Content-Type: text/html [James A. Rada, Rowan University and K. Tim Wulfemeyer, San Diego State University] Color Blindsided Color Blindsided in the Booth: An Examination of the Descriptions of College Athletes During Televised Games One of the major goals of racial equality is to create a "level playing field." In the world of sports, this reference to an athletic field is more than just an analogy, because many people believe sports are one aspect of American life where the field is level, where employment and retention are based strictly on performance. Since sports occur in an atmosphere where the pressure to win and the financial rewards are enormous, it would seem to be occupational suicide for an owner, manager or coach to jeopardize victory by bringing personal, race-based prejudices into play against an able-bodied athlete. In addition, since most professional and collegiate sports receive abundant media coverage, the public has greater opportunities to evaluate the true "levelness" of the playing field. In short, there would appear to be enough checks and balances in sports to ensure that the field is indeed as level as possible. But what if some of the checks and balances are not working as effe ctively as they could and should? And, does the content of media coverage actually help level the playing field, or does it serve to perpetuate a type of racial discrimination that plows ruts in the field? For many years, professional and collegiate sports engaged in systemic and institutionalized discrimination. However, over the past 50 years, as professional and collegiate sports have abandoned their policies of discrimination, the percentages of African American athletes in the three major revenue sports of baseball, basketball and football have grown. African Americans comprise 13% of professional baseball players; slightly higher than the 12% of the U.S. population that is African American (Racial and Gender Report Card, 2001). In professional football (67%) and basketball (78%), African Americans are represented at a rate far beyond that of the general population. Similar overrepresentation of African Americans appears in college football (46%) and basketball (56%) as well (Racial and Gender Report Card, 2001). At the same time that African American representation in sports was growing, so too was television's coverage of professional and collegiate sports. Thanks to the development of satellite technology and cable television, and the growing popularity and marketability of sports, televised sports coverage has proliferated. Broadcasts of regular season professional baseball and basketball games, and collegiate football and basketball games average between two and five million viewers; and regular season broadcasts of professional football games average more than 13 million viewers (Person's Tracking Report, 1998). The numbers grow significantly when television airs playoffs and championship games in these sports. However, at the intersection of these "growth spurts" lies a potential dilemma. Throughout its history, television repeatedly has been found guilty of unfavorable treatment toward African Americans (see Dates & Barlow, 1990; Dixon & Linz, 2000; Romer, Jamieson, & de Coteau, 1998; United States Commission for the Study of Civil Rights, 1977; United States Riot Commission Report, 1968). Often, television has chosen to under represent, many times to the point of ignoring, African Americans and the African American community. When television has endeavored to represent African Americans, the result has often been demeaning, stereotypical portrayals. So, in light of this, the question is: "Will an increased African American presence in sports and an increased amount of television coverage equal an increase in the negative representations of African Americans?" Several studies have investigated racial bias in television's coverage of professional and collegiate sports. While there has been both anecdotal and statistical evidence demonstrating bias, a clear consensus has yet to be reached. It is the intent of this research to build upon the previous work in an effort to arrive at a model that effectively and validly measures the presence, and form(s) that racial bias may take in televised sports coverage. The value of such a study comes from examining the impact of televised sports coverage. According to McCarthy and Jones (1997), television and sport combine to form_ {W}estern culture's most potent instrument of interpretation _together with huge sporting audiences makes the mediated sports event a very powerful agency through which messages are constructed (p. 349). Once the message is constructed, attention turns to its reception. Research has shown that television may enable viewers to construct a social reality based upon television's definition of reality as opposed to what is actually occurring in the world around them (see Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1980: Gross & Morgan, 1985). Consider that for most sports fans, watching the games on television is a ritual endeavor, one repeated several times over the course of a season. Along with the chance to cultivate world views derived from the coverage, the opportunity exists for a viewer to receive messages that, through repetition, become incorporated into what Squire, Knowlton, and Musen (1993) refer to as semantic memory, "a general knowledge about the world" (p. 459). If this general knowledge includes racial misperceptions, then the possibility exists that exposure to these messages may affect impressions of, and attitudes toward, African Americans in general, and Africa n American athletes in particular. It is important to note that the potential effects are not confined to Whites' impressions of, and attitudes toward, African Americans. Tan and Tan (1979), among others, note that the combination of stereotyped portrayals, in conjunction with the expectations of others, may have negative consequences on the self-esteem of those within the stereotyped group. Researchers have demonstrated a causal link between messages and audience response in sports coverage (for a review see Bryant & Zillman, 1991); and television news coverage including portrayals of African Americans (see Pan & Kosicki, 1996; Rada, 2000). This research does not endeavor to investigate the stimulus-response relationship between biased messages and audience reactions; however, these studies - especially when taken in conjunction with the numbers demonstrating the popularity of televised sports - clearly serve as a call for investigation into the content being transmitted via the televised coverage of sports. The Sports Media and Race Rainville and McCormick (1977) conducted one of the first investigations into racial bias in television's coverage of sports. The authors found announcers created a positive image of the White players by offering more play-related praise and portraying them as the perpetrators of aggression. In such a physically demanding sport as football, being the aggressor is seen as occupying a position of power. In contrast, African American players were often the subjects of unfavorable comparisons and references to negative past achievements. The authors concluded that the announcers biased their coverage by stressing positive aspects of White players while stressing negative aspects of African American players. Boston Globe reporter Derrick Jackson (1989) also investigated televised sports coverage, examining five professional football games and seven collegiate men's basketball games. Jackson found that African American players did receive positive statements, including praise, although such praise mostly was limited to statements regarding their physical prowess. On the other hand, White players received repeated praise for their cognitive abilities. Rada (1996) found that announcers create a "Jekyll and Hyde" persona for African American professional football players. Announcers were quick to praise African American players for their on-the-field athletic ability, an ability most often attributed to God-given, natural talent rather than hard work; however, when describing African American athletes off the field, as people and not as athletes, the positive portrayals ended. Instead, African Americans often were described as lacking both intelligence and positive character traits. White players frequently received credit for both their athletic ability and their personal traits. In fact, when White players were praised for their athletic ability, it was because they were not only athletes, but thinking men as well. And, on those rare occasions when White players were criticized, the statements dealt only with mistakes on the field, mistakes clearly visible to viewers. Even then, announcers often were sympathetic to the White athletes, frequently providing excuses for their shortcomings. McCarthy and Jones (1997) found similar patterns in coverage of soccer games that aired on British television. The researchers found that Black[1] soccer players were often praised for their physical abilities. In regard to their cognitive abilities, Black players did not receive more negative commentary than did White players, but they did receive a significantly smaller portion of positive statements about their intellect. While previous research reveals the potential existence of race-based bias in televised sports coverage, as mentioned earlier, no consistent measures and methods have been used to study the question of whether or not televised sports coverage actually is racially biased. Based on previous research, Rada (1996) constructed an instrument, labeled the Biased Coverage Index (BCI), as a framework. Using that index and adapting it based on the findings of other research and commentary, the present study seeks to explore whether or not televised sports coverage of collegiate football and basketball games is racially biased. The Present Research Negative comments alone are not indicative of racial bias. Bias manifests itself through a combination of the content, and the context in which that content appears. If announcers are objectively describing the game, when a player makes a mistake, he deserves criticism. Thus, the analysis must center around what is said about whom and how frequently. During live telecasts, there are usually two or three announcers in the booth describing the action unfolding on the field or court. The "Play-by-Play" announcer is charged with describing the play. The remaining members of the on-air crew, the "Color Commentators," try to explain how and why the events occur and what they mean. It is important to note that on-air dialogue is not limited to game-related action. With a constant need to fill time during lulls in the action, these announcers often relate personal stories about themselves and the players. In addition, many telecasts also include a sideline reporter. This person usually is charged with providing insights as to what is happening on the field or court during the game, as well as often obtaining brief interviews with players, former players, coaches, family members of players, and others deemed relevant to the telecast. Rada (1996) noted that the role of the announcers during sporting events is not clearly defined; however, it is clear that on-air talent do not simply report objectively on games. Instead, they comment subjectively and seem to go out of their way to offer praise. Hoberman (1997) notes that networks, often dependent on sports programming to build audience and revenue, have little interest in undertaking investigative journalism for fear of biting the hand that feeds them. Others also have noted that on-air announcers seem reluctant to offer much criticism in their commentary (McCallum & O' Brien, 1998; Wolff, & Stone, 1995; Stewart, 1990). Based on previous research, the following hypotheses were developed: H1: Announcers will make more positive statements than negative statements. The results of Hypothesis 1 will provide a baseline for further comparison. If the announcers are overly positive in their commentary, on those occasions when they do choose to criticize, bias can be detected by analyzing to whom this criticism is directed. H2: African American players will receive more negative comments than will White players. Once the frequency of who receives the positive and negative commentary has been determined, the next step is to turn to the what: What is the context of such comments? H3: African American players will receive more comments pertaining to physical attributes than will White players. While the results of previous research has led to this prediction, the literature does not provide enough evidence to draw conclusions about the direction-positive or negative-- of such comments. Thus, even though the present research sought to code all comments for positive or negative attribution, no hypothesis dealing with this relationship is offered. However, consistent with previous findings, this research does expect to find that positive and negative comments referring to a player's intellect will break down along racial lines. H4: White players will receive more positive comments pertaining to cognitive ability than will African American players. H4a: African American players will receive more negative comments pertaining to their cognitive ability than will White players. As was mentioned earlier, Rada also discovered that there was a distinct divide when it came time to distinguish the player from the person. In referring to off-field events and activities, announcers were more likely to use the opportunity to paint a negative picture of the African American athlete. H5: White players will receive more positive statements about their character than will African Americans. H5a: African American players will receive more negative statements about their character than will White players. H6: White players will receive more positive personal-interest stories than will African Americans. H6a: African American players will receive more negative personal-interest stories than will White players. Method This research examined televised coverage of men's Division I-A collegiate football and basketball games. The football portion of the sample is comprised of college football games that aired during the 1998 regular season. The sample of basketball games is comprised of CBS's coverage of the 1999 Men's Division I-A Championship Tournament, an event often referred to as "March Madness." There are several reasons for choosing televised coverage of collegiate sports as the sample for analysis. First, there are over 100 teams in Division I-A Football and 64 teams chosen to compete in the Men's Basketball Tournament. This means more opportunities to cover different teams from different regions with different demographic compositions. Second, television networks covering collegiate football often provide "regional" coverage. This means certain games are available in specific parts of the country. Comparing coverage of games available in different regions provides the opportunity to explore for a broad-based cultivation effect. The final reason collegiate sports was chosen comes from examining the results of previous research. Many researchers have found racially based differences between the frequency of statements made regarding a player's cognitive abilities. In addition, televised coverage of collegiate athletics, where the players are student-athletes, should provide more opportunities for announcers to discuss a player's intellect - both on and off the field. To gather a sample of college football games, Rada's (1996) method for collecting a composite game was used. Each week, one quarter of a game from each of three networks-ABC, CBS and ESPN-was taped. The first week, the first quarter was taped; the second week, the second quarter, and so on. Thus, at the end of every four-week cycle, one complete game consisting of four quarters, but involving different teams in each quarter, was obtained from each network. This sampling method resulted in a total of 19 quarters, or four and three-quarters composite games.[2] One of the two broadcast networks that cover collegiate football during the regular season, ABC, offers regional coverage. For this sample, two regions were taped: the "Southeast"[3] region, which aired on the networks' Atlanta affiliate; and the "Far West" region, which aired on the network's San Diego affiliate. Nationally, ABC's broadcasts average approximately six million viewers per week. For the two regions selected, viewership averaged between one and 1.25 million viewers (National Audience Demographics, 1999). CBS offers both national and regional coverage. Nationally, CBS's broadcasts averaged approximately three and a half million viewers. Regionally, the broadcasts averaged between 300,000 (Far West) to over one million (Southeast) viewers. The only national cable network that covers college football that was included in this study is ESPN. Its broadcasts averaged approximately one million viewers per week (NSS National Audience Demographics, 1999). A total of 63 games are played in Men's Division I-A Championship Basketball Tournament. During the first three rounds, coverage is offered on a regional basis, plus, during coverage of a game, there are frequent "break-ins" that provide bonus coverage of other games. For the regional finals, national semifinals and national final, nationwide coverage is offered. Unlike football, the entire tournament is covered by one network. However, because the tournament is broken into four different regions, the coverage still provides the opportunity to evaluate four different announcing crews (a total of 12 announcers). Approximately 55 hours of basketball coverage was included in the sample. The audience for the tournament averaged just under five million for the preliminary rounds to more than 17 million for the championship game (Final Fours Play to the Crowds, 1999). To investigate for the presence of biased coverage, this research adapted the Biased Coverage Index (BCI) employed by Rada (1996). The first portion of the BCI deals with basic, demographic-type information: the network, talent's role (play-by-play, color, or sideline), talent's race, the player's race, and the player's position. The second portion of the BCI relates to the specific comments being investigated. One category that was removed from the original BCI was that of play-related praise/criticism. Since statements in this category were usually just recitations of events unfolding on the field or court, the opportunity to introduce bias is minimized. The remaining categories in this portion of the BCI focus on descriptions of the player as an athlete. The first of these categories is physical attributes: those statements relating to a player's physical characteristics-strength, size, speed, etc. It is important to note that since size is relevant in both football and basketball, statements that provide only a player's "dimensions" were not coded; however, when the description included more than a player's dimensions, the statement was coded. For example, in reading the starting lineups for each team, the announcers will usually give the height of basketball players and the height and weight of football players. Thus, saying "Smith is six-five, 330 pounds" would not have been coded. But, if the announcer added something like "At six-five, 330 pounds, Smith is huge" that would be coded into this category (For an example of statements coded into each category, see Tables 1 and 2). The second category of player-as-athlete comments is on-field intellect. These are statements that describe an athlete's intellect in relation to, or as a reaction to, the events unfolding on the field or court. The next portion of the BCI was comprised of three categories that analyzed announcers' descriptions of a player as a person. The first of these categories was off-field intellect. These are statements describing a player's academic or other off-field accomplishments. The second category is character reference. Any statements referring to a player's character were coded into this category. The third, and final category of player-as-person comments is personal interest. At times during the broadcast, the announcers fill time with personal interest stories about a player.4 Clearly, the opportunity exists for an announcer's comment to fall across more than one of these categories. For example, a statement such as "Jones is a great story; he's the fifth of six children, all of whom have gone on to college and achieved academic excellence" combines elements of both personal interest and off-field intellect. In cases such as these, the two coders discussed the statement to determine which of the categories best represented the dominant theme of the statement. Table 1 - Representative Positive Comments by Category Physical: ù [Player] is a load - 260 pounds. ù He's strong enough to take him down with that big right arm of his that looks like a tree trunk. ù He has great legs, great quickness and tremendous leaping ability. On-Field Intellect: ù Smart play - he knew the defender was coming, so he threw it away. ù [Player's] so smart - the ability to find holes in the defense. ù Absolutely a wise foul - he was going for the ball. Off-field intellect: ù [Player] the punter - he's also an excellent student. ù [Player] has one degree and is working on another one _ extremely bright young man. ù Has a three point two GPA in international business. Character: ù He's pleasant, affable, a soft spoken athlete. ù [Player's] unselfish - willing to sit the bench and let others start for the benefit of the team. ù [Player] was Mr. Indiana basketball, yet overlooked by big schools - maybe because he wasn't big enough. But they didn't realize how much heart and how much work ethic he had. Personal Interest: ù He's also an actor (they then featured a clip of his acting) - he's a tremendous talent on and off the field. ù [Player] growing up on the family farm in North Dakota - family needs him on the farm, but they don't want to stand in the way of his dream of playing ball. ù He's an art and computer graphics major _ he's a piano player - he also works with the computer graphics team that run the scoreboards at [school's arena] _ and also at [school's stadium]. The last portion of the BCI is the comment attribute, whether or not the statement was positive or negative. Any statement that was seen as criticizing some aspect of a player, or casting a negative light on a player was coded as negative. Those statements that were seen as praising a player or presenting a favorable impression were coded as positive. If a statement did not appear to present a definitive positive or negative angle, it was coded as neutral. All games were taped and coded by two senior researchers. Intercoder reliability was better than 95% for all the variables included in the dual analysis of a sub-sample of games. Table 2 - Representative Negative Comments by Category Physical: ù [Player's] quick enough to grab the rebound, but he doesn't have the strength to put it back up. ù He's trying to do more than he's capable of doing. ù He is not really that strong physically. On-Field Intellect: ù Look at [player] - he's looking at his wristband and he's looking at the route, looking at the options and obviously he forgot what he did - too much going on. ù He's showing that he's only a sophomore - inexperienced and nervous. ù He's a freshman, what a time for a breakdown in concentration. Off-field Intellect: ù After successful first two years on court, [player] had academic difficulties and was suspended by [coach]. ù [Player] had some academic problems at [high school] so he spent his senior season at [school]. They have an unbelievable record of taking kids who are in academic difficulty and turning them around. ù [Player] a junior out of Baltimore - he was recruited by [school] but his grades weren't good enough. Character: ù Some guys have a hard time getting it all together - they have a hard time marching with everyone else - [player's] one of those guys. ù He's had an interesting off court session at [school] - two DUI's, suspended, but now he's back. ù Trying to intimidate [player] with a cheap shot. Personal Interest: ù A greeting for [player] -- if you want to call it a greeting. [Player] a Louisiana native out of Baton Rouge first recruited and signed with [school]. Later, his recruitment process landed [school] on probation and they're still bitter about that _ blaming [player]. ù [Player] who did have some severe suspensions laid on him this year - an altercation in the [school] game this year. ù [Player] is in the ballgame after sitting out the first quarter for his unexcused absence on Thursday. Results A total of 486 comments were coded-151 statements came from football games and 335 from basketball games. Of the comments coded, 330 fell into the categories of physical attributes, cognitive attributes, character and personal interest. Of the remaining comments, 125 were coded as leadership/credit(not included in this analysis), 23 did not fall into any of the established categories, and 8 were directed toward players who were neither African American nor White. Since this number was too small to allow for adequate comparison, these cases were included in the overall results, but not in the breakdown by racial categories. Of the players who were recipients of an announcer's comments, 74% were African American and 24% were White. Ninety-one percent of the comments were made by White announcers, and all but one coded comment was made by male announcers. Seventy-two percent of the coded comments were made by Color Commentators, 27% by Play-by-Play announcers and 1% by other announcers. No significant relationship was found between the network and the comment attribute, or the player's position and the comment attribute. Nor was there a significant relationship between the announcer's race and the comment attribute. However, a significant relationship was uncovered when looking at the talent, the player's race and the comment attribute. Color Commentators made 75% (N=305) of the positive comments compared to 25% (N=98) from the Play-by-Play announcers. The breakdown of negative statements shows that the Play-by-Play announcers made a significantly higher than expected percentage of negative statements (N=20 or 42%) compared to their representation in the sample ((2 = 6.7, df = 1 p = .01, ( = .12). Of those 20 negative statements made by Play-by-Play announcers, all of them were directed toward African American athletes ((2 = 8.7, df = 1, p = .003, Contingency Coefficient = .18). One other significant relationship was discovered. Color Commentators made a significantly higher percentage of comments relating to physical attributes (N=139 or 83%; (2 = 25.4, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .27) and on-field intellect (N=67 or 87%; (2 = 13.1, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .19). Play-by-Play announcers made a significantly higher percentage of comments pertaining to off-field intellect (N=16 or 84%; (2 = 28.8, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .29), character (N=13 or 48%; (2 = 4.83, df = 1, p = .03, ( = .12), and personal interest (N=32 or 74%; (2 = 47.3, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .37). This relationship held true when controlling for positive and negative comments. Hypotheses Based on the previous research, Hypothesis 1 stated that announcers would be more likely to provide positive commentary. Hypothesis 1 was supported. Of the 463 comments for which coders were able to determine a positive or negative attribute, 89% (N=413, t = 76.7, df = 462, p < .001) were positive. Once it was determined that the announcers were more willing to be positive in their commentary, attention turned to who received the few negative comments. Hypothesis 2 stated that African American players would receive a significantly higher proportion of the negative comments than would White players. Hypothesis 2 was supported. African American players were the recipients of 92% (N=45) of the 49 comments coded as negative ((2 = 8.4, df = 1, p = .004, ( = .15). In anticipating the results expected when testing Hypothesis 3, data was submitted to another chi-square - this time controlling for statements relating to physical attributes. The results showed an increase in both the significance and the strength of relationship ((2 = 29.9, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .42). The remaining hypotheses investigated the relationship between specific comments, the comment attribute, and to whom comments were directed. Table 3 provides the results for these tests. Hypothesis 3 stated that African American players would receive more comments pertaining to physical attributes. Hypothesis 3 was supported. African Americans received 154 comments relating to physical attributes. That accounts for 92% of the comments within this category, a percentage significantly higher than that (N = 15 or 8%) for White players ((2 = 36.6, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .32). Hypothesis 4 stated that White players would receive more positive comments pertaining to cognitive attributes. Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Overall, African Americans received 57 (71%) comments related to their on-field intelligence and 15 (79%) comments related to their off-field intelligence. These numbers are in line with African American representation in the sample. For comments coded as positive referring to on-field intellect, African Americans received 34 (61%) and White players received 22 (39%). For comments coded as positive referring to off-field intellect, African Americans received 7(64%) and White players received 4 (36%). Table 3 - Specific Comment by Player's Race by Comment Attribute Player's Race African American White N (% Within Comment) Comment: (Total N = 330) Physical Attributes Total 154 (91)a 15 (8)a Positive 148 (92) 13 (9) Negative 3 (60) 2 (40) On-field Intellect Total 57 (71) 23 (29) Positive 34 (61) 22 (39) Negative 23 (96)a 1 (4)a Off-field Intellect Total 15 (79) 4 (21) Positive 7 (64) 4 (36) Negative 8 (100)b 0b Character Total 12 (46) 14 (54) Positive 10 (42)a 14 (58)a Negative 2 (100) 0 Personal Interest* Total 21 (61) 15 (39) Positive 12 (44)c 15 (56)c Negative 8 (100)c 0c a = sig at .001 b = sig at .05 c = sig at .005 *One statement was coded as neutral Hypothesis 4a stated that African American players would receive more negative comments pertaining to cognitive attributes. Hypothesis 4a was supported. African Americans received 23 (96%) negative comments pertaining to on-field intellect while White players received only one (4%) negative comment ((2 = 10.1, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .36). In looking at comments pertaining to off-field intellect, African Americans were the recipients of all the negative comments (N = 8, (2 = 3.67, df = 1, p = .05, ( = .44). Hypotheses 5 stated that White players would receive more positive comments pertaining to their character. Hypothesis 5 was supported. The results showed that White players did receive a significantly higher proportion of the positive comments pertaining to their character (14 or 58%; (2 = 13.9, df = 1, p < .001, ( = .22). Hypothesis 5a stated that African American players would receive more negative statements pertaining to their character than would White players. Hypothesis 5a was not supported. There were just two negative comments made in reference to a player's character. While both of these comments were directed toward African Americans, the difference was not statistically significant. Hypothesis 6 stated that White players would receive more positive comments relating to personal-interest stories. Hypothesis 6 was supported. White players received a significantly higher proportion of the positive comments relating to personal interest stories (N = 15, or 56%; (2 = 7.78, df = 1, p = .005, ( = .47). Hypothesis 6a stated that African Americans would receive more negative comments related to personal interest stories than would White players. Hypothesis 6a was supported. Of the 8 negative statements referring to a player's character or personal interest, all 8 were directed toward African Americans ((2 = 7.78 df = 1, p = .005, ( = .47). Directed Analysis of Sub-Sample In a supplemental analysis, the authors sought to find some aspect of the sample that would permit a direct comparison of a reasonably equal number of statements directed toward African American and White players. A selection taken from the sample of college football games provided this opportunity. Table 4 - Comments by Player's Race - Sub-Sample of Quarterbacks Player's Race African American White N (% Within Comment) Comment: (Total N = 45) Physical Attributes Total 18 (90)a 2 (10)a Positive 18 (95) 1 (5) Negative 0 1 (100) On-field Intellect Total 18 (90) 2 (10) Positive 8 (80) 2 (20) Negative 10 (100)b 0b Character Total 1 (50) 1 (50) Positive 1 (50) 1 (50) Negative 0 0 Personal Interest Total 1 (33) 2 (67) Positive 1 (33) 2 (67) Negative 0 0 a = sig at .01 b = sig at .02 In the 19 quarters of college football games included in the sample, with two quarterbacks per game, there were a total of 38 quarterbacks. Of this number, 20 were African American and 18 were White. Since the quarterback is the leader of the offense, a position often associated with greater intelligence, this provided an opportunity to examine whether this study's hypotheses held true for a relatively equal sub-sample. While the sub-sample did not provide enough comments to allow for the testing of all of the hypotheses, there were enough comments to test Hypotheses 3, 4 and 4a. Hypothesis 3 stated that African American players would receive more comments pertaining to physical attributes than White players. As Table 4 shows, while African American quarterbacks comprised 53% of the sub-sample, they received 90% (N = 18) of the comments pertaining to physical attributes (X2 = 12.82, df = 4, p = . 01, Contingency Coefficient = .47). Thus, as it relates to the sub-sample, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Hypothesis 4 stated that White players would receive more positive statements pertaining to cognitive attributes. This proved not to be the case. Instead, African Americans received a significantly higher proportion of positive on-field intellect statements (N = 8 or 80%; (2 = 11.78, df = 4, p = .02, Contingency Coefficient = .50). Hypothesis 4a stated that African American players would be the recipients of more negative comments pertaining to cognitive attributes. As it relates to on-field intellect, this hypothesis was supported. African Americans received all of the negative comments (N = 10) pertaining to on-field intellect ((2 = 11.78, df = 4, p = .02, Contingency Coefficient = .70). Supplemental Analysis The chi-square analyses used to test the hypotheses revealed several significant relationships between a player's race, the type of comments he received and whether those comments were positive or negative. To further explore these relationships, an attempt was made to determine whether it was possible to predict the race of the player based on the type of comments made about him. Data was submitted to a discriminant analysis. The player's race was the dependent variable and the specific type of comment and the comment attribute were entered as independent/predictor variables. The analysis yielded four significant relationships. The strongest relationship came from comments relating to a player's physical attributes. The positive correlation between physical attributes and a player's race shows that if a statement was made that referred to a player's physical attributes, statistically speaking, we can predict that the player is African American (r = .69 p < .001). The second significant predictor was comments relating to a player's character. If the statement referred to the player's character and the statement was negative, we can predict that the player is African American ( r = -.40, p < .001). The third significant predictor was the comment attribute. Overall, if the statement was negative, we can predict that the player is African American (r = -.32, p = .002). The final significant predictor was personal interest stories about the player. If the statement was a personal interest story about the player and the statement was negative, then we can predict that the player is African American (r = -.30, p < .001). Looking at the group centroids provided by the discriminant analysis also revealed one other significant finding. Variables were dummy coded so that they would fall within a continuum where a positive statement equaled 1.0. The group centroids for White players (.95) shows the proximity between this group and the positive end of the continuum. In contrast, the group centroids for African American players (-.30) reveals a significant difference between this group and both the group centroids for White players and the positive end of the continuum. These results show that, statistically speaking, if a statement is negative, it is almost always directed at an African American player. Discussion In modifying Rada's Biased Coverage Index (BCI), this research sought to bring some coherence to the study of racial bias in televised sports coverage, as well as to see if the biases that have been found in the past continue today. Previous research into televised coverage of professional and collegiate sports has found that announcers engage in racial bias by creating a positive image of White players and a mostly negative image of African American players. In examining more than 75 hours of televised coverage of collegiate football and men's basketball games, this research found some consistencies and some inconsistencies with previous findings. White players are no longer the exclusive holders of the positive images created by the announcers. This research revealed no statistically significant differences across race for positive comments referring to a player's cognitive attributes. But, as demonstrated by the findings, White players still receive positive comments relating to their character and personal interest stories at a rate significantly higher than their representation in the sample. Thus, this research shows that African American players may have made inroads, but they clearly have not achieved equality - at least in the eyes of the announcers. Some encouragement may be drawn from the fact that African American players appear to have broken the stranglehold White players had on positive imagery. Unfortunately, the celebration must be tempered somewhat based on the continued existence of categories in which African American players are still the clear title-holders. The present research hypothesized that African American players would be given a disproportionate amount of credit for their athletic abilities. That proved to be the case. Whereas African American players comprised 74% of the sample, they were the recipients of a significantly higher percentage (91%) of the comments pertaining to physical attributes. Statements of physical prowess comprised the majority (57%) of those comments received by African American players. Crediting an athlete's physical abilities or attributes is not, in and of itself, a form of bias, of course. Indeed, in the arena of competitive sport, such comments can be definite compliments; however, restricting compliments for African American players to their physical prowess while not restricting praise for White players continues the practice of unequal coverage. While it appears that announcers will not hesitate to praise players of either race, the same cannot be said for the announcers' willingness to offer criticism. Of the 49 statements that were coded as negative, 45 (92%), were directed toward African Americans. As Rada (1996) found, when announcers criticize White players, they do so only when it can't be avoided, namely those times when the White player's shortcomings are evident to viewers. Once again, this was the case. Of the four negative statements directed toward White players, one did not fit into any category established by this research. The remaining three statements were made in reference to the White athletes' physical abilities or on-field intellect. Statements such as these were made in response to some aspect of the events unfolding on screen before the television audience. When it came time to describe the African American players, the announcers' criticism knew no bounds. Of the 24 negative statements describing a player's on-field intelligence, all but one were directed toward African Americans. Of the 18 negative statements made about a player's off-field intelligence, character, or personal interest stories, all 18 were directed toward African Americans. This is strikingly similar to Rada's (1996) study of televised professional football games that found all 18 negative comments in almost identical categories were directed toward African Americans.[4] The impact of these findings is amplified when looking at the Phi's and Correlation Coefficients. For all of the categories, these strength of relationship measures exceeded .30, and in some cases exceeded .40. One more illuminating finding comes from the ability to predict the race of the player based on the type of comment. When Rainville and McCormick (1977) conducted their research into racial bias, it was noted that one of the authors, who was blind, was able to distinguish the race of a player based strictly on the announcer's description. The discriminant analysis employed by this research provided a similar scenario. The results showed that when a statement refers to a player's physical prowess, or is critical of the player in any way, even without looking at the television, we can predict that the player is African American. This research asserted that bias is defined by what is said about whom, and how frequently. The results of this research lead to the conclusion that racial bias is still present in televised coverage of collegiate sports. To be fair, announcers did direct a wider scope of positive commentary to African American players than had been done in the past. Previously, African Americans were mostly described as purely physical specimens on the field. In this research, that portrayal was expanded to include some praise about their cognitive abilities; however, such praise was diluted by the overwhelming percentage of negative comments directed toward African Americans. In stark contrast, not only were White players virtually immune from criticism, they were praised at a rate well beyond their representation in the sample. This paper began by referring to the concept of a "level playing field." The results of this research provide data to help assess whether or not the field in televised sports has leveled out. While it seems that the doors of membership in the once exclusive club of positive imagery have opened a bit for African American athletes, the opening is slight, and the privileges are restricted. In contrast, African Americans hold almost exclusive membership in the club of negative imagery. In fact, it is particularly striking to note that as announcer comments about African Americans move further away from a player as an athlete, and more toward a player as a person, the positive imagery declines. For White players, the exact opposite is the case. Suggestions for Further Research Future research should attempt to go beyond the raw numbers and look into what meanings are conveyed through the descriptions offered by announcers. In addition, future researchers also should explore the possible effects these messages might have on viewers. As mentioned earlier, television has the power to transmit ideologies. Considering the fervent following of sports coverage, the possibility exists that ideologies transmitted by the announcers may cultivate attitudes among the viewers. Now that the research has begun to consistently and reliably find repeated patterns of bias, it would be enlightening to more closely examine and attempt to deconstruct the specific texts that serve as manifestations of this bias. The possible cultivation of perceptions and misperceptions, plus the possible modeling of pro-social and anti-social behavior would seem to warrant scholarly investigation. In light of such potential effects and considering the immense amount of televised coverage and viewership of professional and collegiate sports, it is time to explore such relationships. References Bryant, J & Zillman, D. (1991). Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. CBS President and announcer apologize for 'tough monkey' comment about Georgetown's Iverson. (25 March, 1996). Jet 89 (19), 46. Dates, J., & Barlow, W. (1990). Split Image: African Americans in the mass media. Washington DC: Howard University Press. Dixon, T., & Linz, D. (2000) Race and the misrepresentation of victimization on local television news. Communication Research 27 (5), 547-573. Gerbner,G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The mainstreaming of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal ofCommunication, 28 (3), 10-29. Gross, L, & Morgan, M. (1985). Television and enculturation. In J. Dominick & J. Fletcher (Eds.), Broadcasting Research Methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Final Fours Play to the Crowds (12 April 1999). The NCAA News: News and Features. Available online at: http://www.ncaaorg/news/1999/199990412. Hoberman, J. (1997). Darwin's athletes: How sport has damaged Black America and preserved the myth of race. New York: Mariner. Jackson, D. (1989, 22 January). Calling the plays in Black and White. The Boston Globe, pp. A25, A28. McCallum, J., & O'Brien, R. (30 March 1998). More bull from Billy. Sports Illustrated 88 (13), 29. McCarthy, D., & Jones, R.L. (1997). Speed, aggression, strength, and tactical naivete. Journal of Sports & Social Issues, 21(4), 348-362. National Audience Demographics (1999). Nielsen Media Research. NSS National Audience Demographics (1999). Nielsen Media Research Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. (1996). Assessing news media influences on the formation of Whites' racial policy preferences. Communication Research 23 (2), 147-178. Person's Tracking Report (1998). Nielsen Media Research. Racial and Gender Report Card (2001). The Center for the Study of Sport in Society: Northeastern University. Report available online at: www.sportinsociety.org. Rada, J.A. (1996). Color blind-sided: Racial bias in network television's coverage of professional football games. The Howard Journal of Communications 7(3), 231-240. Rada, J. A. (2000). A new piece to the puzzle: Examining effects of television portrayals of African Americans. The Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 44(4), 704 - 715. Rainville, R., & McCormick, E. (1977) Extent of covert racial prejudice in pro football announcers' speech. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 20-26. Romer, D., Jamieson, K., & de Coteau, N. (1998). The treatment of persons of color in local television news: Ethnic blame discourse or realistic group conflict? Communication Research 25 (3), 286 - 306. Squire, L. R., Knowlton, B., & Musen, G. (1993). The structure and organization of memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 453-495. Stewart, L. (30 March, 1990) Packer, Tompkins both get caught up in all the madness. The Los Angeles Times, C3. Tan, A.S., & Tan, G. (1979). Television use and self-esteem of Blacks. Journal of Communication, (29) 1, 129-135. United States Commission for the Study of Civil Rights (1977). Window dressing on the set: Women and minorities in television. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States Riot Commission Report (1968). Report of the national advisory commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Bantam. Wolff, A., & Stone, C. (3 April 1995). Backscratchers. Sports Illustrated 82 (13), 22. [1] For purposes of consistency, throughout the text, the authors employ the term "African American." The term "Black" is used here because this is the term employed by the research cited. The term African American would not be appropriate because the athletes in the study were not American, but British. [2] The sample yielded an actual total of 20 quarters. One quarter was removed from the results of the study and used for testing inter-coder reliability. [3] The designations of "Southeast" and "Far West" are those given by the networks. [4] The previous research did not break down cognitive attributes into on-field and off-field intellect. In addition, the category of "speculation" was included in the previous research - a category left out of the present study. Abstract Color Blindsided in the Booth: An Examination of the Descriptions of College Athletes During Televised Games During televised sporting events, African American athletes often are characterized as purely physical specimens on the field or court and they are the recipients of negative references to their off-field activities. In contrast, White athletes more often are the recipients of a broader and more positive set of descriptors, This research tested for the presence of racial bias in televised coverage of men's collegiate sports. Results showed that while African Americans have made some progress, biased coverage still exists. Suggestions for future research are included. Color Blindsided in the Booth: An Examination of the Descriptions of College Athletes During Televised Games James A. Rada College of Communication Rowan University Glassboro, NJ 08028 AND K. Tim Wulfemeyer School of Communication San Diego State University San Diego, CA 92182-4561 (619) 594-2709 [log in to unmask] Color Blindsided in the Booth: An Examination of the Descriptions of College Athletes During Televised Games James A. Rada College of Communication Rowan University Glassboro, NJ 08028 AND K. Tim Wulfemeyer School of Communication San Diego State University San Diego, CA 92182-4561 Abstract During televised sporting events, African American athletes often are characterized as purely physical specimens on the field or court and they are the recipients of negative references to their off-field activities. In contrast, White athletes more often are the recipients of a broader and more positive set of descriptors, This research tested for the presence of racial bias in televised coverage of men's collegiate sports. Results showed that while African Americans have made some progress, biased coverage still exists. Suggestions for future research are included.