From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: US Open - General Observations
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.212924.12977@news2.cis.umn.edu> Anne Bilek <anne@boombox.micro.umn.edu> writes:
>
>Your suspicions betray you.  I found your first posting objectionable
>because you seemed to want to hierarchize tennis fans, placing yourself
>in the top hierarchy, of course.  Here you are saying that there are
>"hard core" fans (read: the superior fan), the "occasional" fan, and the
>lumpish proletariat.

Not at all. In fact, I stated specifically that I don't "look down" on
the nonplaying, infrequent viewers any more than I would expect to be
looked down upon by those who are hard core fans of baseball or some
other sport. I said that not everyone can be a hard core fan of every
sport, and that it was "no big deal".  I then said it was a "big deal"
if the TV program directors assume (incorrectly, in my opinion) that
they have to handle grand slam events differently than the Canadian Open
telecast or similar minor events.  I blamed the TV people, although I
certainly admit to some disdain for gossip and star gazing on the part
of some fans.

My hierarchy was in terms of increasing size of the viewing audience, in
my opinion, and in decreasing appetite for tennis trivia, tennis tips, etc.
I don't expect the kind of trivia that the hard core fans might like, as I
know we are in the minority and cannot expect the telecast to be aimed at
us.  I said that I thought it was too bad that the telecast was aimed at
the lowest common denominator of the 3 groups, as I didn't think the
nonplaying group would be too put off by a few tennis tips or some fairly
nontrivial facts --- they don't take up much time.  Doubles coverage is
another story. I speculated that the nonplaying viewers would not be
interested, and gave them partial blame, along with the TV people. I also
gave such viewers partial blame for the Monica/Madonna fluff pieces.
I think it is a fair assessment that such pieces are run because of the
judgment of their audience by the TV programmers.  It is also possible
that the TV people are misjudging the audience, and that casual viewers
have no interest in such pieces, but I don't think it likely.  Yes, I
disdain gossip about whether Monica was pregnant last year, etc., and
am not likely to apologize for that disdain.

The idea that my hard core fans category is "better" than my weekend
players who aren't trivia nuts category is entirely a figment of your
imagination, however. I did not place any value judgments on those two
levels of the hierarchy, nor did I say that the second level was somehow
to blame for what I don't like in the telecasts. Just the opposite. I
also noted that I am not a frequent player, and that has little to do
with my criticisms or hierarchy.

>I'm not saying that the announcers don't occasionally get their facts
>screwed up, or that the telecasts don't sometimes stink... they do.  I'd
>rather see two unknowns playing than watch Monica Seles demolish some
>poor qualifier.  But I object to sentiments such as "The people who
>aren't really tennis fans can probably turn off their TV sets and the
>rest of us can enjoy it" (from your first post).  I wish those people
>would stay tuned and learn a little more about tennis.  But I get the
>feeling that your sense of superiority (as a hard core tennis fan, of
>course :) is reinforced when the masses change the channel to football.

Perhaps you should speculate less on what I must be thinking or feeling.
Such speculation is mere ad hominem attack --- which I thought you were
objecting to in my disdain for certain viewers' tastes.  If the sport
were cricket or polo, I would personally be more interested in seeing
the members of the royal family in the audience than in seeing the
action on the field.  But I would be surprised if the TV directors
indulged me too much by showing such fluff instead of showing the action,
and it wouldn't surprise me if the cricket or polo fans resented the
fact that the telecast was sinking to my tastes instead of appealing to
theirs. Again, every one of us has a few hundred sports that we really
don't know about and don't watch much.  That doesn't make us bad people.
The question here is whether the telecasts of such sports should be aimed
at those of us who really aren't fans of it.

>I was referring specifically to your post, not to the state of the world
>at large.  But since you bring it up, yes, I do consider democracy a
>"sacred cow".  Other people don't have the same tastes that I have, and
>that often causes me pain :), but I would rather have a trashy democracy
>than a high-brow totalitarian state (I believe that many Nazis were
>renowned art lovers).  What worries you more: low standards or the fact
>that the too many people are watching your game?

I don't worry about the fact that lots of people are watching the game.
That is another figment of your paranoid imagination. If I knew that
50% of all TV sets were tuned into the U.S. Open every night, it would
not matter to me at all --- unless it affected the way the TV program
was directed.  If they changed the way the tennis was shown to me, it
would make me object.  This idea that I am somehow upset just by the
knowledge that the masses are watching, and not by the TV programming,
is absurd and unsupported by anything I have said in my posts.

And the Nazi business is just the latest "last refuge of the
scoundrel" in such discussions: if you disagree with someone, call
them a Nazi or a Communist or a Fascist or something similar. Utter
garbage.  And I don't think the people throwing such words around have
the slightest idea what they are talking about. The Nazis attacked
some of the most educated and cultured members of their country (the
Jews) and got their support from the Germanic peons who were resentful
of the Jews precisely because of their education, wealth, manners,
culture, etc.  So, how are the Nazis the epitome of snobbishness when
it comes to popular culture? Ever see the level of culture in some of
the popular propaganda they printed?  I'd say they were appealing to
the baser elements in society, not to the upper crust who disdained
the masses. "Many Nazis were renowned art lovers", huh?  A few at the
top of party politics attempted to revive what they considered
Aryan/Germanic culture by promoting Wagner and Nietzsche, etc., but
they were hardly "many" of the party members, the rank and file being
more like any cretinous collection of KKK or David Duke supporters.
Believe me, these are not high brow people in general.  Even if they
were, it would have no relevance to my criticisms of these telecasts.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis