American culture, NFL

The Social Media Mob

On Tuesday morning, I was driving to work listening to “Mike & Mike” on ESPN radio, as I do most morning commutes. For 15 minutes, Greeny and Golic allowed Jim Turner, the former offensive line coach for the Miami Dolphins, to share details and his point of view on what exactly happened last year between Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin that led to a social outcry over locker room ethics and behavior.

For the first few minutes, all I could think was:

  1. Why are they rehashing all this? That was last year!
  2. Why are they giving this man so much air time to talk about something that happened last year and has been over for so long?

After all, there was much more to talk about – sports for one. But if the show was heading down that path (again) of discussing the larger issues that are taking over sports, then why not at least cover something from 2014?

And then it hit me.

We never really figured out what happened.

I didn’t even know this guy’s name. We moved through that story, that news cycle, so fast and with such condemnation that we made grandiose assumptions about what happened, but never really found out the truth, then came to a conclusion well in advance and moved on to the next thing.

social mediaIf it seems like the NFL is in a dark place right now, it is because it does seem that way. But seeming to be is not the same as it actually happening. To be fair, the NFL, NBA and the world in general are not any darker or different than it was 25 or 30 years ago.

We just find out about everything now – in near real time – and often react within the same beat.

We have a mob mentality on Social Media. We have shifted into an era of guilty until proven innocent. This is no longer about defending one person, their actions or even trying to determine what actually happened.

This is about the part that precedes that part.

While there is clearly a lack of leadership in the NFL – and perhaps more importantly, it’s player’s union – the NFL and other professional sports leagues should not be held to a standard that we do not hold ourselves or the justice system to.

In other words, while the NFL can and should do better, it is not their responsibility to go above and beyond the punishment, or lack thereof, handed down by the law.

We’ve been dipping our toes in some very troubling waters lately. Social media has pushed the public outcry to a place that is placing a great deal of pressure on different groups and people to act correctly – and with extreme speed. This creates two important problems that we seem to be ignoring with consequential long term damage.

Problem No. 1: In an attempt to get things right, speed matters. But not rapid speed. Rushing leads to mistakes, to not hitting all the angles just right. Think of pretty much every time you have rushed to get something done. Now how did that work out? Fail a test? Miss a deadline? Burn the casserole? Care for any do-overs? Ever think back on that situation a month, six months or a year later? While our decision making process should not take a long time, it also shouldn’t play out in 36 hours.

Problem No. 2: We cannot agree on what is “right” – and we probably never will. This is a simple fact of humanity. You will not find everyone in complete agreement on any issue, which is a good thing.

Look, we do not need to like the same things. The world would be a pretty boring place if we did. But we also do not have to agree on everything, or be right all the time. Better still, until we have all the information we need to process something, we don’t even need to be first or fast. We should want to do what is right, not just be right.

Debate, whether reasonable or not, at the very least helps with Problem No. 1 because it forces a slowdown. Making a decision alone, without consult, and it tends to cause collateral problems.

There is no doubt a wide array of opinions on the Adrian Peterson situation. From every corner, we hear from people with various and diverse backgrounds who have all been disciplined in a numerous ways. Some might have been whipped and hated it. Some might have hated it, but understood it and employ it with their kids. Others were never whipped and have run amok in life, while still even more were never spanked and have turned out to be fine, upstanding citizens.

But we want to be right, we want everyone to agree that we are right and we want to move on to the next thing we can find to stand up on a soapbox and shout about, be right about and move on from.

It does not – or should not matter – what our opinions are in regard to these situations, frankly. We can and should feel free to share them, so long as it does not sway the process due to them. And there is a difference between defending someone and defending the rights of anyone.

For example, Donald Sterling is clearly a sick, twisted and evil man. The NBA used his incredibly disgusting track record and a surging public outcry to take his business and sell it to someone else. And while the NBA – and the world in general – are better for it, while we all applaud the fact he’s out and gone, it doesn’t make us any less culpable for beating up the bully and taking what didn’t belong to us.

And now, it’s over. It feels like a long time ago.

It was July.

adrian-petersonWe’ll move on – and quickly – from Adrian Peterson, too. Just like we did with Ray Rice and Roger Goodell a whole week ago.

It is strange to think how collectively, through social media, we make up one of the most influential groups in the modern world. It’s an instant poll in many ways – like performing in front of a live audience, except with each line, you stop, gather the reaction and then move on to the next scene.

Truth be told, no one knows what to do right now –almost entirely because of what we will say. We have frozen the market on public relations, almost across the board.

Beer companies are threatening to pull sponsorship money because the NFL’s problems are not matching their “value” system (slightly ironic, right?). Hotels are gasping when their sponsorship banner hangs behind a team official as he makes an announcement because of the content and topic of said announcement.

Major sports companies and sponsors are suspending or pulling their deals with athletes and teams and leagues because they are afraid of us. They are afraid we’ll boycott, that we won’t buy their goods or services. Further, these actions are met with approval from celebrities and dignitaries outside the world of sports, simply because it feels like something that needs to be stated: “[Insert whatever situation, e.g. Child Abuse/Domestic Abuse] is wrong and I’m glad to see them doing something about it.”

Except nobody really did anything. “They” stopped selling jerseys or action figures or posters. They suspended someone with pay. They booted someone from the league. But nothing of real value has actually been done to prevent future child or domestic abuse.

This is not just limited to sports. Last week, Apple haphazardly forced all iTunes accounts to download the new album from U2 – which was met with swift and shameful scorn by social media. In about three days’ time, Apple released a program that would remove the album from user accounts. Good, right? Except how many even knew Apple possessed the power to put that on our devices to begin with? And if they can do it with Bono’s overly produced music, what could they do it with in the future?

We have yet to understand the breadth and depth of the power we now hold in our hands – both the technology and the medium.

Look at what we’ve done in just the past 10 days: Roger Goodell, the most powerful sports commissioner in history – has been shamed into hiding for the past week. Perhaps he should be fired – for a variety of reasons that include incredibly poor decision making – but a gone Goodell does not solve the problem. It only satisfies the social media mob.

The NFL did not just get a domestic abuse problem – as detailed here, it’s had one for years. Whether or not Goodell goes away or Ray Rice ever is allowed to return does little to address the issue. Further, we don’t seem to actually care about Janay Rice, just about using her as visual evidence for our cries of NFL violence and players out of control.

Donald Sterling did not just become a bigot overnight after a weird conversation with a woman not his wife; it had been documented for years as the lawsuits piled up. Being ousted as owner of the Clippers changes none of the living situations and irreparable damage Sterling did to others as their landlord.

The same as the NFL locker room has probably always been a strange place to you and me, the details of this foreign area escaped last fall in a situation that has been reported on largely by one side. But we don’t care about Richie Incognito or Jonathan Martin anymore.

We’ve long since moved on.

Last week, we had the whole NFL, the Baltimore Ravens and Ray Rice to be the judge, jury and pass verdict on. This week, we’ve got Adrian Peterson and the Minnesota Vikings. Next week, or the week after, it will be something else.

We’re using social media to collectively engage in our own little drama filled soap opera. And now, as our social media world turns, so does the actual world. We engage and trade barbs and opinions with people we know and we don’t know, saying things we’d never say out loud and/or in person, making the world at large believe we’re actually invested in the issue of the day – making our collective voices the loudest voting poll in human history.

You have to wonder if our cyber selves are creating a kind of future where social media swiftly – and with great feigned outrage – decides even more. What about the policies and the politics that govern us? Will we continue to not wait for all the information and provide a presumption of guilt until proven innocence as standard operating procedures?

Just remember that it is not so much about who you are, but what you will become.

I feel compelled to ask, what are we becoming?

And, are we really OK with it?

Standard
American culture, Donald Sterling, NBA, Uncategorized

A Wrong to Write

Over the past week, as Donald Sterling’s disturbing remarks came to light and the world reacted, I watched it unfold. From the statements to the ban to the talk of boycotts, I just listened, read and absorbed.

But for the first time, I wrote nothing.

It was not for lack of something to say, an angle or an opinion. Anyone who has read what I write about knows that I have no problem diving into a topic, sensitive or not, and navigating through it with thoughtful intent.

Donald SterlingOn Thursday, I finally had a complete, nuanced outline in my head of what I wanted to say on Sterling and the entire situation. About halfway through putting it from brain to laptop, a dear friend texted me and asked me what I thought and why I had not posted something about it.

I bounced my draft his way. It was a thought-provoking piece about race, racism, and the new social media justice that has evolved into a speedy, mob mentality that we should be fearful of should the topic not be something we could universally agree on (you know, like Donald Sterling being a slumlord scumbag who should certainly not own a basketball team.)  I asked if there was anything in it that could somehow be misconstrued or viewed as insensitive – certainly the last thing anyone wants, but especially on this topic.

His response was probably more thought-provoking than my piece.

It’s good, and you certainly spent a good enough amount of time making sure it was crystal clear that you didn’t agree with Sterling while making an entirely valid point. Freedom of speech and this social media component are an important distinction from this particular topic, but some might not make that distinction. You have to ask is it worth it for you? The sad part to me is that you even have to think about it.”

It wasn’t the response I was expecting, and it affected me. Why was I struggling to post it? Why did I wait so long? Was it because of the topic?

That’s not me – or at least it used to not be. More frequently than ever, I pass on stories that I feel I have a well-informed, researched and thought provoking opinion on. The mental war over what the fallout of negativity might be is just not worth it. This makes me slightly sad.

Are there more out there like me? Writers and journalists and bloggers afraid to post about certain topics because of the mob mentality of social media and the speed of judgment made now in America? I re-read my draft on the Sterling situation and found at least eight different instances where I used multiple adjectives to describe how disgusting I personally found the man to be – whilst trying to make a broader point about being careful how quickly we react. I was so concerned to make one thing clear (I’m not racist) that it was interfering with my other points (social media has changed how we react, is this a good thing?, etc.).

Do I really need to guard myself that much?

This is my passion. I admired and devoured the work of Frank Deford, Tony Kornheiser, Gary Smith, Ralph Wiley, Malcolm Gladwell, Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons growing up. I favorite author is probably George Orwell. Kornheiser’s piece on Nolan Ryan from the 1980 Sporting News is perhaps one of the finest pieces of long-form I’ve ever read. And Deford’s “The Deer Hunter” piece on Bob Knight in the fall of 1980 for Sports Illustrated rivals it.

Wiley’s catalog stands next to most as some of the best, thought-provoking and ingenious writing I’ve ever come across. I was deeply saddened when he passed away too young. Simmons was the first to use the internet, pop-culture and sports and wrap it up into a massive piece that left you laughing for hours.

Writing is an art. It is powerful. It has always inspired me because I believe words can inspire others, sway them, inform them and move them. Which is why I was perplexed by my hesitation to post what I knew would be a good take on this mess with Donald Sterling, the NBA, race and social media.

But I didn’t feel safe enough to post it because frankly – regardless if it was this topic or not – free speech is dying, if not dead. There are too many topics that immediately spark a response – no matter what the take or angle, no matter how thoughtful and sincere. You’re better off making fun of PED users, bad calls and questioning the NCAA than you are to actually discuss the nuanced issues facing both sports and society.

The reason free speech is dying is because of the very place that would seem to promote its use the most: the Internet.

Twitter and Facebook have caused a rapid shift in society and our culture. You can share whatever you want, but whatever you share is spread more rapidly than ever before. And it is not only shared, but dissected and rapidly responded to.

On the surface, this seems good. We tend to associate speed with progress – like the swift speed of booting Sterling from the NBA in 72 hours. In 1914, this would have taken months, if not years. In 2014, we do it in a matter of hours.

And as I said in the Sterling piece I will not be posting, that’s just fine in this instance. But is it fine because we all agree on who it was and what was said? What happens if the topic is more ambiguous next time? Will we still move so rapidly towards the decision?

How many times do you write something snarky on someone’s Facebook post or reply to a Tweet without truly thinking about what you are saying? What implications there might be in 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 days? You don’t think, because you are reacting. And reacting is 100 percent emotional and spontaneous.

Social media has increased the speed and the volume of reaction and therefore emotion. We have a lot of emotion in the social media world today. This emotion, this anger over your opinion, mine and theirs is what leads to the reduction of use of free speech.

Free speech is a principle. You may not agree with it in its various forms, but the point it supposed to be that it is allowed. Like so many, I cannot fathom how Donald Sterling thinks the way he does in 2014. It is beyond insensitive, beyond embarrassing and beyond rational.

Free speech is also not something to hide behind. You cannot run from your words, or avoid a fallout. There can and will be consequences for the things we say – as there were and should be for Sterling. But if the person still wants to say something, under the Bill of Rights, it is allowed.

The absolute key, however, is that to check and balance this, we must make sure we do not lump in allowance with tolerance or permanence. They are each separate entities.

A principle has to be defended because it is a principle, not because we all happen to agree in this instance it was violated was for a perfectly good reason. The Sterling situation is obvious; what do we do and how do we react if this happens again, but it’s not about race? Are religious comments OK? How about sexual orientation? What happens when there are other shades of gray and moral ambiguity involved?

Why we must practice some patience is because of that very thing: next time. Here, the punishment and the reaction were befitting and deserving in this instance because we all agree it was offensive and there is no place for racism in this country.

But we must be aware it will now serve as a reference point to any and all future situations that may not be so unifying.  Better still, how do we feel about social media being able to so quickly affect decisions in this country, in our society?

This is a real thing, and it’s a reason that someone like me, who loves writing more than most and has been doing it for years, is left wondering whether I should or can freely express my opinions anymore.

Then again, I guess I just did.

Sigh.

I should have just scraped this whole thing and wrote jokes about quarterbacks and crab legs.

Twitter loves that sort of thing.

Standard