Mary Jo's letter to Franklin Shuftan, executive editor of the Chicago Daily Southtown, regarding this recent column by Phil Arvia.
I take some solace in knowing that to the extent these sorts of view are still presented in the media, it is increasingly only by fourth-tier writers in third-tier papers.
It doesn't particularly bother me that there are some people out there who aren't interested in the WNBA. I can at least understand some of their reasons. If dunking is a lot of what you love about basketball (it is great, afterall), then you should go somewhere else (and check back in five years). And though I think you should at least go to a few games before making a blanket characterization that the league is boring, I myself would like to see a higher scoring, more up-tempo game.
What I really don't understand is the frequently repeated and entirely befuddling argument that the W is "crammed down our throats."
When is the W crammed down your throat? Are you unable to escape the 20 games that actually make it on television each year? Or the token one-game-per-week highlight (showing two plays at most) on SportsCenter? Or the once-a-year mention of women's basketball on sports radio? Or those 200-word AP league round-ups appearing on page 13 of your local newspaper sports section?
Nor do I understand the related argument that those of us who do attend games don't really like it.
Come to a game this summer and open your eyes. Watch the game, and if you remain for whatever reason convinced that the only basketball worth watching is men's basketball, don't come back. But watch the fans too -- and then stop pushing this bullshit about how all of us would secretly rather be at home.
I'm a journalist and understand the role controversy plays in selling news. But a column by Paul Arvia bashing the WNBA, which recently announced an expansion into Chicago, leaves me baffled.
The point of Arvia's column was to let people know he wasn't ever going to waste his time watching an athletic event involving women. Why this would be important to Chicago readers and its advertisers is beyond my comprehension, unless it was intended to provoke anger and sell newspapers. It's disappointing to see that your newspaper allows this kind of mean spirited writing to appear on its pages.
Sell newspapers? Maybe. Respectable journalism? I don't think so.
I take some solace in knowing that to the extent these sorts of view are still presented in the media, it is increasingly only by fourth-tier writers in third-tier papers.
It doesn't particularly bother me that there are some people out there who aren't interested in the WNBA. I can at least understand some of their reasons. If dunking is a lot of what you love about basketball (it is great, afterall), then you should go somewhere else (and check back in five years). And though I think you should at least go to a few games before making a blanket characterization that the league is boring, I myself would like to see a higher scoring, more up-tempo game.
What I really don't understand is the frequently repeated and entirely befuddling argument that the W is "crammed down our throats."
When is the W crammed down your throat? Are you unable to escape the 20 games that actually make it on television each year? Or the token one-game-per-week highlight (showing two plays at most) on SportsCenter? Or the once-a-year mention of women's basketball on sports radio? Or those 200-word AP league round-ups appearing on page 13 of your local newspaper sports section?
Nor do I understand the related argument that those of us who do attend games don't really like it.
Come to a game this summer and open your eyes. Watch the game, and if you remain for whatever reason convinced that the only basketball worth watching is men's basketball, don't come back. But watch the fans too -- and then stop pushing this bullshit about how all of us would secretly rather be at home.