Sports Illustrated

[tafnut]

I posit that 'Sports Illustrated' represents the epicenter of the American sporting media. The coverage they give, or don't give, an athletic event becomes, de facto, what the American public thinks of that event. That power is multipled manifold when the event is on the periphery of Joe Sixpack's cognizance. Page 60 of this week's issue is totally devoted to OUR World Championships. Very nice picture of Pappas hurdling - headline: 'Rays of Hope' - so far, so good.

Guess what the first 75% of the article is devoted to? Yup, doping scandal. In the last two smaller paragraphs is actual sports reporting. We have no hope of unmiring ourselves in the cesspool of public opinion if that is what happens. I'm not saying we don't deserve some criticism, but when WAS the last time we saw major media coverage that didn't have drugs in it?

[tafnut]

Re: Sports Illustrated

finger miss: it's page 80 - not that you want to read it.

[Bob Duncan]

Re: Sports Illustrated

I think my issue is still down at the mailbox. It's not worth the walk right now.

[Guest]

Re: Sports Illustrated

This would be the same Sports Illustrated which, according to tales in the pressbox, requested 16 press credentials and used... none! Slightly better than Runner's Worlds record of 4 and none. (I apologize if the former numbers are wrong; i belive the zeroes are correct)

[Guest]

Re: Sports Illustrated

I beg to differ. ESPN is the epicenter of sports reporting in this country, and SportsCenter, their website, and their magazine almost completely ignore the sport. SI actually realizes the sport exists; they write about it consistently (and even mentioned Felix on the cover recently). And I'd have to say that the journalists at SI (as opposed to sportswriters at ESPN) would be lax in their job if they ignored that issue, considering how much everyone has been yammering about it in the last few weeks.

[tafnut]

Re: Sports Illustrated

But if you are going to cover the event - cover the event - not just the juicy stuff. They DID need to have something on the bad stuff, but how bizarre would it have been if the majority of the article actually reported some results.

[tafnut]

Re: Sports Illustrated

hmmm, that's odd. The last comment in this thread was mine from 4 days ago. Did someone go bye-bye?

[Guest]

Re: Sports Illustrated

<hmmm, that's odd. The last comment in this thread was mine from 4 days ago. Did someone go bye-bye?>

You shouldn't be too surprised. Although Sports Illustrated is much better than most sports publications in this country, it still leaves a great deal to be desired as far as track and field is concerned. ESPN is a laugh.
Why all the weeping re the general lack of interest in track in the USA? Look at what is offered on commercial TV in the evenings and you will get a good understanding of the intelligence level and taste of most people here. Stick to your guns (oops, a faux pas, I do not mean the NRA). Track is definitely worth our support and interest and that is all there is to it.
And finally to land me in more hot water.
Could the general fall of interest in track and field in the USA be tied to the dwindling number of medals and records won/set by Americans? (And let us not go down the road as to which medallists and world record holders may be "drug" tainted.)

[Guest]

Re: Sports Illustrated

the media suck in general, but espn at least showed it on tv some of it was live. these are the same people (the media all of them in general)who promote trashy shoes like joe millionaire and the bachelor and think howard dean is the best things since sliced bread. sorry about the inference to politics and the presidential election.