Female Fans and Frank Clark (Tricia Romano article)

[Uncle Si]

She's all about that bass, no treble.

The article wasn't anything eye opening, but Pete and John had to have known there'd be backlash to drafting Clark.........especially in a city like Seattle.

To be clear... not that Meghan Trainor.

This is the NFL's problem, not the Seahawks problem.

I know, joke...........and it's the Hawks problem now.

IMO Danny Kelly is right, he was on with Brock and Salk this morning talking about how Schneider brought this on himself. He flat out said in 2012 that there's no place whatsoever for domestic violators on the Hawks, then we draft someone that was accused of it, and he's vehemently defending the decision.

So I guess Schneider's getting off on the technicality that Clark wasn't convicted? idk, but again he brought it on himself. So IMO the criticism is fair.

The criticism is fair, I agree.

More people seem willing to defend Clark in this matter than to just come to the realization that the NFL has men in its uniforms with troubled pasts. There is so much opportunity for growth here.

Instead, its spin.

 

[Popeyejones]

Popeye: Did you notice her quoting Mizzou in the article? No? I wonder why?

Nah, you don't really wonder why at all.

From Mizzou's post it wasn't really clear if Mizzou gave her an interview. If she did we also don't know what Mizzou said. Or maybe Mizzou did give an interview and did defend the Clark signing but she wasn't included because she's out of state.

More importantly, none of this does anything to even remotely change the fact that she was doing work to find a woman who supported the Clark signing to balance out the article, or that she DID quote a woman at length who supports the Clark signing.

Enjoy your conspiracy, though.

 

[5_Golden_Rings]

I know it's not really the point of the article, but eek!

During the dark years, when the Seahawks weren’t a winning team, Seattle artist Meghan Trainor followed the Pittsburgh Steelers, almost out of desperation.

“There was just a point in the season where you have to pick someone who is going to make it,” she said.

And that's where I stopped reading...

Many women are new to being NFL fans. Many aren't completely sure of which team they like, and winning and players (who they are and what they do) are going to bring them in. It's that way with every new fan. In fact, it was that way for the scores of 49er bandwagoners after 2011, and the scores of Seahawk bandwagoners after 2012 or the Lynch run against New Orleans. These people can grow into being as diehard a fan as you are.

There was a time when I was very young that I might have been a Dolphin fan. I played Tecmo Super Bowl all the time before I really followed football, and kept switching between San Francisco and Miami because I liked the names of the QBs and the uniform colors (something about the names Joe Montana and Dan Marino have an air of badassery to them). It wasn't until I read a book about Bill Walsh and the unique intelligence over brute force approach that the choice was made for me.

This was when I was around seven years old. I didn't live in an NFL city and could have ended up a fan of any team. But there was a trait not directly related to football that swayed me: the fact that the 49ers took a brains over braun approach, which resonated with my personality in a way nothing else associated with the NFL did.


New NFL fans who aren't told who to root for as children are going to flop until a team resonates with who they are as a person or until they have followed that team enough for a strong bond to be made. That's just the way it is, man. Woman as a fan base will include many new fans who are still going through the process of joining a team's fan base.

 

[LymonHawk]

Popeye: Did you notice her quoting Mizzou in the article? No? I wonder why?

Nah, you don't really wonder why at all.

From Mizzou's post it wasn't really clear if Mizzou gave her an interview. If she did we also don't know what Mizzou said. Or maybe Mizzou did give an interview and did defend the Clark signing but she wasn't included because she's out of state.

More importantly, none of this does anything to even remotely change the fact that she was doing work to find a woman who supported the Clark signing to balance out the article, or that she DID quote a woman at length who supports the Clark signing. Or, the other way around.

Enjoy your conspiracy, though.

I apologize, Dr. Cooper; I should have told you the last line was sarcasm.

Now, if you had bothered to read the first page of this thread, you might have noticed Mizzou's post. And I quote,

"I vehemently disagree and said as much to Tricia via email when she approached me. You offend me and many women not stupid enough to just be a sheep."

See, bad things happen when you are too lazy to do your homework. (Sorry if I sound like your mom.)

 

[MysterMatt]

I'll add my two cents, although they are similar to Lymon's. I read the entire article, but I think the summary captures it all:

"The Frank Clark pick by the Seahawks might have turned off a key part of their growing fanbase: women. And the question remains: did this damage the Seahawks’ brand? And what would it take to regain the trust of fans — especially women?"

So here's the deal, it turns out women have just as nuanced opinions as anyone else, such as the ones we've seen right here at .Net. I find the most thoughtful opinions come from people who've taken the time to read the information available and ignore the simplistic (some say agenda-driven) media message. This article ignores the very notion that Clark is anything but a women-beater and just jumps to some examples of women who are concerned, even outraged, over the pick . It doesn't resort to any kind of data-driven analysis on the opinions of female fans, nor does it discuss the very distinct possibility that Clark is stating the truth, or far more of it than he is getting credit for. In other words, this article relies on a series of "MIGHT have happened" suppositions rather than facts. It isn't terribly written, but the research is weak.

Even the final part of the article giving a voice to a woman who is not terribly concerned about the pick STILL supports the notion that Clark is a woman-beater. It just focuses on how at least one female fan is willing to FORGIVE...the act of battery. I'm aware of all the latest details and, I'm sorry, but Clark doesn't need to be forgiven for anything but being a drunken idiot who should have gotten the hell out of Dodge when things went bad and for making a series of terrible choices as a result. As far as I can tell, he's done that repeatedly.

Let me sum up: the story is not terrible, and I don't care about being "balanced" if the facts dictate that there is no balance, but it is woefully incomplete. I think it's anecdotal, and attempts to influence opinion instead of actually inform. I don't expect the writer to defend Frank Clark, I really don't, but presuming to present opinions of women who appear to be basing their opinions on an incomplete story isn't really useful if you're interested in being a purveyor of truth. I really think it could have been a great story, but to me it is only so much birdcage lining.

 

[Scottemojo]

I'll add my two cents, although they are similar to Lymon's. I read the entire article, but I think the summary captures it all:

"The Frank Clark pick by the Seahawks might have turned off a key part of their growing fanbase: women. And the question remains: did this damage the Seahawks’ brand? And what would it take to regain the trust of fans — especially women?"

So here's the deal, it turns out women have just as nuanced opinions as anyone else, such as the ones we've seen right here at .Net. I find the most thoughtful opinions come from people who've taken the time to read the information available and ignore the simplistic (some say agenda-driven) media message. This article ignores the very notion that Clark is anything but a women-beater and just jumps to some examples of women who are concerned, even outraged, over the pick . It doesn't resort to any kind of data-driven analysis on the opinions of female fans, nor does it discuss the very distinct possibility that Clark is stating the truth, or far more of it than he is getting credit for. In other words, this article relies on a series of "MIGHT have happened" suppositions rather than facts. It isn't terribly written, but the research is weak.

Even the final part of the article giving a voice to a woman who is not terribly concerned about the pick STILL supports the notion that Clark is a woman-beater. It just focuses on how at least one female fan is willing to FORGIVE...the act of battery. I'm aware of all the latest details and, I'm sorry, but Clark doesn't need to be forgiven for anything but being a drunken idiot who should have gotten the hell out of Dodge when things went bad and for making a series of terrible choices as a result. As far as I can tell, he's done that repeatedly.

Let me sum up: the story is not terrible, and I don't care about being "balanced" if the facts dictate that there is no balance, but it is woefully incomplete. I think it's anecdotal, and attempts to influence opinion instead of actually inform. I don't expect the writer to defend Frank Clark, I really don't, but presuming to present opinions of women who appear to be basing their opinions on an incomplete story isn't really useful if you're interested in being a purveyor of truth. I really think it could have been a great story, but to me it is only so much birdcage lining.

Kudos. You made me rethink that this was a fair piece. By using a woman who was fine with him on the basis of forgiveness, we still have 3 women who think him guilty.

Unlike the prosecuting attorney. Who was not quoted.

 

[v1rotv2]

It's another piece that spews the media drama without insightful research. She references another piece by another reporter that looked for a hook to get reader's attention. If she truly wanted to present a balanced article why didn't she sit down with JS and PC for a face to face. Then take that to women and ask for their thoughts. Especially now that the prosecutor has weighed in? Just like the other articles she only wanted what was on the surface because it was the most damning. She mentioned that Clark signed a bled down deal. Wait a second. If the police report and after the fact witness interviews were so lock tight why was there any deal do be had? I admit at first I was shocked as to why they took Clark but after seeing those pictures of the women and hearing about how he was defending himself to a large degree it fits. Did he over do it and push her hard to get away? We won't know that but whatever happened the evidence presented does not add up to what he is being accused of and hence the deal. But instead of taking the information in whole to the women she polled she hide behind the media self help agenda.

Marshawn has it right, screw 'em.

 

[TwistedHusky]

How we define truth is almost always run through our filter of perception.

We have an emotional issue that leads defenders of each side to be certain in their assessment that even if they are wrong - it is made up for by all the other times they were right. They are intractable, on an event they did not attend and cannot rely on the veracity of any of the accounts of the event.

It is an argument that cannot be won, by any side.

And it has nothing to do with football.

Frank may or may not have been defending himself. His girlfriend may or may not have instigated it, and she may or may not have escalated it. Frank may or may not have escalated it. And the hotel clerk may or may not be telling the truth.

(Especially when you expect me to believe that Frank commits a crime and then engages in a weird post crime monologue like one of the Batman villains? To paraphrase John Oliver, that sound's unbelievable - as in I literally do not believe it. Either the clerk is embellishing for effect or something else, but the % chance that his account is true would be low single digits.)

And so there may be a reason for female fans to be upset, or they may be completely wrong and upset that the Seahawks are not punishing Frank, who might be a victim as well.

Then again, Frank's story might be false.

But again nobody knows.

But given what we can know, it is ludicrous to demand that the Seahawks should take that stance that because Frank MIGHT be guilty - he should not be able to participate on this team. Nor is it reasonable for someone to demand that the Seahawks should be taken to task for bringing someone in that they cannot possibly know the truth of their guilt or innocence on.

This whole subject is a bunch of people arguing about what they believe, often colored by their own assertions of previous injustices on this topic. Their emotional investment was already there before Frank, the Seahawks and the draft itself.

 

[Hawkfan77]

An article about what women think of Frank Clark? And no mention of what the FEMALE prosecutor said about Frank Clark? Sounds about right for that "paper". I mean the times has its agenda against Clark and are pushing it hard against him. Why would anyone fan, male or female, think differently when they only get one sensationalized slant of what the times thinks happened?

 

[Popeyejones]

I apologize, Dr. Cooper; I should have told you the last line was sarcasm.

Oh, yeah, I knew your last line was sarcasm. I was pretending to treat it as a sincere question to make the point that you're not actually that interested in the work she did or how the story was constructed.

You're just feigning interest in those things because you're upset that a reporter wrote something that wasn't a full throated defense of the Frank Clark pick with female Hawks fans as the patsy for your own beliefs, even though adjudicating if the pick should have been made or not wasn't even the point of the piece.

It is what it is.

And just to be clear, I understand that many (male) Seahawks fans in this thread are upset about the article's mere existence, but I think critiques of the article and its reporting are unfair and unfounded.

The reporter quoted two Hawks fans who are perturbed by the signing and one who isn't. From coming here it seems she did a lot of leg work to try to find a Hawks fan who wasn't. She also did a lot of leg work to bring in some experts and some statistics.

Highlighting the rise in female fandom to frame the story is good reporting. Highlighting that the signing hasn't seemed to affect the Hawks' Q score is good reporting. Doing the legwork to find someone to represent the other side of the story -- even though as I've already expressed I find this to be a journalistic norm with room for downside -- is good reporting.

That it doesn't rely on a representative sample of women Hawks fans is a feckless criticism; this is reporting for a daily newspaper, not social science, and it doesn't purport to be that.

If one has any understanding at all of how the sausage gets made in a newsroom I think it's basically impossible to conclude that this is anything but a very good piece of reporting. It's an example that could be used in a classroom.

I think people here complaining that it's biased are, in real life, actually making the complaint that it's not biased ENOUGH in the direction they'd prefer.

 

[AgentDib]

It may be a waste of an article if you want something insightful but their stance on the Clark story has undoubtedly helped the Times sell more papers. Schneider said the team would not employ anybody with DV in their history, Clark is a talented player who fell in the draft because he was charged with it. What more do you need for a compelling modern day conspiracy where greed overcomes principles? You guys are arguing about whether the reporting is biased when what matters is whether the reporting is profitable.

Besides, is the media and social media attention really that bad? Clark should be on a short leash anyhow and our FO has more practice than most in dealing with criticism surrounding their draft picks. And as a benefit this gives all of the hyper-socially conscious types a chance to Nudge away on the DV issue, which is certainly no worse than nudging on any other issue.

 

[Popeyejones]

An article about what women think of Frank Clark? And no mention of what the FEMALE prosecutor said about Frank Clark?

Umm, it's absolutely not an article about what women think of Frank Clark. It's an article about what women SEAHAWKS FANS think of Frank Clark. The only thing that all the women who are quoted have in common is that they're all Seahawks fans.

What the prosecutor said is enitrely off-topic because 1) she's not a Seahawks fan and 2) the article isn't a referendum of Frank Clark's guilt. It's an article about how female Hawks fans have responded to him being picked.

 

[LymonHawk]

I apologize, Dr. Cooper; I should have told you the last line was sarcasm.

Oh, yeah, I knew your last line was sarcasm. I was pretending to treat it as a sincere question to make the point that you're not actually that interested in the work she did or how the story was constructed.

You're just feigning interest in those things because you're upset that a reporter wrote something that wasn't a full throated defense of the Frank Clark pick with female Hawks fans as the patsy for your own beliefs, even though adjudicating if the pick should have been made or not wasn't even the point of the piece.

It is what it is.

And just to be clear, I understand that many (male) Seahawks fans in this thread are upset about the article's mere existence, but I think critiques of the article and its reporting are unfair and unfounded.

The reporter quoted two Hawks fans who are perturbed by the signing and one who isn't. From coming here it seems she did a lot of leg work to try to find a Hawks fan who wasn't. She also did a lot of leg work to bring in some experts and some statistics.

Highlighting the rise in female fandom to frame the story is good reporting. Highlighting that the signing hasn't seemed to affect the Hawks' Q score is good reporting. Doing the legwork to find someone to represent the other side of the story -- even though as I've already expressed I find this to be a journalistic norm with room for downside -- is good reporting.

That it doesn't rely on a representative sample of women Hawks fans is a feckless criticism; this is reporting for a daily newspaper, not social science, and it doesn't purport to be that.

If one has any understanding at all of how the sausage gets made in a newsroom I think it's basically impossible to conclude that this is anything but a very good piece of reporting. It's an example that could be used in a classroom.

I think people here complaining that it's biased are, in real life, actually making the complaint that it's not biased ENOUGH in the direction they'd prefer.

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?

1. The Trainor comments are pure bullcrap. She was a 'Hawks fan, but wore Steelers' gear? The Cosby reference didn't have your BS meter flashing? The 'Dark Years'? Did we not go to the SB in 2006? Did we not win the NFCW from 2004-2007? We had two bad years in '08 & '09, and this 'super fan' is already bailing out and wearing Steelers gear? And you believe her story? This you believe is good journalism?

2. "It's an example that could be used in a classroom." Correct...if you are teaching "yellow journalism." (Yes, Sheldon, it's called sarcasm.)

3. You found her post here as, "... a lot of leg work to try to find a Hawks fan who wasn't." How long did it take her to write that post? I worked as a Paralegal/Investigator for some 15 years and have a pretty good idea what 'due diligence' means. Posting here and then ignoring an answer that did not fit her agenda is hardly due diligence. It's bullshit.

I could go on, but to what end? You are stuck with your defense of the article and obviously are ignoring the facts.