“Sport Is Argument”: Polarization, Racial Tension, and the Televised Sport Debate Format

IF 2.5 3区 教育学 Q2 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM Journal of Sport & Social Issues Pub Date : 2020-04-01 DOI:10.1177/0193723519881199
Taylor M. Henry, Thomas P. Oates
{"title":"“Sport Is Argument”: Polarization, Racial Tension, and the Televised Sport Debate Format","authors":"Taylor M. Henry, Thomas P. Oates","doi":"10.1177/0193723519881199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes what we term the “televised sport debate format” exemplified in shows such as Pardon the Interruption and First Take. This design borrows from established formats in political television such as Firing Line, Crossfire, and Hannity and Colmes, and is characterized by mostly male hosts debating a range of salient events, often with an animated, argumentative tone. This article identifies the convergence of factors influencing the growth of the televised sport debate by focusing on the industrial and political contexts in which these programs emerged. We examine the commercial and cultural realities that created the space for ESPN’s debate programs, and how ESPN (and then its competitors) sought to exploit that space. In the second half of the article, we explain the political context within and beyond sport that opened the cultural and ideological spaces for ESPN and its competitors to subtly reshape the televised sport debate format to appeal more directly to race- and gender-based grievances. We show how these realities, combined with ESPN’s presentational strategies, express deep-seated racial tensions, both within the institutional culture of ESPN and in the wider sphere of U.S. culture. We conclude by asking what these shifts mean for the future of sports television programming strategies, and the politics that both inform them and are informed by them.","PeriodicalId":47636,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport & Social Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport & Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723519881199","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article analyzes what we term the “televised sport debate format” exemplified in shows such as Pardon the Interruption and First Take. This design borrows from established formats in political television such as Firing Line, Crossfire, and Hannity and Colmes, and is characterized by mostly male hosts debating a range of salient events, often with an animated, argumentative tone. This article identifies the convergence of factors influencing the growth of the televised sport debate by focusing on the industrial and political contexts in which these programs emerged. We examine the commercial and cultural realities that created the space for ESPN’s debate programs, and how ESPN (and then its competitors) sought to exploit that space. In the second half of the article, we explain the political context within and beyond sport that opened the cultural and ideological spaces for ESPN and its competitors to subtly reshape the televised sport debate format to appeal more directly to race- and gender-based grievances. We show how these realities, combined with ESPN’s presentational strategies, express deep-seated racial tensions, both within the institutional culture of ESPN and in the wider sphere of U.S. culture. We conclude by asking what these shifts mean for the future of sports television programming strategies, and the politics that both inform them and are informed by them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“体育是辩论”:两极分化,种族紧张,和电视体育辩论形式
本文分析了我们所说的“电视体育辩论形式”,例如《请原谅我的打扰》和《第一次采访》。这种设计借鉴了政治电视节目的既定模式,如《火线》、《穿越火线》和《汉尼提与科尔姆斯》,其特点是主要由男性主持人就一系列重大事件进行辩论,通常带有生动活泼的辩论语气。本文通过关注这些节目出现的工业和政治背景,确定了影响电视体育辩论增长的因素的趋同。我们考察了为ESPN的辩论节目创造空间的商业和文化现实,以及ESPN(及其竞争对手)如何寻求利用这一空间。在文章的后半部分,我们解释了体育内外的政治背景,它为ESPN及其竞争对手打开了文化和意识形态空间,巧妙地重塑了电视体育辩论的形式,更直接地吸引基于种族和性别的不满。我们展示了这些现实,结合ESPN的表现策略,如何在ESPN的制度文化和更广泛的美国文化范围内表达根深蒂固的种族紧张关系。我们通过询问这些变化对体育电视节目策略的未来意味着什么,以及既通知他们又被他们告知的政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Journal of Sport & Social Issues is an indispensable resource that brings together the latest research, discussion, and analysis on contemporary sport issues such as race, media, gender, economics, drugs, recruiting, injuries, and youth sports. Using an international, interdisciplinary perspective, Journal of Sport & Social Issues examines today"s most pressing and far-reaching questions about sport, including: World Cup soccer, gay experience and sport, social issues in sport management, youth sports, sports subcultures. Always provocative, Journal of Sports and Social Issues presents a lively public discussion of the impact of sport on social issues from many perspectives.
期刊最新文献
“Stick to Sports” and Critical Sports Media Industry Studies “The World Cup of Empowerment” and “They Really Missed the Ball”: Gender Discourses at the 2019 Women’s World Cup CrossFit and "Cancel Culture": Probing Practitioners' Responses to the "Canceling" of Greg Glassman. Women's Physical Activity as Becoming: Lines of Flight from the Fitness Assemblage A Descriptive Look at the Mental Health Literacy of Student-Athletes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1