Kathleen's critique
From CyberOne Wiki
approach a review of the site’s argument by anticipating the strongest opposition on two levels: at the level of the argument itself and at a meta-level. A broad-brush opposition that engages the argument would likely maintain that athletes are deserving of greater scrutiny and should be held to higher standards because of their roles as public figures. The meta-argument resists the concept of the site and the argument entirely, asking the question of why we should have any special sympathy for professional athletes when many are wrongly convicted not just by the media, but by the courts.
The About the Website section addresses the meta-argument, but the empathic argument could be stronger. The author does note the concern that professional athletes are not the most sympathetic cause to champion, underscoring his understanding of the meta-objector. He then emphasizes that they are nevertheless productive members of society who deserve the rights that other have under the Constitution. Although the thrust of this argument is a good answer to the meta-objector, namely that these athletes, these people, deserve the same protections as any other accused, the rights-language is overly charged and a bit rote. The phrases “productive members of society” and “all the rights proscribed them in the Constitution” without more explanation play out as a totemic invocation of rights-language that do not address the concerns of the meta-objector. Rather, that use could be interpreted as a trivialization of the meta-objector’s strongly held beliefs.
That language could be an extremely effective persuasion tool, it just needs more behind it, more laying of common ground between the athlete and any other innocent (or if not innocent, then wrongfully persecuted). The page sets forth this argument somewhat by stating “athletes are losing property and future gains without the due process of the judicial court system.” However, this statement sounds like a court complaint, which might alienate the non-lawyer or law student. Some rewording and further support of this section of the argument could advance the meta-argument and the argument itself by establishing that although athletes are not necessarily the most sympathetic cause, they are deserving of the same or similar protections as any other citizen. Emphasizing the commonality emphasizes that athletes are similarly wronged when these protections are violated (“If you prick us, do we not bleed?”) even though the consequences may be different.
The objection the site does not address enough is the athlete’s role as a public figure and whether they should simply expect a higher level of scrutiny. It is alluded to somewhat in the discussion of Barry Bonds, but I anticipate that there would be enough resistance to the argument on this level that it should be noted (perhaps in the About the Website section or the home page) and discussed.
The concrete examples through the site start to lay the groundwork for the harm that occurs and the consequences of that harm but the argument is muddy at points. The reason for the line between the Historical Perspective section and the individually affected athletes is not completely clear. A short introductory paragraph to the Historical Perspective section would help tie it into the larger argument. Of what are these examples? The benefits or detriments of reserving judgment? The Ray Lewis section would seem to illustrate a case where the public reserved judgment and the Duke Lacrosse case is a pointed example of its consequences. The Marion Jones example does not quite make sense in this context. Further explanation of how her case relates to the overall argument would be helpful.
The Duke Lacrosse case is an extremely strong piece of evidence for the argument: it is recent and an example of the media lynch mob in action. Although these are not professional athletes, an example this compelling might deserve a place of more prominence on the site or a mention in other paragraphs of argument. It is an excellent way to bridge the span from the ordinary person to the professional athlete and a compelling concrete example of the tremendous wrong a person--athlete or not--suffers when convicted by the media.
The Barry Bonds section of the site engages the objector’s argument well: it anticipates the objection that Bonds deserves media criticism because of his treatment of the media. The empathic argument in this section is quite effective because it admits that Bonds deserves criticism, but questions the extent of that criticism. It points out that little evidence is available and that attacking him at this point is unfounded. However, the section does not address objections that Bonds is a record holder and prominent figure and thus a likely target for skepticism and scrutiny.
The Kobe Bryant section might also fit into the Historical Perspective section because the case seems fairly well-resolved. The argument here is a bit weak: there is little use of empathic argument and it could be tied in a bit more closely to the site as a whole. Bryant was dropped from all but one of his endorsement contracts, but an objector would likely maintain that the sponsors were well within their rights to do so since he no longer fit the image of their company (McDonald’s and Nutella, both of whom appeal to children, might not want an adulterer as a spokesperson). The site simply lists being dropped from his contracts as the wrong he suffered. Some acknowledgment of the athlete’s public role would make this argument stronger. The NBA’s treatment of Bryant is a good contrast to the NFL’s treatment of Pacman Jones and Michael Vick and tying these two pieces together would further the argument that NFL athletes are too harshly penalized by their league.
The example of Jones could use a bit more flesh: it seems a good example of preemptive prosecution, especially contrasted to the NBA’s treatment of Bryant. The Michael Vick section is the website’s most complicated example: it analyzes the sources of the media pressure and points to each source’s unclean hands. PETA comes across as an irresponsible and reactionary group and sponsors are depicted as predatory fair-weather friends. Although the language here is overly critical (the language of holding people responsible presupposes that the reader buys into the site’s argument), the contrast between PETA/the sponsors and the simple fact that fans might want to buy jerseys or merchandise to support a favorite athlete is striking. A more subtle version of this argument would play well and would be more likely to convince a skeptic that these groups acted in a manner out of proportion to the situation.
The planned future additions to the site would fill the need for interactivity and help create a compelling dialogue. Since the discussion surrounding these athletes is often highly charged, the site might need a moderated forum in order to avoid deeply polarized discussion that will not advance the site’s cause. It would also provide an outlet for someone who was convinced by the argument to contribute to the discussion or do something to help.
In all, the concept of the site is thoughtful and thought-provoking. The arguments need to be more closely tied and explained and some of the more charged diction needs revision in order to more effectively use empathic argument techniques. With some changes, the site may well be able to use the court of public opinion to effect that same court’s reform.
