6 ms·
The only reason she can play the sport professionally is precisely because of the media machine behind it. It is incredibly misguided for her to think that, as
by axlee 5y ago
The only reason she can play the sport professionally is precisely because of the media machine behind it. It is incredibly misguided for her to think that, as a professional sport player, her job stops at the final whistle. Who does she think pays for her prize money?
If she cannot take the pressure of media interviews, then she is simply not a well-rounded professional player, the same way she would not be able to play if she had a busted knee or a broken arm. It is not a pick-and-choose situation: in order to play for money, you have to hit a ball and then talk about it.
Anyway, it does not really matter. There are thousands of players ready to take her spot, and it won't be a great loss except for herself.
- gamblor956 5y agoShe's the world #2 female player, and she was doing media pool appearances until today. Also, the news media does not pay for the prize money. That comes out of broadcast rights, event sponsorship, and spectator tickets. Neither the sponsors nor the spectators are permitted to attend the media pool events.
- axlee 5y agoWhat do you think broadcast rights are? Why do you think companies sponsor sports players?
- gamblor956 5y agoBroadcast rights are for the event itself, not the news media interviews after the event. Companies sponsor athletes so their logos appear during the event. Athletes are usually in sweats at the post event news media sessions.
- sverhagen 5y agoIsn't the pool media helping to drum up viewership for the broadcasts? I mean, it's still all connected?
- gamblor956 5y agoNo, news coverage follows public interest, not the other way around. No spectator started watching a game (or match) because they saw a recording of an athlete speaking to the media pool after an event.
- readonthegoapp 5y agoI've seen plenty of anecdata over the years, including seemingly endless amounts of government and private propoaganda/advertising, that seems to drive public interest. One of many shameful examples is "war on iraq/weapons of mass destruction" storyline FAIR did a report showing how media coverage drove public opinion. I would guess it also drove increased public interest -- certainly felt like it. also, when there is strong public interest in an issue, we still might not see that issue get mainstream media coverage. One example would be 'lack of healthcare (in america)'. An incredible/horrific situation, almost unique among advanced western economies, richest most powerful nation in the history of the world -- no universal healthcare -- strong public interest -- little to no mainstream media coverage, and certainly not sustained past a political campaign that forces the issue into the media.