Re: A wonderful analysis of Serena's media critics
One of the things that's sure to irritate the various pundits is that Serena's big comeback at Oz didn't expose any negatives about her, or her competitors, but about them. It exposed their hypocrisy. Why is the worst automatically assumed for certain players and not for others? Why are certain players presented in the most negative manner? The pundits usually hide behind the excuse that the player "has a history" of certain negative behavior, but do they really, or do they just have a history of being accused of that negative behavior? And to borrow from the writer's courtroom example, if you hold many of the proclamations up to the scrutiny you would give a court case, they crumble under the weight of the evidence. (And, in many cases, the players they praise are more guilty of the negative behavior than the ones they pan.)
For example, the proclamations about Serena's fitness, which turned out not to be true. When pressed, many had to (very reluctantly) admit that they didn't actually know what was going on in the "Williams camp". So how would they know what work she was doing? Anyone that knows anything about female athletes knows that there isn't anywhere near as direct a correlation between outward appearance and level of fitness as there is with men. And anyone that doesn't know that, shouldn't be working in the sports media. It's a professional journalist's job to know these types of things. There have been many female athletes over the years who were described as "out of shape, overweight, fat" who were very hard workers who were very fit. This was an obvious failure on the parts of journalists to get the info before making the assumption. (In other words, a failure to do their job.)
I'd love to see "tennis journalism" put on trial, even if it's a mock trial. I'd like to see the members of the tennis media forced to justify their proclamations and assumptions about various players (or admit that they're talking out of their ass). "You said Player A is cocky/arrogant because s/he said (this and this), but didn't Player B say (this, this, and this), and Player C say (these things), and Player D say (such and such)? Don't the comments of these players (B, C, and D) fit more into the cocky/arrogant mold? So why are they described as 'classy'?..."
Or following the article's lead "You said Serena wasn't dedicated enough and wasn't working hard enough. What, exactly, was her daily training routine like?.... You don't know?!?.... Then how can you say..."