Roger Federer: "I have created a monster."

Via the BBC:

World number one Roger Federer believes he is a victim of his own success after his shock 7-5 6-3 7-6 (7-5) defeat to Novak Djokovic in the Australian Open.

Hold the phone. "Shock" defeat? It's a "shock" that Roger Federer ever loses a tennis match? A TENNIS match? One might as well be shocked that a major league pitcher ever loses a baseball game. But Roger Federer ever losing a tennis match, even to a top-ranked player like Djokovic, is a "shock"?

No it ain't a shock. Calling it one is sexing up the "story."

In fact, any sportswriter who says such an ignorant thing has no business being a sportswriter. He or she should be writing sell copy for an ad company.

Federer, 26, lost at the tournament for the first time since 2005, ending a 19-match unbeaten run in the process.

Notice how the writer is all ho-hum about that 19-match winning streak. He plays that down. Instead he hypes up the one loss.

He said: "I've created a monster that I need to win every tournament - still, the semi-finals is not bad.

No, Roger, you didn't create the monster. The press is the monster, and you didn't create it.

Tennis isn't the big gig. To get noticed for assignments on the big gigs, you've gotta get the editors' attention. "60 Minutes" let the genie out of the bottle back in the 1970's by adopting fiction-writing techniques in journalism.

So, it's no longer "who, what, why, where, when, and how." Now it's all "conflict (controversy) and suspense."

You create suspense with story questions like "Oh my! Is Indiana Jones about to be emasculated by that raging rhinoceros?"

Suspense, guaranteed to tantalize the audience so they tune-in again tomorrow to buy more of what you're selling, in hopes of find out the answer to this excruciating question. It's called "hooking" your audience.

Kind of like the weather forecast does. The "news" is like that today: it's no longer about today, it's a big fat "what if" about tomorrow.

Nothing wrong with manipulating the audience that way in fiction, because fiction is supposed to be fiction solely for entertainment. But the news supposed to be fact solely for information.

To make it exciting entertainment instead, you just leave everything out of a news report except whatever can be trumped up into some kind or controversy or suspense hook. What does this warping and cherry-picking of the news do to it?

As in politics. The press couldn't be less interested in the candidates' stands on the issues. Their "story" is all about the race. "Oh my! Is So-and-So about to crash and burn? What if he/she doesn't win this primary?" If that worthless junk sells, fine, but don't try to pass it off as legitimate news.

And the candidates know that the only way to get any air time is to make some outrageous accusation against a political opponent. Nothing else is "newsworthy."

Similarly, in press briefings, reporters show no interest in getting information. Instead they spend the whole time arguing policy with government officials and trying to wrestle from them some statement that can be trumped up into some "controversy" or dramatic admission of failure or guilt or a story question that amounts to the headline: "Is Doomsday at Hand?" Tune-in tomorrow in hopes of finding out.

Translation to sports, where the story question is "Oh my! Is the great Roger Federer about to crash and burn?"

Subliminal message: "Tune-in again tomorrow in hopes of finding out, so we can make more money selling ad space."

That's why they aren't interested in the match itself - only in whatever suspense and controversy they can manufacture from selected facts in it.

In other words, they are deliberately making something out of nothing.

They do the same thing to Venus and Serena Williams all the time. Don't listen to them. Don't let them make you think you should feel terrible about losing a tennis match. That's ridiculous, and everyone but them knows it.

Technorati Tags: tennis