The Rhetoric of Sportscenter

Sportscenter on ESPN is the show I wake up to every morning. I have been doing that since I was in 4th or 5th grade. A lot has changed on the show since then--The sets, the anchors, the commercials-- but the quality of the show and the depth of the information that is presented has not changed. 

For me, the best part about Sportscenter is that the show takes the best segment of the nightly news--sports-- and turns it into a program that airs on ESPN more than half the day. Growing up in the Washington, D.C. area, the best sports anchor was George Michael on the local NBC affiliate, Channel 4. Watching Michael(Who died in 2009) was the segment that I was always waiting for when my parents were watching the 6 PM news. He also hosted a show nationally called "The George Michael Sports Machine", which heavily influenced the production and appearance of Sportscenter. Unlike the rest of the anchors that I saw on TV, Michael always appeared genuine. I got the feeling that the way he appeared on TV was similar to the way he appeared in real life, whereas many of the anchors on the local and national news appear to be cardboard cutouts of themselves. 

When I watch Sportscenter, I always get the same feeling as I did when I watched George Michael. The anchors that appear on the show are always charismatic, witty, and polished. The production and style of the show is always very impressive. The fact that they are able to edit footage from an entire game--often in real time-- shows the amount of work and attention that is required to keep the show stylish and fast paced.

Maybe it is because I am a sports fan, but I always get the feeling that the anchors are people that really enjoy what they are doing. This is probably due to the fact that being a sportscaster would be my dream job, just below being a professional athlete. 

The Rhetoric of Lying

Does prosecuting a person for lying about being awarded the Medal of Honor violate the First Amendment? That's what is about to be decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Alvarez.

I had heard about the Stolen Valor Act back when I was in the Air Force(The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely appear that one has been awarded a U.S. military medal or decoration). Naturally, I felt that anyone who falsely claimed that they were awarded a high ranking medal that they did not earn was a piece of shit. However, being a piece of shit is not a crime, nor should it be.

An editorial in the Monday edition of the New York Times, called "Is There A Right To Lie?" by William Bennett Turner, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, first brought this specific case to my attention. Alvarez was being prosecuted because "while introducing himself at a meeting of a California water board, he said that he was a retired Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor (both lies)." Punishment for this could be up to one year of imprisonment.

While it certainly is difficult for me to say that a lie as audacious and disgusting as this is constitutionally protected, I have to admit that it is. If the Westboro Baptist Church can legally spew their incredibly hateful speech, then this man should be able to lie about receiving the nation's highest military award. The editorial gives a good prescription for punishing these frauds--more speech. The author recommends creating an "online database of medal awardees," and that the "government could even shame known liars by publishing their names." Putting these people's names in the newspaper or a website would be the most effective way to get people to think twice about falsely claiming military awards. Being entered into this proposed database should also be required to show up on a background check when the person is applying for a job. Seeing that happen would be much more satisfying than seeing this scumbag sit in jail for a year.

Sources:

-New York Times Article
-Chicago Tribune Article on the Stolen Valor Act

The Rhetoric of the Washington Redskins

The Washington Redskins are near and dear to my heart. They always have been, and always will be. That's why one of the worst forms of rhetoric in sports is the hype concerning this team every year. Like clockwork, the most exciting and best part of every season is...the off-season. While teams like the Baltimore Ravens, New England Patriots, and, most grudgingly, the New York Giants are all winning Division, Conference, and Super Bowl championships, my team's season always ends on or around New Year's Day. To be honest, the most exciting day on my football calendar is the NFL Draft in April, when for one day I don't have to worry about my team blowing millions of dollars on washed-up stars. Instead I get to see them pick a players who may or may not work out to be everyday starters. At the very least it makes me happy to think that my team is doing a little bit of what all those other, vastly more successful franchises have been doing and perfecting for years.

A little bit of hype around every team is to be expected. Even the 2008 Detroit Lions had commercials promoting them. But the unjustified hype around the Redskins, year after year, is just downright depressing. If they were telling fans that they could compete, then dismantling the roster and getting younger, I would at least know that they were only doing this for marketing reasons and were really going in the right direction. I don't mind it when teams give a wink and a nod they are going to suck. The Washington Nationals did that from 2006-2010. Granted, they still tried to sell seats. It's a business. I get it. Everyone knew they were not going to win titles for a while. Their roster consisted of Ryan Zimmerman and a bunch of dudes who should have been playing Single-A ball. But no, the Redskins roster decisions seem to revolve around their latest marketing campaign(See McNabb, Donovan "R You In?"). Sadly, the trend continues, with the talk of the Washington sports media being all about whether or not the Redskins can and will sign Peyton Manning, a great but aging quarterback who was injured for the entire 2011 season.

I blame the state of the Redskins on mismanagement at the top, although Dan Snyder, the owner of the team, seems to be staying out of things since Mike Shanahan took over the head coaching job. But the decade of mismanagement, compounded with Snyder's need for an instant Super Bowl contender, flat out ruined one of the most proud, storied, and traditional franchises in sports.

- Donovan McNabb FAIL
- Donovan McNabb FAIL pt. 2

The Rhetoric of Newspapers

One form of rhetoric that I tend to check multiple times a day are newspaper's. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist are a few that I read if not every day, then at least a few times a week. All of the above listed newspapers have first rate reporting, intelligent columnists, and an opinionated editorial section. While most of the reporting is generally similar, all differ significantly when it comes to the opinion pages. By reading a diverse set of viewpoints, I feel that I am best informed to take an intelligent stance concerning the issues. 

The Washington Post generally specializes in covering national news and (since it is in Washington, D.C.) the federal government. The weekly columnists represent a diverse set of views. Liberals like E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, as well as Conservatives such as Charles Krauthammer and George Will, are both given press time. The editorial stance of the newspaper can best be described as "moderate." The Post supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and has been an advocate for free trade agreements such as CAFTA and the KORUS FTA. At the same time, Barack Obama was endorsed for the 2008 Presidential Election and generally supporting gay rights and abortion rights. 

The New York Times is perhaps the largest and most well known newspaper in the world. It covers a broad area of topics, ranging from national and international news, to comprehensive style and business sections. The weekly columnists tend to be liberal to centrist. The editorial section solidly supports liberal causes, clearly supporting gay marriage, abortion rights, and persistently opposing virtually all policies of the Bush Administration in its war in Iraq. 

Judging from its name alone, it's not hard to guess that The Wall Street Journal specializes in reporting financial news. By and large, it is the best in the newspaper business at this type of reporting. Compared with its crosstown rival The New York Times, the editorial and opinion pages shift decisively to the right. The Journal features conservative columnists like Peggy Noonan and features guest columns from Conservatives such as Karl Rove. The Journal's editorial page primarily focuses on economic issues, such as tax reform and reducing federal government spending, usually taking a conservative stance.

Lastly, The Economist is a weekly news magazine that is published in the UK. It tends to comment on the large political issue of the week, as well as focusing on issues around the world that go relatively unnoticed. Being a foreign newspaper, the magazine takes a moderate, but oftentimes unique, stance on politics around the world. Fiscally, it can be considered conservative. It favors free trade around the world and tax reform for the United States. At the same time, the paper tends to be liberal/libertarian on social issues. 

TIB Podcast

The wayyyyyy more confusing than it had to be "This I Believe" podcast.

Charlie Rose

The show "Charlie Rose", an interview show that airs on PBS and Bloomberg, is the best show on television. It stands in marked contrast to other interview shows such as "Larry King Live" or "Piers Morgan" in the depth and quality of the questioning. Whereas "Larry King" consisted of King tossing softball questions to some of the most interesting and famous people in the world, "Charlie" consists of having both famous and distinguished guests across a wide spectrum of interests being asked poignant, timely questions.

The sets of "Charlie" and either of the CNN productions set the tone for how different each program is. "Charlie" consists of Charlie Rose, the interviewer, and the interviewee. The only props are a coffee table, a drink for Charlie and one of the guests, and a completely black background. Compare this with "Piers Morgan", which has an elaborate set design, with lots of colorful lights and screens with the name "Piers Morgan" rolling across, just incase you forgot which show you were watching. In my opinion, all of this takes away from the content of the interview, making it no more than mere small talk between a Brit and some famous or supposedly "important" person. "Charlie Rose" cuts directly to serious questioning after a brief introduction, not letting any of his guests get off the set by dodging the question or giving a non-answer.

Additionally, the guests that appear on "Charlie Rose" are not just the latest flavor of the week that the media has decided to concentrate on. Sure, he interviews distinguished guests such as Barack Obama and Angelina Jolie, but he has also interviewed lesser known names as the commentator David Brooks and the former dean of the Harvard Business School, Kim Clark. This keeps the regular viewer well informed concerning not only the top news stories of the day, but also stories and perspectives that wouldn't make it on the air any other way.