I wasn't planning on getting overly personal in this blog, but since i got so many comments on my last post with questions, I guess it's going in that direction anyway.
Objectivity is, unfortunately, a subjective idea. People can view something as objective or find some bias in it. Mainly because true, perfect objectivity doesn't exist. No matter what or how you write, your voice comes through.
Journalistic writing just asks more of than other forms of writing. It's easier for me, but then again, I could never write fiction the way Kim does.
"Do you find yourself objective in more things outside of the paper now? Just curious..." - Kristi
Not really. I rarely write news pieces, so every day events jump out at me as something that requires the same objectivity as a UMass sports game. When I see political news on TV, i still root for my side of the 'debate' or what have you. However, I can seem to see the other side of issues a little better.
"Do you feel that you are really objective inside when discussing a team you like, or you do just portray it outside in order to do your job well? . . . I am just curious how writing has changed your enjoyment of sports" - Nicole
When I discuss the Patriots, I can basically view them through both lenses. It's not a matter of one or the other. I'm one of those crazy screaming fans when I watch them with my family (who are also both crazy and screaming), but I can look at a game and be thrilled that they won, but also look at how I might report the story. The things I'd tell a buddy calling me asking how it went are completely different from what I would write in a 800-1,000 word game wrap.
I'd tell my friend the Pats kicked their asses up and down the field, but I'd write that the Patriots won the small battles against a tough opponent who was equally matched. Kind of means the same thing I suppose (?)
So it's not a matter of really being objective inside. No one is objective inside. It's a matter of whether you can be objective.
The last thing is Kim's question. . .
Here is the story she linked me to get my thoughts on it.
That really puts a whole new spin on masculinity and sports. It's certainly something that effects me and I can't imagine what it has to Christine Daniels.
My favorite sport has always been football, the most brutish, manly sport of brutish manly sports. But I don't consider myself a particularly overly masculine guy. It stems a lot from the clashing of my two biggest interests, sports and music.
I've played bass for seven or eight years, something like that. I also haven't missed a Patriots game since 1993. People who know me for one are astonished to see me in the other role. I'll jam with someone, and they'll say, "Wow, I figured you were more of a jock."
I really really love football. The demand on a player to be part of a team and physically abuse his whole body for the sake of 52 other guys is fascinating. You don't see that in baseball or any other sport. Trust me, you don't.
But how do you talk football with a guy you meet without making the women in the room bored as hell and think you have a one-track mind for violent sports, quickly transition to women's rights in the workplace or the last episode of House? (sorry, trying to think on the fly here)
Christine has a long road in front of her. Her identity as a sportswriter is going to come in direct conflict with her transexual identity. Not that she's a woman. There are plenty of women in the world of sports media. But being a former man is going to create the image that she's a very effeminate male, which is much harder to deal with nowadays.
It sounds like the people close in her life handled is well, which is a great sign, but her readers are another thing. Most people might see the new byline and just think it's a different writer, but for those who don't she may lose some of them.
Hopefully it goes well.
Oh, and Fillmore, it's objectivity not objectivism. As an editor, I feel obligated to tell you that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
1) Thanks for answering my question.
2) Thanks for sharing the link that Kim sent you. I hadn't heard of Mike/Christine before. It's really interesting to think of the masculinity of sportswriting (and I guess of sports themselves). Are there well-known female sports writers? I know a female writes for The Collegian because I saw her article today. Does she cover more "feminine" sports? Feminine in the less brutish sense.
One. I've always thought rugby was the most brutish of manly-man sports.
Two. Concerning Christine Daniels. I don't think she'll be perceived as a femme man, but as a woman period. Her career has given her the luxury for the cosmetic and surgical opportunities that many transgendered people do not have. But right, interesting story. Actually saw a follow-up that said that his/her article was one of the most read that week.
Football sucks. Don't watch it/play it/write about it ever. Pick up Guitar Hero, I'll be objective about your sucking at it.
im sure you werent (but maybe u were) objective about the pats getting Moss...16-0! superbowl or bust!.
Rugby would be more manly if they wore 10 pounds of armor on their bodies and looked like medieval warriors in jester's costumes. But they just wear short shorts and striped shirts (weird combo).
But yeah, you'd definitely get your ass kicked playing rugby.
You in the general sense. Not you personally. Rugby hurts. and its muddy everytime i see it played.
I think it's very impressive that you realize that you can't always talk about sports in a crowd of guys without alienating the only female in the group. Props to you.
Kristi, no our one female sports writer covers both the men's and women's track and field teams. She's working her way up the ranks just like everyone else on staff. No gender restrictions.
And her name is Melissa Turtinen, just so she gets a little face time.
Some thoughts:
1. Rugby definitely seems rougher than football, because of the LACK of padding.
1.b. But maybe the pads in football help make it seem more masculine because then the players never need to touch one another's bodies, and therefore are free from the type of homophobic jokes that seem to plague rugby (the wedgies and lifting and all that). Just a thought. Could be thinking too much.
2. That story about Christine is so fascinating. So much of our likes, dislikes, and attitudes are culturally constructed and performed, and so the male/female sports divide is the furthest thing from biology. I think that Christine's story really highlights the separation between biology and sports affinity.
3. Is House considered a chick show? I know I love it, but I always thought it was kinda gender neutral, unlike, say, Grey's Anatomy or Desperate Housewives.
I don't watch anything but ESPN and Comedy Central anymore so I have no idea. The only people I know who can't miss an episode are female. Like I said in the post, I was reaching for ideas of what chicks do. I wouldn't know, I don't pay attention.
just kidding.
Post a Comment