A personal view of tennis by Jeff Davies

Truth in Tennis
 

So how does the media report tennis? Do we hear about the 1,964 drug tests that were done at the last major tournament that were all negative? Is anyone interested in writing about how 'clean' the sport is? Or is it only news when the 1,965th test is positive - no matter whether there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation? (see http://www.tennis.info/TWISIPuerta.htm)

Why this fascination with the bad and disinterest in the good? And what if there is no bad? What does the media then do for a story? And how much can we rely on the objectivity of a media that is apparently so absorbed with unearthing the darker side of the sport?

As tennis photographers, we spend considerable time on the side of tennis courts looking for moments that can be captured to provide the spirit and essence of a player or occasion. We actively look for the 'newsworthy' moment that make our photographs sellable to major magazines. We tend to notice what goes on. We had always assumed that tennis journalists do the same. We are, however, constantly surprised at how few journalists actually watch a match. They spend most of their time hunched over their laptop in a 4' x 3' cubicle in the media center casting occasional glances at TV monitors. Stories seem to be manufactured off-court than born on-court.

Which maybe explains why a lot of what is reported seems to differ from what we see actually occur on the court.

I have just read two match reports in one of the World's foremost tennis magazines. Both contain serious errors and embellishments of fact - details that serve only to enhance the 'newsworthiness' of the match. We were there, remember the matches and know that both of the described events did not happen - they are simply figments of the writer's imagination. The details are not particularly important - the description of a player being wheeled off a court on a stretcher tended by paramedics after suffering an injury whereas, in reality, she left the court on her own feet - and the player rushing to joyfully and tearfully embrace her father after the match. The father was not at the match. The imaginary incidents neither enhanced the reputation of the players or hurt them. They were included only to add drama and color to what the writer (and probably many others) considered to be an otherwise drab scene.

That he was prepared to sacrifice accuracy and honesty - and professional integrity - for minor sensationalism says much about the 'need' to generate excitement and interest even when actual events do not provide it. Who's to blame? The buying public for demanding constant sensationalism from their media? The magazine/newspaper for demanding sensational content from their writers? The writer for yielding to such pressure? Magazines and newspapers spend considerable sums to have reporters at the world's major tennis events - air fare, hotel and meal costs to and in major cities are significant. It is not surprising that editors demand that their writers produce stories that create sellable magazines and newspapers. With over 600 press writers (and over 1,300 media personnel) at a typical Grand Slam event, the competition to produce suitably exciting copy is intense to say the least..!

But whatever the root cause, the only fact about what is reported from a major tennis event is that much of it may not be... But, does it really matter? Is it, as the disclaimer often reads on things that do not work as expected, "For entertainment purposes only"