Speaking of Sports (Not Only for Sports Fans)

"Speaking of Sports" is the name used by the late Howard Cosell for his radio reports on the ABC Networks. Cosell was more than a sports reporter and analyst. He connected the world of sports with the world itself. He became a champion for boxing champion Muhammad Ali. Howard Cosell could be bombastic but also eloquent. He made sports about more than a game, a match, a bout, a contest. Cosell would remind us that sports and society are intertwined and that sport often leads the larger culture in social change. Jackie Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball preceded the civil rights act by almost two decades. Muhammad Ali brought the Vietnam War into sharp focus by his conscientious objection to serving. And the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics exposed the vulnerability of peaceful events to the tactics of terrorists.

Avid sports fans know well what Cosell was talking about when he extrapolated the world of sports and placed it in its larger role in international relations and domestic policy. The perpetrators of this month’s attacks in Paris chose a “friendly” football (soccer) match as one of the prime targets for their brutality. Sports at the highest level attract attention. Big events draw big audiences on television and in stadiums around the world. Watching great athletes is observing a form of artistry like no other. A LionelMessi goal from a seemingly impossible pass, LeBron James sinking a 25 foot bank shot while barely looking at the hoop, or Serena Williams hitting a down the line winner while running at full speed and off-balance, show us the fullest potential of physical achievement in a way that is satisfying and fun. To steal a phrase from ABC Sports of the late last century, “the human drama of athletic competition, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat,” remind us that we are human, capable of greatness but always vulnerable.

Reports of cheating and corruption have tainted big time sports at the highest level. The NFL’s “Deflate Gate,” and FIFA’s top tier payoffs and charges of international bribery rightfully embarrass businesses that support the artistry of great athletes. And the cover-ups regarding concussions and more serious head injuries in gridiron football are a disgrace to that sport and the exploitation of athletes at its worst. Yet kids in America will put on helmets and strive to lead a team and throw a funny shaped “ball” with the accuracy and composure of Russell Wilson. Children around the world will lace up their cleats and play what we in the USA call “soccer” with hopes of running fast and striking the ball like Ronaldo or blocking shots with the reflexes of Hope Solo. These young dreams are real and joyful in ways impossible to explain to those who have not played at even the lowest level or who don’t appreciate the beauty of elite athletes at work.

As an ordinary sports fan who long ago gave up dreams of being the next Koufax or Clemente, I am hoping sports can once again lead the way. Our corrupt sporting institutions must purge themselves of exploitative liars whose main concern is their own enrichment. The illusion of fair play and concern for athletes has to be replaced by actual caring organizations that put the welfare of players before profits. With the world on edge and some politicians attempting to appeal to our worst instead of our best, sports can once again take a leading role in improving lives. The sports world can set an example of excellence with unselfish concern for those who provide uplifting moments on the field for those in the stands and beyond.

Real reform in big-time sports is unlikely anytime soon unless there are financial consequences for maintaining the status quo. But, the sports world has led the way before. So, there is hope. And as John Lennon put it, “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”

Empathy in the Age of Facebook

Prior to the November 13^th terrorist attacks in Paris, I was thinking about how we interact on Facebook and other social media. Some “friends” share extremely personal details of their lives, everything from happy news of weddings and life cycle milestones to breakups, illnesses and deaths. Often, the response is a heartfelt “like” although liking bad news always seems a bit odd. Posts and responses about news--good and bad--are shared according to one’s privacy settings.

Because of today’s technology we are in touch with friends and contacts from decades ago; this makes the process even more intriguing. So when cataclysmic events shock and anger us, the responses and opinions shared can be both inspiring and terribly disturbing. We quickly learn—or have reinforced—who blames George W. Bush for getting us involved in Iraq or Barack Obama for getting us out. Sometimes, the vehemence of the comments is shocking and ridiculously personal. Questioning President Obama’s loyalty to the United States or his legal right to be president damages the questioner’s credibility even though it may endear him or her to like-minded followers. And those on the left who want to stifle all expression of views rooted in another time or born of  “white privilege” do a disservice because they prevent their more current and sometimes enlightened views from standing persuasively on their own merit. Banning speakers from universities is a disturbing trend. Those who spew hatred should not be invited. But differing political perspectives should not be grounds for bans. Remember, as Paulo Freire and others have pointed out, those subject to oppression can become oppressive themselves when they gain power.

Freedom of expression has always been a cherished value. So when I see comments at odds with my own views in response to my posts, I almost always let them stand. If there are factual errors I will point them out. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. (Gertz vs. Robert Welch,1974).” And that’s the law of the land. False facts, on the other hand, deserve to be exposed and corrected.

So the question emerges, in the age of Facebook, do our differences become magnified while our ability to see others’ points of view diminishes? Can we really care about our “friends”, “like” the pictures they post of the new puppy or grandchild, but still respect them when they post political views sharply at odds with our own? More importantly, do we care? I ask the last question rhetorically and seriously. And my answer is that we should care. It’s too easy to write off a comment, with which we disagree or even find offensive, when the person making it is only real in our lives because we knew him or her decades ago. Ultimately, the root question is whether real dialogue can happen on social media. Or is it, to use the words of Stephen Stills, just a digital version of "carrying signs (that) mostly say hooray for our side (For What It's Worth, 1966)." If we only get our information from sources that reinforce our own views, we wind up in echo chambers and bubbles. So seek out different media. That is actually one of the best things about Facebook; if you have a diverse group of “friends” they will post from a range of media.

My hope is that on the grass roots level we can elevate the discourse and be empathetic about more than the tragedies and joys, personal and global, where it is easy to agree. Maybe our politicians could learn a few things. But having worked as a newsman for decades, I doubt the tone of political and cultural disagreements will change anytime soon. The challenge is for us to resist the crass and try to treat even those with whom we disagree with respect. But let’s agree that lies and falsehood are real enemies.