Commentary

How Much Should Sport TV Programmers Reveal?

by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, February 4, 2009

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps does weed. Should we care?

All this means it that sponsors and viewers were robbed -- he should have gotten more medals and world records. Marijuana will never be considered a performance-enhancing drug, though it is a pain-killer for some chronic illnesses.

If you were an NBC advertiser or Phelps sponsorship provider or NBC Olympic viewer mulling the thought that Phelps was toking up between heats, consider that you should demand rebate from NBC.

You missed Phelps getting faster world records and perhaps more gold. TV advertisers may have been robbed of higher ratings -- so to speak.

If you believe Lance Armstrong did drugs during his seven Tour de France wins, you might consider the fact that anyone with near-death cancer should be allowed to do any drugs they want.

Armstrong is alive -- the rest is just crap. One French media executive from Publicis was skeptical: How could anyone win seven Tour de France three week races in a row, he asked me. My answer: Obviously the race can't be that hard. Someone who has had cancer can win it.

We all want transparency when it comes to TV -- from our TV news, and especially the ultimate reality show -- our sports performances.

But -- as has been mentioned in this column before -- what do we really get? We get reality TV show producers who juxtapose video and timelines, to make the most compelling stories. We get news producers sometimes making money deals with their subjects -- paid journalism -- to get the best shots, interviews, whatever.

NBC was highly praised for its strong coverage of the Beijing Games. As its reward, it got some of the best Summer Olympic ratings in over a decade.

Phelps was a natural poster boy. But we are all not perfect. Cheating isn't good, nor is criminal behavior. (Children take note). One of Phelps' sponsors calls the photo of him bonging up a non-issue.

We got drama and excitement from NBC's summer TV event. But apparently we should have been focusing on the type of vitamin C Phelps had that day -- or how strong his double latte was the morning before one of those big victories

7 comments about "How Much Should Sport TV Programmers Reveal? ".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

L.a. Peters from Audience Research Analysis, February 4, 2009 at 2:40 p.m.
Oh please, Mr. Friedman. One photo does not establish that Michael Phelps was toking up during the Olympics, nor does it even prove that he's a regular, recreational user. You *are* pulling our legs, aren't you?
Reply

Douglas Ferguson from College of Charleston, February 4, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.

He's a role model for children, bong and all. Do ANY of you have children?

Paul Van winkle from FUNCTION, February 4, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.

Expectations that media personalities and events we come into any contact with, remote or otherwise, should or can conform to each (limited) view of: Business practice? Contract law? Morality? Youth activities? Performance enhancement use? Raising children?

Where are we, and what year is it?

Ladies and Mr. Ferguson: unless I missed something, no certainty or protection from life exists anywhere.

Phelps lives his life, and the 'owners' and 'buyers' of his likeness do what they gotta do to make it make sense. In the meantime, open source discussions led by provocative, interactive media writers can hopefully stir us all to reason better and synthesize some wider POVs.

Isn't it time for a leap beyond flat earth thinking? A guy can hope.

Michael Kaplan from Blue Sky Creative, February 4, 2009 at 3:43 p.m.

Our national hypocrisy when it comes to recreational drugs always astounds me. If he'd been drinking out of a bottle of whiskey, no one would have cared. But get caught holding a bong? Tar-n-feather the bastard!

Seriously, the guy's been in training for 10 years straight. Seems like he earned a little vacation. His only real problem was being photographed in what he thought was a private moment.

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, February 4, 2009 at 4:47 p.m.

Those who do not pay for doing something wrong (beyond mistake which is what you do in arithmetic), will get it "wronger" later. See the SEC, etc. There is always someone who is going to pay. Would you rather your ten year old who thinks he can get away with toking here and there or Michael Phelps who is getting paid millions for his image?

Rebecca Rachmany from AdsVantage, February 5, 2009 at 3:57 p.m.

It's not just hypocrisy regarding recreational drugs: it's hypocrisy regarding drugs in general. How many of us really believe that today's athletes do not take any performance-enhancing drugs? It's just a delicate game to make sure they take few enough to test negative on drug tests.

Our society advocates and markets all kinds of performance and mood-stimulating drugs, not to mention drugs as an alternative to a healthy lifestyle (weight loss, cholesterol, etc.).

The only logic behind ensuring some drugs are illegal seems to be that the money is getting into the wrong hands. If it were hard to grow or produce weed or coca, maybe the pharma companies would be glad to charge top dollar to Phelps fans for them.

Regardless of the ethics, I agree with the basic premise of the article. Phelps broke the law, demonstrated poor judgment, and did in fact cause financial damage to clients & sponsors.

Carter Crawford, February 5, 2009 at 10:45 p.m.

I disagree with most who say so what. The Olympics represents more than the best non paid athletes in the world, it is about honor and ethics and drug free living. They are role models for youth like no pro can ever be. He earned the medals fairly and cleanly, but I will support any advertiser who pulls sponsorship and the Olympics if they ban him. The fact that he did this publicly is the killer. However it is impressive he could swim and still smoke.