Media coverage and non-revenue sports

I had a chance along with Chris Gervino (KOMU-TV in Columbia) and Joe Walljasper (sports editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune) to be on a panel in Rick McGuire's sociology, sports and media class on Monday night in Columbia.

Great session, and one that dealt in what some may considered a harsh and unfair reality.

One of the abiding themes concerned over-coverage of football and men's basketball at the expense of non-revenue women's sports.

Chicken and the egg discussion regards would those sports be better attended and more popular if the media covered them more.

All three of us noted that the media covers what it perceives to be of the most interest to the most readers. And I noted that it is not the media's job to boost interest in anything. Joe noted that schools have sports information staffs to do that sort of thing.

The media feeds the public interest, not creates it in most cases.

Also discussed was whether those athletes - gymnasts, softball players, trackster, et all, might feel better about themselves if the media wrote more and/or better stories about them.

It may not be a popular answer, but I thought it was a true one when I said: "It is not the media's job, nor should it be, to make you feel better about yourself. That is your responsibility."

Also it is not the media's job to make you feel worse about yourself either.

Looking to the media to foster popularity of particular sports is like looking to Title IX to do so.

Title IX has done what it was largely intended to do: mandate athletic opportunity for women. It cannot create fan interest unto itself.

And neither does the media.