3 ms·

If Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps refused to do post-race interviews, they're still the best in the world at their events, and their feats would still be covered

by mLuby 5y ago

If Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps refused to do post-race interviews, they're still the best in the world at their events, and their feats would still be covered by the media. Caveat: opting out of regulations directly connected to competitors' athletic abilities (i.e. drug testing) is different. Competitive sports are slightly muddier than individual events, but the principle holds. It's called "sports entertainment" not the other way around because without the top-tier competitive sport aspect, it'd just be Survivor-like entertainment shows. And the movie star thing is different because they're literally hired for marketing purposes; the whole point of "star power" is that I'll go see any movie Tom Hanks is in. Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building.

golemotron 5y ago
> Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building. But if you're a firefighter and that's part of your job.. It's fun to think that we get to decide what job responsibilities are, but that's a negotiation between her and her employer.
- mLuby 5y ago
  If we're going to be mixing metaphors here: should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions like "how do you feel about not being able to save everyone in today's fire?" Those tears would be lucrative, and viewers can assuage their ghoulish interest with the knowledge that a portion of the ad revenue benefits the fallen firefighter's fund. –__– Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign.
  - jasode 5y ago
    >should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions I didn't downvote your comment but your comparison with firefighters is not relevant in this case. It's part of the job description for professional athletes being paid at sports events to talk to the media. >Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. She's not an employee. She's a professional athlete that voluntarily enters into sport events with established rules by the tour organizers. The opportunity to earn millions in prize money is a privilege provided by the combination of the events' prestige + media sponsorship + press coverage. She's not an oppressed minimum-wage employee asserting inalienable workers' rights issues. The press conference obligations are part of the tennis event that she already agreed to as a professional. >And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign. Yes but I think Andre Agassi's handling of Wimbledon's rules in 1980s was more professional and respectful. At first, he didn't agree with Wimbledon's strict rule to wear all white so he skipped Wimbledon for 3 years. In other words, he didn't agree to participate at Wimbledon and then show up in a colorful red and blue outfit to stick a middle finger to the event. Likewise, Osaka could have skipped the Grand Slams to avoid the mental health issues from media interviews. But she preferred to enter the event anyway and roll the dice with paying the fines as a way to break the rules. That seems to be the more unprofessional approach by trying to workaround the event's policies. In any case, if the tour responds by expelling her from the event, she needs to be ok with those consequences. She has to weigh the mental health issues of being kicked out vs talking to the press. >Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. That's fine but many disagree with her approach.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    > Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. How would we handle a tennis player who decided (for mental health reasons) that playing in public was an unbearable burden? Have special games without spectators? I think that case won't be too far behind this one if she prevails. Special allowances can only go so far.
    - 5y ago

by mLuby 5y ago

golemotron 5y ago

> Separately, I take issue with the notion that just because you're rich, mental health should be a non-issue. That's like saying that since you can easily afford burn victim treatment, you should stop complaining and walk into the burning building. But if you're a firefighter and that's part of your job.. It's fun to think that we get to decide what job responsibilities are, but that's a negotiation between her and her employer.

mLuby 5y ago
If we're going to be mixing metaphors here: should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions like "how do you feel about not being able to save everyone in today's fire?" Those tears would be lucrative, and viewers can assuage their ghoulish interest with the knowledge that a portion of the ad revenue benefits the fallen firefighter's fund. –__– Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign.
- jasode 5y ago
  >should we expect firefighters to do post-blaze media panels where they answer questions I didn't downvote your comment but your comparison with firefighters is not relevant in this case. It's part of the job description for professional athletes being paid at sports events to talk to the media. >Lastly, only having one source of jobs stretches the concept of "freely" entering into an employment contract. She's not an employee. She's a professional athlete that voluntarily enters into sport events with established rules by the tour organizers. The opportunity to earn millions in prize money is a privilege provided by the combination of the events' prestige + media sponsorship + press coverage. She's not an oppressed minimum-wage employee asserting inalienable workers' rights issues. The press conference obligations are part of the tennis event that she already agreed to as a professional. >And anyway, we have higher responsibilities than the contracts we sign. Yes but I think Andre Agassi's handling of Wimbledon's rules in 1980s was more professional and respectful. At first, he didn't agree with Wimbledon's strict rule to wear all white so he skipped Wimbledon for 3 years. In other words, he didn't agree to participate at Wimbledon and then show up in a colorful red and blue outfit to stick a middle finger to the event. Likewise, Osaka could have skipped the Grand Slams to avoid the mental health issues from media interviews. But she preferred to enter the event anyway and roll the dice with paying the fines as a way to break the rules. That seems to be the more unprofessional approach by trying to workaround the event's policies. In any case, if the tour responds by expelling her from the event, she needs to be ok with those consequences. She has to weigh the mental health issues of being kicked out vs talking to the press. >Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. That's fine but many disagree with her approach.
- golemotron 5y ago
  > Also job responsibilities aren't eternally immutable. Tennis existed long before televised press conferences, and may well outlive it too. Naomi's advocating for better working conditions. How would we handle a tennis player who decided (for mental health reasons) that playing in public was an unbearable burden? Have special games without spectators? I think that case won't be too far behind this one if she prevails. Special allowances can only go so far.
  - 5y ago