I’ve been bothered by a phrase slipped into the Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s lead sports story on Sunday (yes, I do occasionally browse the sports section). The story, by Stephen Tsai, was a preview of the Pro Bowl which ran on the front page of the sports section on game day, with a headline in large type, “Ready for the Show“.
Tsai reviewed the problems the Pro Bowl has had attracting an audience over several years, and the changes made in the game’s format in an attempt to address those problems.
Tsai wrote:
The game’s relevance and entertainment value have been under review the past few years, particularly in 2012, when football became futbol, with flops and phantom tackles.
The competition was more palatable last year. But with Super Bowl players exempt from participation in what is essentially a postseason bye week, a makeover was needed.
So far, so good.
And then came a gratuitous editorial bomb, dropped in out of nowhere.
In concert with the players’ union — self-styled stakeholders — the format was changed. Instead of rosters divided by conference membership, a draft of Pro Bowlers was conducted.
Where did that come from?
“Self-Styled” reads as an anti-player or anti-union pejorative.
Here’s the definition of “self-styled” from the Free Dictionary:
self-styled (s?lf?st?ld?)
adj.As characterized by oneself, often without right or justification: “poets, real or self-styled” (Constantine Fitzgibbon). See Usage Note at so-called.
Thesaurus.com suggests a list of synonyms, including “supposed,” “ostensible,” “pretended,” “professed,” “so-called,” etc.
So what the phrase appears to be signaling is that the players and their union aren’t really stakeholders in the NFL’s Pro Bowl, but pretend to be.
Is he really saying that the players–the actual people who play the game of football and take the risks it involves–shouldn’t at the table as stakeholders? Or that the players’ union is illegitimate?
Did Tsai mean to say any of these things? Or, one has to wonder, was the phrase inserted by an opinionated editor?
Is some explanation in order?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I missed that in Tsai’s story. Good catch. On a semi-quasi-pseudo related note, I watched the game and it was competitive and fun for the first time in years.
Tsai is a long standing union member and one of the best Sports guys in town. I think once again Ian you are splitting hairs with the goings on at the SA. I’m sure he meant none of the possible negative meanings you threw out there. I have to admit though that Ian Lind reading the sports section surprised me!! BTW, I really liked the Year Of the Horse pullout that they had today.
What you say about Tsai as a union member and good sports reporter is certainly true. That’s why I found this phrase so jarring.
Not splitting hairs. This was done purposefully.
A sports reporters job (not just singling out Tsai) is to always to shill for the millionaire owners while simultaneously disparaging the greedy thug players.
Totes agree. That Peyton Manning gets a bad rap as a thug. Russell Wilson too.
“self-styled” is a good example of words that can *appear* pejorative to SOME but are not intentionally pejorative.
given this gray area, i doubt this particular case will be upsetting to many people. i agree with George; this is splitting gray hairs.
😀
There are a lot of media types who don’t have a good understanding of some of the terms they use.
The next time you see or read the some form of the phrase, “begs the question,” ask your self if the writer or speaker really meant that, or actually meant, “raises the question.” Many of them apparently do not know the difference.
At best, it was probably a poor choice of words. At worst, it was an editorial insertion by someone other than the author.
I disagree that calling this out is splitting hairs. Words matter and professionals, in particular, should choose them carefully.
Yep, “self-styled” is definitely pejorative in that context. Sometimes writers grab the wrong words. It was a poor choice and reflects an anti-union bias, though Tsai may not have consciously intended that effect.
There are any number of explanations for what I think you correctly characterize in the title of this post as an “unfortunate” choice of words.
First, as I have often thought when you raise a point for discussion, it would be nice to know what Stephen Tsai or his editor had to say. Did you ask? It may not even have been Tsai’s choice of words. How many times have we seen editors do hack jobs on reporters’ work? Or have a headline writer write a misleading, wrong, or just plain stupid headline?
Second, as some appear to have suggested above, this choice of words may have been unknowing, careless, or even sloppy, not intentionally pejorative of the union. As a very rough analogy, it’s a bit like those who use the verb “predominate” instead of the adjective “predominant” in a sentence like “The predominate color of the slopes of Diamond Head in winter is green.”
Third, it may have been based on the fact that many feel the owners/commissioner by far got the best of the players in the last CBA and that the union has become not much more than a speed bump in the NFL’s mad dash to fabulous fortune, and may even be abetting it at the players’ expense.
Finally, Tsai may, indeed, have meant to disparage the union for the reasons stated in the paragraph above, or otherwise. I hope he or his editor sees your post and responds. Even better, why don’t you contact him. Isn’t that what you fault reporters for so often? After all, your approach here and in other random complaints about daily life is a bit like asking “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Thanks for this comment. I really like the “well, did you ask” approach.
Ho-hum. Nasty weather we are having isn’t it?
“Self-styled” in this context denotes a party or organization as misrepresenting itself to the public. And I’ve not come across any quote from a player or NLFPA official claiming any sort of power or influence they did not possess with regards to the Pro Bowl. There were a ton of quotes from players expressing their desire to perpetuate the event and to keep it in Hawaii. But those were just the expressed wishes of the players. Nothing more.
Ian is right. This kind of editorial swipe at the players’ union has no place in a news article. Makes one think that the writer or editor had some axe to grind with someone associated with the NFLPA.
I think the term “self styled stakeholders” had nothing to do with the red herrings Ian drug into this story.
Tsai was not attacking the union for its role in negotiating for the players about pay and working conditions. As was noted, he is a union member and has been seen on the picket line with his fellow union members.
What he was pointing out is that the union does not have any legal right or clear mandate to participate in decisions about what team format should be used for the game. Despite the lack of a clear legal basis, they claimed a stake in the decision about how to make the game a more competitive and entertaining event.
Tsai’s right. This is America we’re talking about. Almost the last people to hold a stake in anything that’s done are the people who actually do it. (The very last are those who suffer the consequences.)