I have covered men’s basketball for The Cavalier Daily the last two seasons. Last year, the women finished in the top 25 in the nation, while the men finished in the bottom three in the conference; this year looks like it will end about the same. And last year, two stories ran after the men’s games, while one story ran after the women’s; this year, again, is about the same. The difference in coverage sure seems unfair, doesn’t it?
In a way, it is. But I am here to defend it.
The main argument for why the men’s team should get more coverage than the women’s is obvious: More people care about the men’s team at this University than the women’s team, period. The attendance at John Paul Jones Arena clearly illustrates the point. Even this season, when fans have absolutely zero expectations of a postseason for the men, the attendance at men’s games is nearly triple that of the women’s games. You can be sure that many more people have heard of Sylven Landesberg than Monica Wright, and I would bet even money that the name recognition of Will Sherill versus Britny Edwards on the bench differs by a similar ratio.
I am not narrow-minded enough, however, to suggest that the attention the general public pays to a sport is the only factor that should determine coverage. The media has a responsibility to cover what has the community buzzing. This relationship, however, can work in reverse. If the media gives sufficient attention to a sport, that attention will make that sport bigger. Just as I am sure that the writer of the opposing column today, Dan Stalcup, would not say that media coverage should be determined solely by win-loss records of the teams in question, I will not claim that public perception should entirely shape coverage. The media can have a degree of flexibility.
Where Dan and I differ, I’m sure, is where we land on that spectrum; I tend to think that while media can generate talk, that relationship can only go so far. Consider the following analogy. A grocery store decides to market a new product — call it product A — while it does not market another product, though it is also on the shelves, product B. The store puts up a banner in front of the store raving about product A and stations employees inside handing out samples of product A. Product B, though still on the shelves at the store, is not promoted at all.
The increased exposure of product A to the general public is obviously designed to increase sales of that product. What if, however, product A is broccoli and product B is Snickers? The store can hand out all the free broccoli they want; most people will still pay to eat candy. By a similar vein, The Cavalier Daily can give all the attention to the women’s basketball team it wants. But the large difference in the fan bases would only be diminished by a relatively small number.
Then, I’m sure, Dan has another counterargument. He has likely said a winning team deserves to get covered more — to a degree. The women’s team, after all, works just as hard as the men’s team does, and if the women get the results, that ought to be rewarded.
But this argument has no merit in and of itself. Teams don’t “deserve” coverage from unbiased media, and The Cavalier Daily — perhaps unbeknownst to some — is unbiased media. Once you start talking about a team deserving something because of all the hard work it puts in, you are no longer an unbiased journalist. You are a fan. This argument only has relevance in that, given two teams of equal stature, fans will prefer a winning team to a losing one. But that goes back to the difference in public perception, which clearly outweighs the effect of the contrast in win-loss records of the men’s and women’s basketball teams. The factor of why the public cares more about one team or another, so long as it carries no ethical dilemma, is irrelevant. All that matters is the end result.
Clearly, I am not the only person with this opinion. The Daily Progress covers men’s versus women’s basketball in exactly the same manner that The Cavalier Daily does. Men’s basketball gets a column and a game story after games, while the women get just the game story. The Richmond Times-Dispatch, which covers the men’s team regularly, doesn’t send a writer to the women’s games; not even when they are at home.
But, you say, this is The Cavalier Daily we’re talking about here! Surely student-writers should have some compassion for their peers of all sports, right?
Wrong. The Cavalier Daily, like most student newspapers nationwide, is as independent of the subject matter it covers as any other professional newspaper. I would be lying if I said there weren’t Virginia fans among the Cavalier Daily staff. This is an inevitable byproduct of students covering the school they know and love.
Other than a staff of students who are largely unpaid, however, The Cavalier Daily is no different than any other professional newspaper. Thus, in as much as possible, we should therefore act like one.
Read More
Scott Stadium selected to host 2026 NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Championships
By Michael Liebermann | YesterdayThe biggest event on the college lacrosse calendar will unfold on Grounds.
Abysmal start proves too much to overcome as Virginia exits ACC Tournament early
By Ryan Weiner | 3 days agoIf the Cavaliers make the NCAA Tournament, they cannot afford to play another game like this.
As the Walshes take their final bow, the swimming world pauses
By Xander Tilock | 3 days agoHow could anyone possibly describe the success of this duo?
