When I first saw the reports of Naomi Osaka’s decision to forgo media at the French Open, I shook my head. As I had talked about with Mike Sielski of the Philadelphia Inquirer a few weeks ago, is this another example of the reinvention of the media/athlete celebrity dynamic, one which continues to fail while consumers and media partners crave for more and deeper access to those they follow? Isn’t the access to the media part of the job you take on when you are doing anything that is so forward facing and lucrative? Is this some overreaction? Is it an indictment on the tennis media, especially around the women’s game? Will consumers actually care if an elite athlete decides to be silent if he or she performs well on the field or court or pitch or ice? Are we at the point where the clipped snapshot of amazing athletic ability is now so much more valuable than the story behind it? Are the vanilla quotes given out after a win/loss worth anything or are they box checking?
More importantly has the access through Zoom without any real human interaction damaged a key part of storytelling, the back-and-forth face to face, beyond repair?
I paused to write about this after hearing from a few folks in and around tennis that there was more coming, especially from other players who came out loudly in support of their media obligations. Several, including Rafael Nadal, respected Osaka’s stance but acknowledged their relationship with the media is part of the job, and in a sport like tennis, is vital to growing the game.
Now Osaka is not the first athlete to take the not talking to the media and will use my own platform to break news stance. Kyrie Irving decided to go the route, and after fines and a rethink, has recanted in many ways. Baseball Hall of Famer Steve Carlton chose not to talk to many media members for years during his career when he was with the Philadelphia Phillies, and others like Roger Clemens and even Tiger Woods in the “early days” of digital media chose to drive anyone who wanted comments to their own sites to get the latest information. Woods, however, rarely shirked his on-site obligations to answer questions after play. Osaka is different for many reasons.
While some celebrities and media members came out with the “Go Girl” stance at first, citing the fact that “celebrities” don’t have to go before the press every day when they have concerts or films out (not exactly the same thing as virtually all actors will take part in promotional junkets with even more inane questions than most media sessions for athletes), the dynamic for professional athletes is different. Sports are live, and results change daily. Movies, TV, even concerts, don’t have the same day in, day out coverage or changes, especially since well, TV and film are recorded. Is Broadway a little different? Yes. But the results are scripted, and while an actor’s performance may vary, the “results” are largely the same. Different game, this tennis, or golf, or basketball, or lacrosse, literally.
So back to the availability issue. The past year has changed a dynamic between media and athletes. The days of open clubhouses are probably gone forever. The use of streaming video has helped increase the availability of post-event content since now media members from around the world can tune in, but it has probably damaged the nuance and the additional unique content opportunities that great storytellers in any medium can bring to consumers, just because there is only so much you can do watching an endless sea of questions being answered. There are few side conversations or observations, and the ability to block out or ignore potential questions is placed in the hands of a moderator more than ever before. It is a lot easier to say no, or to ignore, an outlet or a question by simply having a communications person keep the question or the person out of the que. They simply vanish when the session is over. While that ultimate control makes be easier, it’s not what the job is.
The best communications people find the ways to work to proactively story tell and find ways to get thing done, it’s a contstant grind, a constant listening experience, and a constant push to find rewarding ways to message across all media while maintaining relationships and most importantly, EDUCATING all…executives, athletes, agents, staff, and those in the media on how to find a way. It’s not perfect, but in a business where the commodity is living and breathing, nothing is.
With regard to tennis, this is something which I have have more than a little firsthand knowledge of from my time at the WTA, the USTA and with World Team Tennis and a few other places. Unlike team sports where back in the day players could take refuge in a trainer’s room or a shower if they weren’t up for access, tennis media sessions have always been an open forum. There is no place to hide, no place to duck a question from a teammate, and frankly the access and the questions, especially to women’s tennis players from a global media group, can be brutal and out of line. Tabloids have been notorious for asking questions about wardrobe, and players weight and facial expressions, to women’s players over the years, and on more than one occasion we have seen an emotionally wrought player be brought to tears as the same question continues to be repeated. (One incident that always stood out was Jennifer Capriati on the podium in the main press room at the 1999 US Open, whose responses to her father Stefano’s tactics she answered once, and kept trying to go on to another question, but one reporter in general kept asking, and Capriati left the podium in tears). Few, if any, questions about appearance, or relationships are ever directed to men’s players, which is probably some of the thought process that Osaka had in making her announcement. To be fair, I have seen how tennis media in particular have done a better job of policing themselves in recent years, and have handled questions about inappropriateness among their leadership, but the issue of one inappropriate question leading to another still causes great angst amongst the women in sports like tennis and golf, especially.
One more point to make, which was brought up by colleague Terry Lyons in his Sunday column. What about the mental state and the pressure put on media members to deliver great storytelling? For the most part…the large part…those who are back covering events are there to amplify results, action and passion of what goes on in sport to the masses…that’s their job too. And without access to do that, they have tremendous pressure to keep their own positions. Steve Berman in The Athletic on Friday pointed out that teams, as well as media outlets, drastically cut back on travel during the pandemic, and many have started to ask what exactly is being lost by having people broadcast, or report, from their basements via Zoom. The answer quite honestly, is LOTS. You lose human connection, you miss side stories, you miss humanity, and all of that cannot be resolved without access. It becomes a lose-lose situation for those covering, for those trying to get stories amplified, for those trying to get stories told, for brands investing in content coverage and most importantly is for those who follow and spend money on every aspect of sport…THE FANS.
So where does all this leave us. First, let’s be clear, there are few, if any, athletes competing today who have taken more bold individual steps on issues off the field in the past year than Naomi Osaka. Her stance at the lead up to the US Open last year not to play in support of racial inequality was perhaps even bigger than all teams sports, whose athletes worked together and continued to get paid and play. In tennis, you don’t play, there is no pay, and in an individual sport you can quickly be swept out of the limelight without athletic relevance. Even Bubba Wallace, who for a small part of the NASCAR season last June stood alone, still had his team to go back to. For Osaka, it was her and her only. She has also reaped the benefits of her performance and her actions with brand support (none of which has wavered in the past week by the way…brands have been SILENT on her stance) and media support throughout the past year. She has been benefitted greatly from the amplification of her story by media outlets big and small, and with that comes the responsibility to speak, and speak well she has done. All that being said, no one can be inside the head of a champion, or any individual for that matter. We continually see, rightfully so, athletes of every level speaking out about mental heath challenges, which in turn helps both humanize them and create a platform for followers of every age to feel like speaking out on mental health, or addiction, or abuse. If they can do it…address and confront these deeply personal issues…so can I, the narrative should go.
Also let’s consider another angle which this can play out. We have seen people of interest, particularly two MLB managers, Joe Girardi and Joe Maddon, use their media availabilities to drive awarenes for key causes. They wear shirts, they address causes, and they use their platforms for social good. Instead of dropping into silence, it is always better to use the consistent platform, almost daily, to drive awareness. Silence makes that initiative hard to embrace consistently. Out of sight makes out of mind very easy.
With all that in mind, this issues of access, mental health, elite athletes and celebrities, media responsibilities and storytelling amplification becomes even more complex. Is she speaking just for herself or trying to start a movement? Are the rules for access too old and is there a need to use this as an inflection point to rethink the way we can find new, creative and proactive ways for all forms of media to better engage? It’s very complex.
As I said to Mike Sielski when he asked me about access last month, I think that compromise is needed on both sides. The last year has certainly put more of the power in the hands of the speaker and the person who is in charge of access, because almost all of that access has been on a screen. It is also true that social media has given everyone peer to peer access to amplify and control storytelling, but even that push is limited, because you can’t really reach those NOT following you or your cause if no one amplifies or amends the message.
We have adjusted in recent months a bit, but we have lost expansive storytelling, nuance, and most importantly, the positive growth of relationships. This remains a relationship business…professional relationships, personal relationships, business relationships, even adversarial relationships. They cannot be built just by text, or zoom or email. They are built by sharing a conversation, a laugh, a coffee, a meal, a flight. They don’t just “happen.” We care about sports or entertainment because we build an emotional attachment to the subject, and that can only happen by give and take, that’s what relationships on any level are.
The loss of contact is not good for anyone, no matter what certain in a position of power and control say. That being said, I do think that era of the open locker room, where anyone with a credential can come in, hand around, ask the same questions and passively hope to grab a photo or a video that gets them clicks, is over.
We need to find a middle ground, one like the Olympics has, where a Mixed Zone grants access both planned and random, as well as a good system where expanded one on one access for those who do show up and are credentialed get more than the Zoom call. We did that with Triller Fight club earlier this year, and everyone won. Those who came got a little extra and those who could not got enough to do their jobs as best they could from areas far and wide. It was a good balance.
So what about this Naomi Osaka situation as the French Open starts. I’d like to think, and hope, that this is a fluid discussion, one with lots of listening and maybe more adjusting for a particular situation. It is not one which can be handled with a broad stroke either way. In a business about emotion on the field or the court, it is time to make smart decisions based on compromise and not emotion.
For whatever her own reasons, Naomi Osaka has again made people think about the relationship between the storytellers and those who are the story. Does the media need the access for the inane one line answer? Is there a way for pool reporters to get added value and pass along to others, much like is done from time to time on the political side? How does this continue to impact media actually covering events, not just those today but others of young people just starting out? How does this impact legions of other athletes who are looking for a vehicle to best drive interest in their stories?
Like so many flashpoint issues bantered back and forth today, this is one where we need to take a little bit of a beat, listen to each other and find the middle ground. Naomi Osaka has been very important and impactful to social causes, to young women, to global sport and to tennis, a sport which has tended to eat its young for decades. Let’s not lose opportunity for all without finding a better middle ground, and that only comes from listening to the storytelling reasons.
In compromise we all win, from a best in class athlete calling attention to cause for her reasons, to those who love to tell the stories to the millions who choose to follow engage and support. One relationship bounce at a time.
