Introduction to Media Studies
Assessment 3
Blake Lawrie: 9828613
Sport over the last 30 years has seen rapid commodification in Australia and the rest of the world as
sports have shifted from mere ‘games’ to a professional career. With increased
professionalism and interest in sport come issues that were previously non-existent
or not reported on. One such issue that is hot topic among the public sphere
and therefore the media sphere is the use of sport science and more to the point
the use of drugs in sport performance.
The lines between sport and science have becoming increasingly blurred
as the two disciplines frequently impact one another. The public and professional debate between
good and bad sport science is one that the fourth estate is currently reporting
on a daily basis.
Example’s that fuel this debate are becoming more prevalent
as the advances in science are exponentially growing along with the commodification
of sport. From Olympic athletes such as
Ben Johnson and Marion Jones to Lance Armstrong the science behind doping has
been exposed. Locally the supplement saga engulfing the AFL and the Essendon
Football club has been of great media interest.
The reporting of these topics has become and the issue
overall has been widespread throughout the media sphere with varying
discourse’s depending on where and by whom the media texts have originated from. This blog will provide a comparison between
two texts that have a varying representation on the issue and how the text’s
attempt to influence the audiences perceptions of reality.
The first text is an article by The Age.com.au released in
2004 named “Good Sport, Bad Sport” written by two journalists Julian Savulescu and Bennett Foddy. The discussion in the
text is based towards the viewpoint that sport science and the use of drugs
should not be banned but rather encouraged as it levels the playing field. The
text argues that ‘Taking drugs would make sport less of a genetic lottery’ (Savulescu &
Foddy 2004). It’s representation of drugs
in sport is a positive one where drugs such as Erythropoietin are encouraged
as they allow athletes to correct for natural inequality. Winning athletes
would be not only those with a combination of the genetic potential, training,
psychology but also those with the creativity and judgement to select drugs that
will enhance performance. The message of the article is controversial and
resists the hegonistic ideas of drugs plus sport equals illegal and unethical
behaviours.
In comparison,
the second media text offers little challenging ideas and follows the
hegonistic ideology of the issue. The second media text that looks at the issue
of drugs in sport is a news report conducted by Australian’s Channel 7 in their
current affairs program ‘Today Tonight’. Aired in 2013 at the height of the
Essendon Football clubs doping scandal the report loosely details the issue
both locally and abroad. It takes the
angle that drugs in sport is prevalent and a major threat to the integrity of
the sporting landscape, ultimately
representing the issue in a negative way without actually making any succinct
and or depth analysis of the issue. How
the report attempts to represent this perception of the issue will be discussed
as well as why it may be doing so.
Today tonight
is regarded as a current affairs program that help commercial stations like
channel 7 dominate the media institution that is television. Today Tonight’s
purpose is to function with the daily news program that airs just before it to
dominate the attention of audiences for a ‘block’ of time. The theory behind
marrying the two programs is that audiences will stay with the network for the rest of that
night’s schedule (Bainbridge 2011). It is because of this that Today Tonight is
regarded as less journalist news and more tabloid infotainment. Due to news and
current affairs programs shrinking in terms of audience reach and thus
significance to public discourse, programs like Today Tonight have adopted this
infotainment style of journalism (Stockwell 2004). It makes proper sense that
network schedulers use this type of programs as a bridge between the news and
latter programming that are more focused on entertainment. For example channel
9 have the daily news program, followed by their current affairs program which
then leads straight into an episode of ‘Two and Half Men’. Thus retaining its
audience for the period of time in which they can fill gaps with sponsors and
commercials for which essentially exists. The infotainment style is adapted by
Today Tonight to attract the type of viewer that is more concerned with
sensationalism rather than serious journalism.
Unlike
the news report, the article in The Age functions less on the entertainment and
more on providing personal social commentary on the drugs in sport issue. The
article is constructed and written in a manner that displays a positive
representation of the use of drugs in sport. It supports the use of drugs to increase
performance whilst at the same time it defends athletes who adopt this
approach. It stops at going as far as justifying the illegal use of convicted athletes
such as Ben Johnson; however its discourse is clear in making a case for such
actions and their place in the world of sport.
The text is challenging the philosophical discourse founded on morals
and ethics as it represents an alternate reality of sport. It challenges the fabric and ideologies of
sport in general. The ideology of sport
and its importance to the society is dependent on the culture in which it is
viewed. From ancient Greek culture where sport was viewed as a ‘ritual
sacrifice of human energy’ to modern
western culture where sport is a commercial
product undertaken for entertainment (Guttmann 1990) This article is
constructed and released by a media platform that challenge’s the ideologies of
sport in modern times. The ideas of
‘fair play’ and competing within the spirit of the game are warped as the
argument for drugs in sport is promoted over natural ability. It challenges the
western view of sport that drugs that improve our natural potential are against the
spirit of sport model (Savulescu & Foddy 2004). The text argues this does not need to be the only model.
Adopting a postmodern viewpoint the article represents its own reality to persuade
the audience too its position.
The view express in the article is a postmodern viewpoint as
it challenges conventional thinking towards drugs in sport. Conventionally the hegemonic
powers promote red flags to be signaled when drugs are mentioned in the same
breath as sport. This representation has become a common theme in the media
sphere and likewise the news report offer’s
little opportunity for the audience to view sport science as a positive issue.
The reporter states that “sport scientists are employed to produce best
available substances to enhance athletic performance”. In isolation a comment
like that is likely to create connotations that sport science is all human lab
rats and test tubes. Traditional
ideologies around the spirit of sport are that athletes should be pure and
clean where natural ability and hard work are the fundamentals to a winning
performance. Post modernity challenges the
expected norm and the truth of the modern era, it prefers idealism over realism
(Bainbridge 2011). The article is constructed in this way as it represents a
viewpoint that is presently a minority where the report is affirming the current
cultural ideology that drugs in sport is a danger to society.
The article is promoting cultural resistance to the drugs in
sport issue reflecting its position as a
pluralist media text. The current
media sphere is reporting on the drugs in sport issue with total dominance on
the negative stance. Is this representing the actual thoughts and feelings of
the public sphere regarding this issue or is an overreaction to new issue
facing the word of sport. Whichever it may be the text as a journalistic article
is written for the purpose to engage readers and entertain an alternative train
of thought. The article can be regarded
as written as a piece that is interesting to the pubic rather than in the best
interests of the public. This is similar to the TV report in that both texts
sensationalize the issue of drugs in sport.
Both texts blur the lines between public interest and what is
interesting the public, they do this however to position audiences differently
and to construct differing representations.
The article promotes
essentially a form of cheating as a point of discussion rather than condoning
the use of drugs in sport and outlining the dangers for athletes and the
ethical implications. The text is an opinion piece rather than a representation
of the factual events that are occurring and this important to understand in
analysing its structure. The author’s
are under less responsibility and self-regulation and can therefore represent
the issue in a manner that suits their discourse (Peters 1998).
Both
texts draw on the power of the public sphere to help inform the audience of the
different representations. Media texts surrounding the issue are numerous given
the current sporting climate with texts from multiple media platforms and
institutions providing information and commentary to engage the public. An
understanding of this dialogue is less important for the report as a basic
background to the issue is delivered in black and white. Both texts are acting
as the fourth estate and as journalistic texts act as gatekeepers of the news
(Bainbridge 2011). The article however lends it hegemony as informant to a
larger degree as the representation is more open to criticism. Today Tonight
not only fulfils the role of the fourth estate but also informs and engages
the public sphere more effectively than traditional news programming
(Bainbridge 2011). It is for this reason that Today Tonight is used to mediate
a point of view. It does this through basic tools like signification and the
use of celebrity.
The TV
report uses signification to position the audience to its negative
representation of drugs in sport. The report uses the signifier of syringes
throughout to attach connotation of drugs and danger to the issue of sport. A syringe
is present in the introduction to the report as well as in the report as the text
discusses the science behind the drugs used. To round it out the closing image
is again of a syringe to re-affirm the negative connotations associated with
the signifier. The report relies on the audience’s cultural competency to end
up with a denotation that syringes as a sign have a negative impact on sport
and drug issue (Bainbridge 2011). This is achieved by the mention of Lance
Armstrong and Ben Johnson that through cultural knowledge the audience can
build a connection between their use of drugs and what is occurring here in
Australia.
The TV report uses Dr Peter Larkin’s as a reference for
discussion in the report to further position the audience. The use of Larkin’s
is no coincidence as he can be deemed a celebrity in the Australian sporting media
sphere. Larkin is frequently consulted
on during the AFL season and is part of channels 7 AFL coverage. His presence is a good example of convergence
in the media sphere where the Seven network is drawing on the celebrity of
Larkin to cross promote its AFL coverage. As the audience identifies and trusts
Larkin, the program has positioned the audience to accept their representation
of the issue.
The two selected texts both provide a different
representation of the issue of drugs in sport. The televised Today Tonight
report discusses the current alarming state of drug use in sport and the
negative impact it has on the sporting landscape in Australia. The online article in The Age represents an
alternative way to think about the issue and makes comment on why drugs should
be used in sport. The difference in the
texts is shown by the contrasting power relations present in the media sphere. They also differ in how they position the
audience in relation to the drugs in sport issue.
References
·
Bailey
R 2011 ‘Sport Science - good, bad and bogus’ , Talking education and sport, 15 November, viewed 21 May 2014, <http://talkingeducationandsport.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/sport-science-good-bad-and-bogus.html
·
Bainbridge, J, Goc, N, & Tynan, L 2011, Media and journalism: new approaches to theory and practice,
2nd edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.
·
Guttmann A, Donald K, and Gary D. Stark, eds. Essays on sport history and sport
mythology. Vol. 24. Texas A&M University Press, 1990.
·
Peters, B 1998, ‘Media and Democracy’, Rights and responsibilities of media professionals-laws and ethics,
pp. 61-62
·
Savulescu J & Foddy B 2004,”Good sport, bad sport”,
The Age, 3 August, viewed 21 May ,<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/02/1091432108050.html>.
·
Savulescu
J, Foddy B, Clayton M 2004 , Performance enhancing drugs: Why we should allow
performance enhancing drugs in sport , British
Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume
38 issue 4 p.666-670, viewed 23 May 2014,<http://bjsportmed.com/content/38/6/666.full.pdf+html>
·
Stockwell S 2004, ‘Reconsidering the Fourth
Estate: The functions of infotainment’, Refereed
paper presented to the Australian Political Studies Association University of
Adelaide 29 September – 1 October 2004
Today Tonight 2013, Australian
sport drug cheat scandal, 6
February 2013, viewed 22 May 2014,
