PRIVILEGE AND THE PRESS & VICE VERSA

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This bit from Naomi Osaka stands out, on talking to the media: &quot;I know it&#39;s to grow the sport and all these amazing things but at some point I also feel like talking to us is a privilege&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Dx5TOddKli">https://t.co/Dx5TOddKli</a></p>&mdash; Simon Cambers (@scambers73) <a href="https://twitter.com/scambers73/status/1432403409282469894?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A long time ago before there was social media, as a tennis fan, the only interaction I had with tennis was reading Jon Wertheim's questions blog on Sports Illustrated.  As someone who didn't readily have internet access in Jamaica, as soon as I migrated and was introduced to fast internet (not dial up), every Wednesday I eagerly waited for the SI colum with Jon to come up so that I could read questions from readers to Jon about tennis players.   At that time, I did not really get a chance to watch much tennis as if you really wanted to watch a match, you literally had to find a skanky stream on livesport or someone on some chat room would post a live stream which was perhaps infected with viruses.  That is how much we loved the sport. 

I recall writing in my questions and it was a joy to see my name published with my question and a response from Jon.  To this day, Jon Wertheim remains one of my fave tennis journalists (even if I have not forgiven him for the low rent comment). 

Fast forward and now we have social media.  We have Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.  There is also a multitude of other platforms, some of which I have never heard of.  I still try and read Jon Wertheim's column, but I do find it hard to find it what with the death of Sports Illustrated and Jon's move to Tennis Channel. 

Why am I writing all of this?  I saw a comment attributed to Naomi Osaka recently about the privilege that the media should have in having the ability to speak to tennis players.  I know that these days the herd thing is to denigrate the media, after all, they have not really covered themselves in glory, but I find that particularly comment quite galling.  

One of the ways in which I came to love and admire many tennis players that I have never had the chance to watch play was by going through the archives of the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and many other newspapers to find out what was written then, read the comments from fans and then get the opportunity to form my own opinion.  A case in point, I never knew about the reason why Serena and Venus never played Indian Wells until I read Jon Wertheim's column from way back when.  

I don't follow a lot of celebrities on social media as frankly they are always selling something.  You never get to connect with them because you don't know whether the person who is managing the social media of X player is actually X or some person assisting X to sell something.  For that reason I don't mind the press conference.  I like the fact that real journalists get an opportunity to ask questions, and players have to think about a response or in some cases mail in a response to a question that they find difficult to answer. 

The press conference provides a way for the athlete to respond to issues that they may not be comfortable with, and as they have their own agency, they can decline to answer a question on the spot.  It is their right.  But to say that the media should feel privileged to sit in a room with someone whose job it is to play tennis is taking this to a level of ultimate disrespect. 

If the quote as mentioned above is correct (and again, the media has not covered itself in glory in bringing us the news), I think it is a comment that is in poor taste and whomever is advising Ms. Osaka should have her clarify her comment as soon as possible. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - LIFE'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Despite my better judgment I went ahead and read the piece written by Ben Rothenberg regarding the allegations made by Olga Sharipova against her now ex boyfriend Alexander Zverev. I won't go into the meat of that article but I do have some views on the issue of domestic violence and how we should treat both the person who has allegedly suffered domestic violence and the alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. For starters, I should point out that I am writing this article from 3 viewpoints: 

(1) I am a survivor of domestic violence, both of an emotional and physical nature. 

(2) I work alongside my local Crisis Centre and Legal Befrienders. 

(3) I am heavily involved in counselling victims of domestic violence, their partners and whole families. 

Mr. Zverev has been accused of domestic abuse. Those are serious, life changing and in some cases career ending allegations. When a woman who has been in a long standing relationship with a man who is emotionally abusive, it is hard for her to break free. In the same breath, a man who is in a relationship where he controls all aspects of the relationship may not be aware that he is emotionally abusing his partner. 

Mr. Zverev is a professional athlete. In the grand scheme of things this might not matter much, but like most professional athletes, their mental state is that this job is all about me. Everyone else, from coaches, to the wellness team to even the sports management body. It is all about what is best for the athlete in order that he or she can perform at an optimum level. Simple things like a coach carrying the racquet bag of a player after practice or walking around picking up balls. All of this is so that the athlete. The earner. The person whose job it is to go out there and perform can actually go out there and perform. The role of a wife and girlfriend in this scenario is no different. Wives and girlfriends (and husbands too) are there to cheer from the sidelines and ensure that the athlete receives all the support that they can give. 

Most of us who are on the outside looking in think that this is a cut and dried situation, but it isn't. In my experience, many women in situations such as Ms. Sharipova's are not aware that they are active participants in an abusive relationship. Many people will read this and call it victim blaming. They will ask: Why did she not leave? Why did she not report it? These are reasonable questions to ask because most people like to believe they are in control of their own lives and make their own decisions. However, it can be hard to see when things are going horribly wrong in a relationship. Often those in the relationship try to salvage it by any means necessary and actively want to still maintain the relationship. 

In this particular case, Ms. Sharipova attempted to commit suicide on more than one occasion by injecting herself with insulin, despite not being a diabetic. The fact that Mr. Zverev found her and saved her life probably made her think, yes, he does love me and this relationship can be saved. Even though this may strike us as a strange course of action or reasoning from the outside, we do not know the dynamics that existed between the couple. Mr. Zverev, from those of us looking on from the outside, seems to deal with his now ex-girlfriend in a way that we would term to be abusive or disrespectful. But again, we do not know the language and expectations of this couple. Possibly, in his mind, he is the one who is earning money and taking care of her. He might believe he needs to perform for the media and for his career and it is Ms. Sharipova's role to support him all the time. His anger at her leaving the house to go and get her hair done is a perfect example of that type of thinking. 

Does this excuse his behavior? Likely not, but there are two people in this relationship and they have established patterns that neither you nor I know about or are likely to feel comfortable imitating. Persons who are looking from the outside into this relationship and seeing it from the lens presented by the journalist, Mr. Rothenberg are judging Mr. Zverev's behavior without getting the full picture. What was the nature of their relationship? What were the terms of the relationship? In speaking with families in crisis, whether it be visiting relationships or otherwise, one has to try very hard to obtain both sides of a story. Because, as difficult as it may be for us to understand, some people want to stay together and some may decide to part ways. We do not get to decide that for either party. 

Right now Mr. Zverev is losing the publicity angle on this situation. Calls are being made to his governing body, the ATP to do something. On a legal basis, what exactly is the ATP supposed to be doing? There are no criminal charges that have been filed. No civil suit has been instituted and even if there were criminal charges filed or a civil suit, until Mr. Zverev has been found guilty, there is literally nothing that the ATP can do (see Justin Gimelstob for reference). 

Domestic violence is a serious issue. There are many layers of the situation that have not been brought to life. This series of articles from Ms. Sharipova, while generating an enormous amount of sympathy, will not give her what she most wants, which I believe is to be back with Mr. Zverev. This might be off-putting for some of us to read, but it is important that we recognize that this is about what she wants, not necessarily what we want for her. 

We have to allow her her own agency, even if we disagree. Still, I am hopeful that during the series of discussions that the journalist had with Ms. Sharipova, that he at least took the time to suggest that she receive counselling. 

I truly believe that this situation has no winners but everyone loses. Ms. Sharipova loses by not getting what she truly desires. Mr. Zverev through the damage to his reputation, which will be there until the end of his career. 

It is unfortunate.