audio tape recorders and caught the comments, eventually landing them on the internet. The coach attempted to backpedal, saying he, too, was only "kidding." The comments live in You Tube infamy after his 30 day suspension by the school.
Arenas' gun troubles this past week and suspension announced Wednesday have been compounded by his complaint to reporters he was just "kidding" about previous statements he made about that and gambling. His defense has fallen on deaf ears.
Athletes, coaches and administrators leave themselves vulnerable when they fail to understand their audience and make some comments they perceive as sarcastic, humorous or satirical. While the people who actually hear AND see the remarks being made, they often lose that shield when they are printed in blogs, stories or text messages.
Our advice as a company which works extensively with corporate and athletic organizations is a simple one: if you don't want to see it on the Internet, in a newspaper or magazine; hear it on the radio or TV, DON'T SAY IT...or e-mail it, or text it. It's an expensive gamble that has the odds staked squarely against you.
Saying "just kidding" isn't going to cut it with the media and the public.
In the world of texting, emailing, picture phones etc we teach to our professional and college athlete clients you are always on the record. Especially when you think you are speaking in jest.
President Obama last fall was being prepped for a cable interview when he was asked about Kanye West's comments that Beyonce should have won a music award. Unaware that the tape was rolling and his microphone was "hot", he said West was a "jackass." He later tried to backtrack, saying he thought it was off the record and was kidding.
At a WAC media event, McMackin saw there were no cameras around and made a joke about Notre Dame football players. Trouble was, print reporters had their mini audio tape recorders and caught the comments, eventually landing them on the internet. The coach attempted to backpedal, saying he, too, was only "kidding." The comments live in You Tube infamy after his 30 day suspension by the school.
Arenas' gun troubles this past week and suspension announced Wednesday have been compounded by his complaint to reporters he was just "kidding" about previous statements he made about that and gambling. His defense has fallen on deaf ears.
Athletes, coaches and administrators leave themselves vulnerable when they fail to understand their audience and make some comments they perceive as sarcastic, humorous or satirical. While the people who actually hear AND see the remarks being made, they often lose that shield when they are printed in blogs, stories or text messages.
Our advice as a company which works extensively with corporate and athletic organizations is a simple one: if you don't want to see it on the Internet, in a newspaper or magazine; hear it on the radio or TV, DON'T SAY IT...or e-mail it, or text it. It's an expensive gamble that has the odds staked squarely against you.
Change voting for Cy Young Award
As a former member of the Baseball Writers of America and a former voter for the Cy Young Award, I used to resist the efforts by members of the electronic media to have the opportunity to vote for post-season awards and the Hall of Fame.
I had joined with my counterparts, many of whom were considerably older and more seasoned than myself, in the theory that print reporters had more expertise, covered more games and had more knowledge of the game and were therefore better suited to vote.
But having been out of the business for more than a decade and having trained hundreds of baseball players through our communications program with The Speaking Specialists, I think it is time for a change.
The days when print reporters ruled the press box are over. First, there is the economic issue. Newspapers are struggling to stay alive in the battle against the internet and the recession. Secondly, many of the veterans who had seen baseball for decades are retiring and being replaced by younger reporters who often have to cover multiple beats for leaner newspapers. Finally, the credentials of other reports including radio, television, internet and new media sites have caught up with many of their print brethren.
Much of this came to light in an extremely close balloting for National League Cy Young this year. I have no quarrel with the outcome, other than two voters leaving Chris Carpenter off their ballot completely. Their rationales sounded okay but one can only wonder if personal agendas affected their thinking.
It is time for Major League Baseball to rethink the voting procedures by having a panel of play-by-play broadcasters, websites and legitimate bloggers be added to the mix. I still believe the print reporters who cover the teams on a regular basis should be in the majority as far as the voting is concerned -- they see more of the games than most other reporters. But so do those who are in the broadcast booth and cover the teams individually for MLB.com. My only worry about those folks is that people who are hired by the teams may have more of an agenda to vote for their own players than print reporters. That should be solved by making the voting private; we aren't asked to publish our votes for president, Congress or city council; why should they have to for post-season awards. Anonymity would go a long way to prevent home team bias.
We will be conducting sessions at the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis next month for front office staffs and scores of reporters will be there from new and old media alike. May be it is time for a change in the way post-season award voting is done from now on.
I had joined with my counterparts, many of whom were considerably older and more seasoned than myself, in the theory that print reporters had more expertise, covered more games and had more knowledge of the game and were therefore better suited to vote.
But having been out of the business for more than a decade and having trained hundreds of baseball players through our communications program with The Speaking Specialists, I think it is time for a change.
The days when print reporters ruled the press box are over. First, there is the economic issue. Newspapers are struggling to stay alive in the battle against the internet and the recession. Secondly, many of the veterans who had seen baseball for decades are retiring and being replaced by younger reporters who often have to cover multiple beats for leaner newspapers. Finally, the credentials of other reports including radio, television, internet and new media sites have caught up with many of their print brethren.
Much of this came to light in an extremely close balloting for National League Cy Young this year. I have no quarrel with the outcome, other than two voters leaving Chris Carpenter off their ballot completely. Their rationales sounded okay but one can only wonder if personal agendas affected their thinking.
It is time for Major League Baseball to rethink the voting procedures by having a panel of play-by-play broadcasters, websites and legitimate bloggers be added to the mix. I still believe the print reporters who cover the teams on a regular basis should be in the majority as far as the voting is concerned -- they see more of the games than most other reporters. But so do those who are in the broadcast booth and cover the teams individually for MLB.com. My only worry about those folks is that people who are hired by the teams may have more of an agenda to vote for their own players than print reporters. That should be solved by making the voting private; we aren't asked to publish our votes for president, Congress or city council; why should they have to for post-season awards. Anonymity would go a long way to prevent home team bias.
We will be conducting sessions at the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis next month for front office staffs and scores of reporters will be there from new and old media alike. May be it is time for a change in the way post-season award voting is done from now on.
Don't give too much attention to the blogosphere
As former talk show hosts, we used to have an inside word for many of the callers who would wait for long stretches of time to get on the air and offer their rants on a particular sport or athlete.
The lunatic fringe.
We knew studies showed that of every 100 listeners to a sports radio show, only 1 percent actually bothered to call into that show.
Today we have the blogosphere where anyone with an internet connection can go beyond the call into the local radio station and become a self-proclaimed expert on anything from college to professional sports. That would be innocent enough if it wasn't for the mainstream media elevating these bloggers into the stratosphere.
Witness ESPN's newest creation, Sports Nation anchored by Colin Cowherd in the middle of the afternoon. It would seem to be something you would have seen as a skit from Saturday NIght Live or the Onion if it wasn't on the self-proclaimed world-wide leader in sports. The show, responding to a trend across cable TV, is symbolic of the trend of giving bloggers, twitters, emailers and anyone with an internet connection not only a forum but legitimacy. ESPN even uses a service that ranks what stories are dominating the blogosphere, a silly notion that equates somebody living in his basement(ala the Raul Ibanez rant) the same weight as a more respected site like The Huffington Post or even ESPN.com. Rating the buzz from the blogosphere and saying it is a vital stat is like lumping in the New York Times, Washington Post with the National Enquirer and Star and saying they represent all newspapers.
It is true newspapers are going away gradually, a sad fact for the state of journalism in the USA. But like the callers into our talk shows, Paul from Pittsburgh, Carlo from Columbus and Larry from Long Beach, bloggers are given a lofty status of accuracy, respectability and accuracy for just voicing an opinion, passing on a rumor or injecting their own fantasies into a subject.
Interactivity is a great thing, particularly in the world of sports. But when journalistic integrity is watered down to the point where legitimate reporters, editors and on-air personalities take the words from the blogosphere and treat it like 24 karat gold, it is time to take a step back and re-evaluate. What does it matter what are the top 10 stories each day from all blogs; what kind of sources do they use? Are they based on fact or fiction? Are facts just hurdles getting in the way of a good rant or chat?
As ESPN and other outlets drift toward paying homage to these rants, the resulting affect is that coaches, administrators and athletes think the blogosphere is the new mainstream media. We teach in our sessions for pros and colleges to be careful about what you say to any interviewer but to be particularly cautious of dealing with those with little or no journalistic background. It is often a tough lesson.
Like the Simpsons' episode where Sideshow Bob goes on a big screen TV to say he wants to eliminate all televisions in Springfield, we are aware that by blogging on the subject we are using the very tool we are holding under a microscope. If the media really wants to go the easy route and use blogs, tweets etc for the basis of their stories and shows, at least go back to Journalism 101. Check out the credentials, legitimacy and factual content before passing it off as a legitimate source.
The lunatic fringe.
We knew studies showed that of every 100 listeners to a sports radio show, only 1 percent actually bothered to call into that show.
Today we have the blogosphere where anyone with an internet connection can go beyond the call into the local radio station and become a self-proclaimed expert on anything from college to professional sports. That would be innocent enough if it wasn't for the mainstream media elevating these bloggers into the stratosphere.
Witness ESPN's newest creation, Sports Nation anchored by Colin Cowherd in the middle of the afternoon. It would seem to be something you would have seen as a skit from Saturday NIght Live or the Onion if it wasn't on the self-proclaimed world-wide leader in sports. The show, responding to a trend across cable TV, is symbolic of the trend of giving bloggers, twitters, emailers and anyone with an internet connection not only a forum but legitimacy. ESPN even uses a service that ranks what stories are dominating the blogosphere, a silly notion that equates somebody living in his basement(ala the Raul Ibanez rant) the same weight as a more respected site like The Huffington Post or even ESPN.com. Rating the buzz from the blogosphere and saying it is a vital stat is like lumping in the New York Times, Washington Post with the National Enquirer and Star and saying they represent all newspapers.
It is true newspapers are going away gradually, a sad fact for the state of journalism in the USA. But like the callers into our talk shows, Paul from Pittsburgh, Carlo from Columbus and Larry from Long Beach, bloggers are given a lofty status of accuracy, respectability and accuracy for just voicing an opinion, passing on a rumor or injecting their own fantasies into a subject.
Interactivity is a great thing, particularly in the world of sports. But when journalistic integrity is watered down to the point where legitimate reporters, editors and on-air personalities take the words from the blogosphere and treat it like 24 karat gold, it is time to take a step back and re-evaluate. What does it matter what are the top 10 stories each day from all blogs; what kind of sources do they use? Are they based on fact or fiction? Are facts just hurdles getting in the way of a good rant or chat?
As ESPN and other outlets drift toward paying homage to these rants, the resulting affect is that coaches, administrators and athletes think the blogosphere is the new mainstream media. We teach in our sessions for pros and colleges to be careful about what you say to any interviewer but to be particularly cautious of dealing with those with little or no journalistic background. It is often a tough lesson.
Like the Simpsons' episode where Sideshow Bob goes on a big screen TV to say he wants to eliminate all televisions in Springfield, we are aware that by blogging on the subject we are using the very tool we are holding under a microscope. If the media really wants to go the easy route and use blogs, tweets etc for the basis of their stories and shows, at least go back to Journalism 101. Check out the credentials, legitimacy and factual content before passing it off as a legitimate source.
Sports blogs and the new media merge with traditional media
You probably have not heard of Jerod Morris. But you probably have heard of Raul Ibanez. You may not recognize a site called Midwest Sports Fans . But you do recognize the Philadelphia Inquirer.
This latest episode of how the new media and old media are coming together offers a critical lesson we teach in our internet/communications sessions to professional athletes, like the NFL teams with whom we worked this summer, and college athletes with whom we will begin our annual tour of in a couple of weeks.
Quick background: Morris wrote on his blog recently that Ibanez, who is having an all-star season with the Philadelphia Phillies after a relatively low profile with other teams, has to be considered as a possible user of steroids. Ibanez strongly reacted to the blog, challenging the writer to prove his suspicions and generally ripping most bloggers in the process. Ibanez told the Inquirer, "I'll put that up against the jobs of anyone who writes this stuff. Make them accountable. There should be more credibility than some ... blogger typing in his mother's basement."
Ten years ago this wouldn't have happened; some one writing in a blog probably would have been laughed off by a player, but in today's media world things have changed dramatically. It wasn't as much as Morris' blog has widespread coverage; rather it was the fact the Inquirer felt compelled to address the issue and Ibanez' subsequent comments. John Gonzalez, Inquirer sports columnist, went on ESPN to explain in today's media landscape writers and editors have to respond to such issues regardless of where they may start. A similar situation exists on talk radio; a caller with little journalistic credibility can trigger a day's gabfest by simply offering an opinion or claiming he or she overheard some rumor about a player or school. An editor driving to work hears this exchange, tells his beat reporter to find out about it, and suddenly it enters the bloodstream of mainstream media.
Ibanez reaction was both justified and over the top; justified if a newspaper reporter asks him about his views; over the top if he was just mad at bloggers who hint he may not be clean.
Our sessions emphasize to athletes and coaches alike that the real audience isn't the reporter or blogger who writes the story and asks the question; it is the vast audience who reads the stories or listens or watches the broadcast reports. It is a tough lesson to learn, especially when you feel unfairly victimized by innuendo or rumor.
The other solution would be to have the mainstream media "consider the source" and not take these blogs and talk shows so seriously. But in age of dwindling circulation, shrinking ad revenues and in some cases, bankruptcy, the so-called "old media" must consider the internet postings competition. When more and more people or getting their information -- accurate or not -- from blogs and posts than the papers that arrive at their doorsteps -- it is an inevitable fact of 21st century journalism that the lines between what's real and what isn't are slowly fading away.
It is thus up to the athletes and coaches to be taught how best to handle these situations and understand the ever-changing landscape of sports media.
This latest episode of how the new media and old media are coming together offers a critical lesson we teach in our internet/communications sessions to professional athletes, like the NFL teams with whom we worked this summer, and college athletes with whom we will begin our annual tour of in a couple of weeks.
Quick background: Morris wrote on his blog recently that Ibanez, who is having an all-star season with the Philadelphia Phillies after a relatively low profile with other teams, has to be considered as a possible user of steroids. Ibanez strongly reacted to the blog, challenging the writer to prove his suspicions and generally ripping most bloggers in the process. Ibanez told the Inquirer, "I'll put that up against the jobs of anyone who writes this stuff. Make them accountable. There should be more credibility than some ... blogger typing in his mother's basement."
Ten years ago this wouldn't have happened; some one writing in a blog probably would have been laughed off by a player, but in today's media world things have changed dramatically. It wasn't as much as Morris' blog has widespread coverage; rather it was the fact the Inquirer felt compelled to address the issue and Ibanez' subsequent comments. John Gonzalez, Inquirer sports columnist, went on ESPN to explain in today's media landscape writers and editors have to respond to such issues regardless of where they may start. A similar situation exists on talk radio; a caller with little journalistic credibility can trigger a day's gabfest by simply offering an opinion or claiming he or she overheard some rumor about a player or school. An editor driving to work hears this exchange, tells his beat reporter to find out about it, and suddenly it enters the bloodstream of mainstream media.
Ibanez reaction was both justified and over the top; justified if a newspaper reporter asks him about his views; over the top if he was just mad at bloggers who hint he may not be clean.
Our sessions emphasize to athletes and coaches alike that the real audience isn't the reporter or blogger who writes the story and asks the question; it is the vast audience who reads the stories or listens or watches the broadcast reports. It is a tough lesson to learn, especially when you feel unfairly victimized by innuendo or rumor.
The other solution would be to have the mainstream media "consider the source" and not take these blogs and talk shows so seriously. But in age of dwindling circulation, shrinking ad revenues and in some cases, bankruptcy, the so-called "old media" must consider the internet postings competition. When more and more people or getting their information -- accurate or not -- from blogs and posts than the papers that arrive at their doorsteps -- it is an inevitable fact of 21st century journalism that the lines between what's real and what isn't are slowly fading away.
It is thus up to the athletes and coaches to be taught how best to handle these situations and understand the ever-changing landscape of sports media.
Lebron James gets roasted after Cavs collapse
Predicatably pundits have begun their roasting of NBA MVP LBJ (c'mon, there are too many acronyms in sports, let's keep calling him LeBron James) after this past weekend's inevitable loss to the Orlando Magic for the right to get to the league finals.
James walked off the court, shaking his head but not his hand towards the victorious Magic, prompting criticism he should have showed more sportsmanship after his team's upset series loss to Orlando.
What was worse for James than the failed handshake was his decision to blow off the post-game interview session, allowing the media to pile on the usual voluble James for his disappearing act after the playoffs.
While we don't condone the lack of sportsmanship; hey, this isn't hockey and the teams don't line up to congratulate each other after the series ends. But James should have known better than to allow the media and the blogosphere an opportunity to rip him for 48 hours before he agreed to speak to reporters.
In our training sessions for both the NBA, colleges and Olympians, we emphasize the need to get your side of things out in public even when things didn't go your way. It's easy to talk to reporters when you win -- a more serious challenge is when you lose. Had James spent even a couple of minutes in the post-game interview room -- even if he didn't take any questions and just made a statement -- he would have fed the media beast and prevented the video loop of him walking off the court in disgust. We often show a tape of one of our former clients, Mitch Williams, sitting down and answering every question after he surrendered the World Series winning home run to Joe Carter back in the 90s. As tough as it was for Williams, he got great press for not ducking out or hiding in the training room after what was a much more difficult situation than James faced in Orlando.
Obviously PR and media staffs urge coaches and athletes to follow the path to the interview room; we re-enforce this as former reporters by reminding them that most media just want to get their sound bites and quotes and file their stories. The vast majority of reporters don't have agendas and are just looking to complete their tasks. By not providing the media with any counter to what they saw, the negative reports began immediately and are likely to continue for weeks.
James had been a solid role model for our trainings on college campuses for how to handle tough questions; now he slides over to the side of what not to do when you lose.
James walked off the court, shaking his head but not his hand towards the victorious Magic, prompting criticism he should have showed more sportsmanship after his team's upset series loss to Orlando.
What was worse for James than the failed handshake was his decision to blow off the post-game interview session, allowing the media to pile on the usual voluble James for his disappearing act after the playoffs.
While we don't condone the lack of sportsmanship; hey, this isn't hockey and the teams don't line up to congratulate each other after the series ends. But James should have known better than to allow the media and the blogosphere an opportunity to rip him for 48 hours before he agreed to speak to reporters.
In our training sessions for both the NBA, colleges and Olympians, we emphasize the need to get your side of things out in public even when things didn't go your way. It's easy to talk to reporters when you win -- a more serious challenge is when you lose. Had James spent even a couple of minutes in the post-game interview room -- even if he didn't take any questions and just made a statement -- he would have fed the media beast and prevented the video loop of him walking off the court in disgust. We often show a tape of one of our former clients, Mitch Williams, sitting down and answering every question after he surrendered the World Series winning home run to Joe Carter back in the 90s. As tough as it was for Williams, he got great press for not ducking out or hiding in the training room after what was a much more difficult situation than James faced in Orlando.
Obviously PR and media staffs urge coaches and athletes to follow the path to the interview room; we re-enforce this as former reporters by reminding them that most media just want to get their sound bites and quotes and file their stories. The vast majority of reporters don't have agendas and are just looking to complete their tasks. By not providing the media with any counter to what they saw, the negative reports began immediately and are likely to continue for weeks.
James had been a solid role model for our trainings on college campuses for how to handle tough questions; now he slides over to the side of what not to do when you lose.
Twitter coaches; Who are we Kidding?
Trivia question: What do Urban Meyer, Lane Kiffin, Ron Zook and Pete Carroll all have in common? The list of possible answers is endless but for now let's admit they are use Twitter.
The latest internet fad, fueled mostly by media types and those PR branding types who see a chance to make a quick buck, is being felt in the coaching profession. Breathless reports of their brethren saying they will "tweet", some even saying they are going to do it during a game. Can you imagine the alumni barking after a losing contest when they complain the coach was more concerned about 140 character tweets than the 80 characters he was responsible for on his sideline.
Let's call this what it really is: a handful of coaches using another mechanism to help recruit kids, not a love of banality. A couple of years ago it was text messaging. The NCAA stepped in and stopped that nonsense; one can hope it's only a matter of time before it comes in and regulates or even prohibits this tomfoolery.
And really, do Twitter backers who clog the internet with claims it is the most revolutionary thing since the wheel really believe the coaches are the ones actually doing the messaging; is LSU's Les Miles really concentrating on his next "tweet" at halftime instead of devising a game plan to beat Alabama? Is Duke's David Cutcliffe focused in on telling folks what he plans to eat for breakfast and not trying to figure out how to win in Blacksburg, Va.? Chances are some football ops guy, an intern or SID is doing the work; how much journalism background do you need to write "UCF Spring game at 2 p.m. I've got my SWAG on. I got a lot of JUICE and you know my Chili's Hot. Hot!!! " We're not making this up; it's what Central Florida assistant football coach Geoff Collins wrote recently according to the Daily Iowan in Iowa City.
Of a more serious concern are the possibilities of abuse and damage to a program: it is so easy to pretend to be a head coach or star player on Twitter; false comments made wind up on bulletin boards and chat rooms before they can be taken down. Negative recruiting tweets sent to high school prospects by unscrupulous assistant coaches; fans making up comments under the guise of an athletic director, coach or player. Or in the case of a Big Ten coach who made some alleged negative comments in a "tweet" about a beat sportswriter that had to be taken down after negative feedback.
Want to start a rumor? no problem on Twitter. Make up something? There's no fact checking or accountability mechanism in place. Columns and even many top bloggers fact check and face peer scrutiny.Even on talk radio, callers are screened by producers.
With all coaches have to worry about, do they really want to have to worry about putting this mechanism in the hands of their student-athletes. In our communications training, we deal heavily with the issues raced by social websites, principally Facebook, instructing them their posts and pictures not only represent themselves but are an open window for potential job employers and potential recruits. Facebook and similar sites do allow for some positive interaction among college students and a growing number of adults (and companies) to talk about their thoughts, plans and prospects without being limited to 140 characters or banal chatter. We teach the audience goes way beyond the "friends" on your facebook page or in Twitter-talk the number of "followers". These messages can potentially be read by anyone with an internet connection. We tell them not to be taken in by claims of privacy and safeguards in a world of hackers and geeks who easily find their way into any site.
Tweeter is fine for Ashton Kutcher (1 million followers? big deal!) , Shaq (will anyone really care what he eats for breakfast after a month of postings) Larry King (I am interviewing Dr. Phil and Jesse Ventura exclusively and I luv it!) and reporters looking for something new to write about (one White House cable correspondent tweeted about what he had for breakfast and snacks covering the President. Woodward and Bernstein this ain't. The Pulitzer Committee will pass on this blurb).
Once this fad has passed one can hope the next new media idea will require more thought, accountability and eloquence to reach out to fans, recruits, alumns and each other. FYI, the above paragraph wouldn't have made it on Twitter: it's more than 140 characters.
The latest internet fad, fueled mostly by media types and those PR branding types who see a chance to make a quick buck, is being felt in the coaching profession. Breathless reports of their brethren saying they will "tweet", some even saying they are going to do it during a game. Can you imagine the alumni barking after a losing contest when they complain the coach was more concerned about 140 character tweets than the 80 characters he was responsible for on his sideline.
Let's call this what it really is: a handful of coaches using another mechanism to help recruit kids, not a love of banality. A couple of years ago it was text messaging. The NCAA stepped in and stopped that nonsense; one can hope it's only a matter of time before it comes in and regulates or even prohibits this tomfoolery.
And really, do Twitter backers who clog the internet with claims it is the most revolutionary thing since the wheel really believe the coaches are the ones actually doing the messaging; is LSU's Les Miles really concentrating on his next "tweet" at halftime instead of devising a game plan to beat Alabama? Is Duke's David Cutcliffe focused in on telling folks what he plans to eat for breakfast and not trying to figure out how to win in Blacksburg, Va.? Chances are some football ops guy, an intern or SID is doing the work; how much journalism background do you need to write "UCF Spring game at 2 p.m. I've got my SWAG on. I got a lot of JUICE and you know my Chili's Hot. Hot!!! " We're not making this up; it's what Central Florida assistant football coach Geoff Collins wrote recently according to the Daily Iowan in Iowa City.
Of a more serious concern are the possibilities of abuse and damage to a program: it is so easy to pretend to be a head coach or star player on Twitter; false comments made wind up on bulletin boards and chat rooms before they can be taken down. Negative recruiting tweets sent to high school prospects by unscrupulous assistant coaches; fans making up comments under the guise of an athletic director, coach or player. Or in the case of a Big Ten coach who made some alleged negative comments in a "tweet" about a beat sportswriter that had to be taken down after negative feedback.
Want to start a rumor? no problem on Twitter. Make up something? There's no fact checking or accountability mechanism in place. Columns and even many top bloggers fact check and face peer scrutiny.Even on talk radio, callers are screened by producers.
With all coaches have to worry about, do they really want to have to worry about putting this mechanism in the hands of their student-athletes. In our communications training, we deal heavily with the issues raced by social websites, principally Facebook, instructing them their posts and pictures not only represent themselves but are an open window for potential job employers and potential recruits. Facebook and similar sites do allow for some positive interaction among college students and a growing number of adults (and companies) to talk about their thoughts, plans and prospects without being limited to 140 characters or banal chatter. We teach the audience goes way beyond the "friends" on your facebook page or in Twitter-talk the number of "followers". These messages can potentially be read by anyone with an internet connection. We tell them not to be taken in by claims of privacy and safeguards in a world of hackers and geeks who easily find their way into any site.
Tweeter is fine for Ashton Kutcher (1 million followers? big deal!) , Shaq (will anyone really care what he eats for breakfast after a month of postings) Larry King (I am interviewing Dr. Phil and Jesse Ventura exclusively and I luv it!) and reporters looking for something new to write about (one White House cable correspondent tweeted about what he had for breakfast and snacks covering the President. Woodward and Bernstein this ain't. The Pulitzer Committee will pass on this blurb).
Once this fad has passed one can hope the next new media idea will require more thought, accountability and eloquence to reach out to fans, recruits, alumns and each other. FYI, the above paragraph wouldn't have made it on Twitter: it's more than 140 characters.
Prep star Jeremy Tyler Beware: there is more to learn before turning pro
With all of the -- excuse the pun -- hoopla surrounding the NBA playoffs comes word that one of the nation's top high school basketball players is leaving school to play in Europe.
What makes the story of Jeremy Tyler of San Diego unique is that he is leaving school as a JUNIOR, bypassing his senior year of high school, to turn pro and make himself ready for the 2011 NBA draft. Current NBA rules prohibit players under the age of 19 from being draft -- meaning Tyler would have to wait a couple of years before being eligible. He had verbally committed to Louisville but now will test the European waters before coming back home.
We work with USA Basketball in Colorado Springs as part of their program that has the top junior players in high school on both the men and women's side compete, learn and grow as part of a camp coached by some of the top coaches in the country. We have provided speaker and media training for these 17-year olds for more than a decade, including players like Dwayne Wade and Dwight Howard. We can attest that while these players have the requisite skills to compete on a professional level, the vast majority are not ready for the scrutiny of the media and public that comes with playing at an advanced level.
Of particular concern is the so-called "new media" in which we teach caution in dealing with social websites such as Facebook, You Tube, bloggers and talk shows. While many of the stars of the future can nail a free throw with a screaming sellout crowd in their face, they often wilt with a small microphone in their sights. Ironically, a growing number of these high schoolers have said they didn't need communications training -- they get what they need from watching ESPN or reading the internet. It is a misjudgment of huge proportions.
You wouldn't want to guard Kobe Bryant or Paul Pierce without expert coaching and training; the same situation exists for dealing with the media. Most players like Tyler haven't had to deal with large groups of reporters in high school; even some of the upperclassmen with whom we work at the more than 100 colleges and universities each year buckle under the pressure in our mock interviews and staged post-game news conferences. Someone who has only completed his junior year of high school faces a more difficult task.
The NBA rule was designed to prevent players from jumping from high school directly into the pros; while some like former prep/shoe guru Sonny Vaccaro argue with some merit that is denying them an opportunity to earn a living; the extra off-the-court experience and training they receive in high school and in college will pay large dividends and often times lengthen a professional career.
Are we going too far in monitoring sports social websites
The No. 1 concern about coaches and staff with whom we work on the professional and college level has been the increased vulnerability programs have when it comes to athletes' postings on social websites, predominantly the popular Facebook.
Some programs have even gone as far as banning their athletes from having Facebook accounts or in some rare cases have opted to have an outside party monitor all postings made by individuals. The constitutional issues aside; what kind of message does this send to team unity, leadership and support if such drastic measures are required? (Not to brush aside that document ratified in 1789, but at last check that mention of free speech hasn't been airbrushed out of the bill of rights).
Athletes on both the pro and college level use facebook as a communication tool. There certainly have been abuses. One of the major league baseball teams with whom we work reported to us one of their star players made critical comments about the organization on their facebook account, figuring no one would see it but his "friends." But one of the biggest misperceptions is that these social websites are private; they are not. A key element of our program has been to teach athletes they are always on the record and never to post anything on these sites (or text message or email) that they wouldn't mind seeing in someone's blog, website, broadcast or front page.
But to ban athletes from using the sites is an over reaction and an invitation to further problems. Many of the hundreds of athletes we train have admitted they get around such restrictions by using another name on their account; some others ignore it totally. The peer pressure to be on these sites continues to grow.
A better avenue is education; teaching athletes of the ramifications of such sites while reminding them of the key messages we outline in our trainings provides a better climate of trust and honesty. We remind them these sites are often viewed by potential sponsors, employers, supporters, fans and yes, the media and can adversely affect the reputation of themselves, their teammates and their program.
Avoid the temptation of fancy (and very expensive) claims by firms who say they will watch the web for you: monitoring of the sites by an assistant coach, SID or staffer makes sense and provides a better atmosphere in the coach-athlete relationship.
Some programs have even gone as far as banning their athletes from having Facebook accounts or in some rare cases have opted to have an outside party monitor all postings made by individuals. The constitutional issues aside; what kind of message does this send to team unity, leadership and support if such drastic measures are required? (Not to brush aside that document ratified in 1789, but at last check that mention of free speech hasn't been airbrushed out of the bill of rights).
Athletes on both the pro and college level use facebook as a communication tool. There certainly have been abuses. One of the major league baseball teams with whom we work reported to us one of their star players made critical comments about the organization on their facebook account, figuring no one would see it but his "friends." But one of the biggest misperceptions is that these social websites are private; they are not. A key element of our program has been to teach athletes they are always on the record and never to post anything on these sites (or text message or email) that they wouldn't mind seeing in someone's blog, website, broadcast or front page.
But to ban athletes from using the sites is an over reaction and an invitation to further problems. Many of the hundreds of athletes we train have admitted they get around such restrictions by using another name on their account; some others ignore it totally. The peer pressure to be on these sites continues to grow.
A better avenue is education; teaching athletes of the ramifications of such sites while reminding them of the key messages we outline in our trainings provides a better climate of trust and honesty. We remind them these sites are often viewed by potential sponsors, employers, supporters, fans and yes, the media and can adversely affect the reputation of themselves, their teammates and their program.
Avoid the temptation of fancy (and very expensive) claims by firms who say they will watch the web for you: monitoring of the sites by an assistant coach, SID or staffer makes sense and provides a better atmosphere in the coach-athlete relationship.
Kenny Perry still wins at Masters
The final scorecard will show that Kenny Perry lost in a playoff at this year's Masters Tournament in Augusta. But he was a winner in the press tent.
Now that isn't going to ease the pain of failinig to win the coveted Green Jacket but it does set a standard for dealing with the media and public after a tough loss.
We had the privilege of working with Perry at his home golf course in southern Kentucky a while back and he displayed the kind of laid back, folksy charm he has consistently showed on the PGA tour. During some tough practice Q&A, Perry was not ruffled; he simply answered questions the same way he would if someone was asking him advice on what iron to pick on the fairway.
Perry answered every question -- and then some -- after the playoff in the Masters. Many of the questions were virtually the same ones -- what was he thinking after a bad shot in the playoff, what happened over the final holes on Sunday etc. Yet he answered each question as if it was being asked for the first time, remembering one of the key elements we had in our training that the audience is not the reporter -- it is the public.
Many times we work with professional and college athletes to teach them how important it is to answer queries after a tough loss or when you had a difficult time on the field or court. The media -- and more importantly the public -- often judges you on how well you do in communicating when times are tough rather than after a big win or a championship.
Perry is a veteran and he showed it after the Masters. The result was universal praise on the internet, TV and in newspapers for the class he showed both on the course and in the press tent.
It was a lesson in which all athletes can learn from.
Nice goin, Kenny!
Now that isn't going to ease the pain of failinig to win the coveted Green Jacket but it does set a standard for dealing with the media and public after a tough loss.
We had the privilege of working with Perry at his home golf course in southern Kentucky a while back and he displayed the kind of laid back, folksy charm he has consistently showed on the PGA tour. During some tough practice Q&A, Perry was not ruffled; he simply answered questions the same way he would if someone was asking him advice on what iron to pick on the fairway.
Perry answered every question -- and then some -- after the playoff in the Masters. Many of the questions were virtually the same ones -- what was he thinking after a bad shot in the playoff, what happened over the final holes on Sunday etc. Yet he answered each question as if it was being asked for the first time, remembering one of the key elements we had in our training that the audience is not the reporter -- it is the public.
Many times we work with professional and college athletes to teach them how important it is to answer queries after a tough loss or when you had a difficult time on the field or court. The media -- and more importantly the public -- often judges you on how well you do in communicating when times are tough rather than after a big win or a championship.
Perry is a veteran and he showed it after the Masters. The result was universal praise on the internet, TV and in newspapers for the class he showed both on the course and in the press tent.
It was a lesson in which all athletes can learn from.
Nice goin, Kenny!
