The coverage of sports scandals date further back than Mastro, Blecha and Seate’s characterization study illuminating a condensed time gap of three years, but the random sample testing articulated a growing numbing notion in the appropriation and publishing of sport and crime: that the ethnic minority of African American athletes at fault render unfavorable responses in media coverage, with a consequential promotion of their criminalized failures disproportionate comparatively to alternate demographics.
It’s largely difficult to judge the viewer’s response to delivered news coverage within this field of study. Despite the trio’s insightful attempts at splicing the core of a would-be rooted problem within sports media, gaping holes appear within the study’s emergence to prominent understanding; to consider this analytical, statistical and sample based response work as definitive would be foolish, when racial inference is decided despite the lack of distinction aggregating ethnic minority in group discussion. Whilst the brave “Black vs White” debate ranges to an unpolished spotlight to consider for social positioning, it’s a deconstruction of unfathomable archaic sparring – insensitive to current culture’s shift to a merged normality – and showing more segregational naivety than sociological improvement; to discount the accountability of alternative demographics besides black and white athletes is not an alleviation to potential fault in crime, but a precursor for the study’s potential fault in association. In theory, random sample testing covering a lengthened time span should accurately depict social standing outlining each demographic’s participation, but instead serves only to elucidate a glaring flaw for Mastro et al: random samples cannot be taken over a continual time period – periods that may provide domino effects for trends or indicate a trend for the broadcasters themselves in popular culture – and should cover time periods flitting pre-21st century and post-millennium.
It’s not certain that, in exampling, Latino-based sporting professionals had dominated the news for a two year time span previously (or after), and my theory stands to serve the purpose of highlighting two facts within that example: 1) that it’s possible athletes (perhaps connected, both in multiple-serving crime and type of crime) dominated via a different racial descent in another time period, but 2) that sports broadcasting and news outlets hawked hungrily upon that specific demographic until it’s repetitive issue broke copycat success models, and homogeny lost its glitter amongst networks. Without specification of a standardized formula that debriefs recent sports crime stories since their rise to notoriety, it’s impossible to entrust the methods provided to conclusively distinguish sociological patterns and examinations; “since their rise to notoriety”, too, is brief in alluring truth, but the conceptual understanding that elongating collected results is imperative to rounding the knowledge of this field.
Race-related crime coverage in Mastro et al’s Test H1b attributes primary subject crime for ethnic comparison, but doesn’t maneuver observation to extend to connected crime coverage, whereby one person’s crime may induce the crime of another; as you may deduct, there’s serious consequential misconstruction for future testing that fails to propagate evidence as deciphered, singular incidence, and moreover causing resulting eschewed study totaling the productions of a new field. This field – recovering crime by sports professionals linked to another via the crime committed – may point to evidential theoretical analyses that Demographic A are more likely to commit crime in group scandal (we’ll call for now) than Demographic B. As this is unaccounted for in Mastro et al’s test work, these results may be inclusive and provide social imbalance for sport crime.
Whilst Mastro et al uncover an obviating morality issue that confidently actualizes the fact-based reality that black athletes have become the manufactured focus of criminality in sports, there’s room to consider that description negates variable response as previously discussed; there’s a lack of well-rounded mode and method, misconstruing discrepancies by favorably pointing to “unfavorable” results where it’s helpful to support the theory of sport and crime by racial background. Considering predominantly black sports, like Basketball, but refuting a broader knowledge of news coverage for alternative sports purely because a sport’s popularity became invalid in comparison, and for only The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and USA Today, is narrow-minded research propaganda targeting an exposure of new ground, perhaps for personal gain.