Female Fans and Frank Clark (Tricia Romano article)

[KiwiHawk]

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.

This is the best source to base an article on? A fair-weather fan?

Of course she's going to have her loyalty challenged by Clark. She probably has her loyalty challenged by how well done her toast is in the morning.

Let's have an article about real fans, who don't abandon the team, and see what they have to say. I couldn't give two craps about what some fair-weather thinks.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Clarke told the woman hotel manager "I'll hit you like I hit her" during the broohaha. Did Schneider know this? They should cut that guy.

I've got some ocean front property in Utah to sell you

 

[titan3131]

My wife $h*t a brick when she found our this meghan trianor was 41.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

OK, I just got through reading Romano's article and I'd have to label it an "OK" piece. It's inevitable that you're going to have female fans of the Seahawks who are going to be naturally a bit upset by the Frank Clark pick. They're going to see such a move as a bit hypocritical (and rightfully so) given past statements against DV by Schneider (which he reiterated this past week).

That said, where were the quotes from female fans of the Seahawks who were in SUPPORT of Frank Clark? She has only 1 by Cynthia Brown -- no others. She tries to bolster the Pro Side with the citation of stats showing increased female viewership of the NFL (which is good), but could she really find no other female Seahawks fans to quote who took a more objective stance and who appeared a little more informed about the case? That's the one part of this article that bothers me a bit. As I said, it's a fair piece (and by that, I mean I'd give it a 'C' if I were her journalism teacher). It's definitely not the kind of yellow journalism that I've been reading of late when it comes to the Frank Clark story. It's a decent piece in my book ... but I'm feeling just a bit disappointed because I was expecting so much more.

I read it too. twice by the way. From the title you get a sore view, and then she backs her story up with the filler. Near the end she puts in her 2bits for the optimistic person and then finishes with the ending. From my opinion, 90% subjective, 8% objective and 2 percent unknown. Your grade is about correct too. I feel she could have put better in the title to get more cliks and did a better job in subject matter fulfilling her obligation to the reader with more specifics and examples with people. As I think about it, She probably could have gotten more information for subject material at a local niner bar and a local hawks bar. No disrespect intended to either types of establishments.

But...Go Hawks.

 

[SnoCoHawk]

As a female I wouldn't say I'm "in support" of Clark, but I think there's enough that's unclear about the incident in question that I'm remaining neutral. If he really is someone who solves arguments with his fists then he'll do it again, removing all doubt. Time will tell.

 

[kidhawk]

I've kind of stayed quiet on the issue, because I can truly see both sides. I have come to a conclusion on my personal opinion though. This is an incident that did happen. This is something that was handled through the justice system in a way which is fairly typical for most similar incidences. He has followed through with his DV counseling and everything else required. I will never say what he did was ok, but it is in the past and he has paid for his mistake. I am not going to jump on board the fan wagon and sing his praises, but I am willing to give him a chance to prove that he has learned from this mistake. IMO, he should remain forever on a short leash. Even a minor incident, similar to this one and he should be gone. His contract should definitely be formulated so the team can cut him for cause at any time should he get in this type of trouble once again. I'm all for giving the guy his second chance, and as long as he doesn't blow the opportunity, I'm completely fine with the organization keeping him around. I fully expect them to cut bait if this should ever happen again, and there should be no hesitation.

 

[Popeyejones]

My take: these women haven't been paying attention. They've consumed the narrative force fed by the media this past week.

Another option of course is that they're not all idiots and simply just feel differently than you do.

 

[drdiags]

I don't think Clark should be subjected to more or less scrutiny than what Tom Cable and other members of the organization that have had violent interactions with their domestic partners have been subjected to. Leroy Hill should have been on a short leash, but other than having his FA tender pulled, he remained with the organization through numerous mess ups.

Now maybe since the post Ray Rice event, all new violators or those deemed to fit the classification of the new NFL DV profile should have a no-tolerance policy going forward but this should be for anyone employed by the NFL.

Maybe then everyone can feel good about how things will be handled from now on. Exhibited behavior or not, commit DV going forward and your NFL career is over. Problem solved.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

As a female I wouldn't say I'm "in support" of Clark, but I think there's enough that's unclear about the incident in question that I'm remaining neutral. If he really is someone who solves arguments with his fists then he'll do it again, removing all doubt. Time will tell.

I'd offer that is a stance shared by both genders really.

I haven't seen much in the way of support for Clark. At best, my impression throughout this process has been one of guarded neutrality. With a significant percentage of fans and outsiders alike taking the police report as gospel for what happened.

I think, if there is one clear aspect to this incident, is that it is ambiguous what truly occurred in that motel bedroom. It is known that there aren't any actual witnesses to what happened that are willing to state he struck her. In absence of that, I have to afford him the benefit of doubt.

What's entirely unclear to me, is what the Seahawk's 'process' was that allowed John to make such a declarative statement that Clark never hit her. Because as the questions and background get processed, it honestly doesn't feel like we dug into this incident outside the scope of any other prospect. I believe John when he says he spent more effort and time in researching Clark. But it feels like he confined that effort strictly with coaches, trainers and other people involved in his athletic life. The only mention of someone outside of that was the counselor that he worked with as part of his plea arrangement.

I am still awaiting details of what this process entailed. Because I feel like it wasn't comprehensive at all. If it went down as currently known, then John's standard for completeness is unrecognizable to my own. Certainly I would have expected him to contact/interview the prosecutors or even attempt to do so. This is a legal issue and definitely his culpability in it as alleged should have been strongly investigated. From the outside, I don't see any actual effort having been made by us that he may have in fact done this. Instead the effort seems to have been made to try to gauge if this was a guy who was likely to do this going forward.

At this point, I really do feel like Seattle as an organization white washed the incident and drafted a talented player, guilt be damned. And while that guilt -- to me -- does appear questionable, the fact is that estimation is provided precisely by the narrative of the Times subsequent investigations. Not from the team at all. I certainly don't think -- nor have I heard it from any fan -- that the Seahawks have provided a framework to understand how the declaration that 'he never hit her' was arrived at. We've only seen vague and ambiguous references to 'the process' and 'exhaustive investigation' with no context at all what that means. And from what the Times has been able to establish -- that context doesn't appear to back those claims up.

 

[Popeyejones]

OK, I just got through reading Romano's article and I'd have to label it an "OK" piece. It's inevitable that you're going to have female fans of the Seahawks who are going to be naturally a bit upset by the Frank Clark pick. They're going to see such a move as a bit hypocritical (and rightfully so) given past statements against DV by Schneider (which he reiterated this past week).

That said, where were the quotes from female fans of the Seahawks who were in SUPPORT of Frank Clark? She has only 1 by Cynthia Brown -- no others. She tries to bolster the Pro Side with the citation of stats showing increased female viewership of the NFL (which is good), but could she really find no other female Seahawks fans to quote who took a more objective stance and who appeared a little more informed about the case? That's the one part of this article that bothers me a bit. As I said, it's a fair piece (and by that, I mean I'd give it a 'C' if I were her journalism teacher). It's definitely not the kind of yellow journalism that I've been reading of late when it comes to the Frank Clark story. It's a decent piece in my book ... but I'm feeling just a bit disappointed because I was expecting so much more.

One of the problems with the standard journalism formula is that journalist's must always find people on "both sides" of the "issue" in order to present neutrality.

From her post here we know that she was ACTIVELY LOOKING for women who supported the pick and handling of the pick. If she's posting on messageboards to try to find someone (and getting trolled into oblivion, and getting emailed links to a comedian talking about slapping b*****s, etc.) it's basically suggesting that she didn't have any trouble finding women Hawks fans who were really troubled by it, but needed to hunt out at least one women who wasn't to make the piece "balanced."

From the sounds of it complaining that of the three women quoted two are upset by it and one isn't is very misguided; she had to work really hard to present something as more balanced than from her reporting it probably actually is.

 

[Uncle Si]

I've kind of stayed quiet on the issue, because I can truly see both sides. I have come to a conclusion on my personal opinion though. This is an incident that did happen. This is something that was handled through the justice system in a way which is fairly typical for most similar incidences. He has followed through with his DV counseling and everything else required. I will never say what he did was ok, but it is in the past and he has paid for his mistake. I am not going to jump on board the fan wagon and sing his praises, but I am willing to give him a chance to prove that he has learned from this mistake. IMO, he should remain forever on a short leash. Even a minor incident, similar to this one and he should be gone. His contract should definitely be formulated so the team can cut him for cause at any time should he get in this type of trouble once again. I'm all for giving the guy his second chance, and as long as he doesn't blow the opportunity, I'm completely fine with the organization keeping him around. I fully expect them to cut bait if this should ever happen again, and there should be no hesitation.

Agreed here, and I think this is the most reasonable approach.

Frank Clark made a mistake. People are free to be upset with it. They are free to be upset with the Seahawks for bringing him in. And they are free to be concerned that he repeats his actions.

But, he has paid for his mistake (mostly) and despite any judgements I may have for it and the punishment, I'm not ready to say that denies him an NFL career.

This is the reality of the NFL world. Maybe Frank Clark becomes the first player to make amends for his actions. Maybe he's just another in the long list of NFL players who make the same mistakes.

Time will tell. But its ok to look at this draft pick and the player with some raised eyebrows and mistrust. Clark hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. That saying, he should be given the chance to.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Clarke told the woman hotel manager "I'll hit you like I hit her" during the broohaha. Did Schneider know this? They should cut that guy.

Link?

Here it is.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... irlfriend/

 

[Popeyejones]

I haven't seen much in the way of support for Clark. At best, my impression throughout this process has been one of guarded neutrality. With a significant percentage of fans and outsiders alike taking the police report as gospel for what happened.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when it is almost exclusively male Seahawks fans and the GM who drafted him who are defending Frank Clark, you kind of have your answer.

I think it's also easier to dismiss the police report as "gospel" when you refer to it as the "police report" and not what's contained within it, and substitute "gospel" for something more realistic like "pretty cut and dry" or "very likely true."

Try the sentence this way:

A significant percentage of fans and outsiders have taken the multiple witness statements and photographic evidence from the police report coupled with the additional multiple witness statements that didn't make it into the police report and plea deal that included DV counseling to conclude that there is a preponderance of evidence that Frank Clark beat up his girlfriend.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Meghan Trainor is a Seahawks fan? She isn't from Seattle, is she? :shock:

Who's that?

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.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

There was pictures of her right after, so he didn't beat her up--more like "roughed her up". Hit her at least once.

 

[Uncle Si]

Meghan Trainor is a Seahawks fan? She isn't from Seattle, is she? :shock:

Who's that?

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.

 

[LymonHawk]

If you were to ask 1,000 people from Seattle if they think we should resign RW to a contract, I bet you can find two who would say no.

Should you then publish an article saying, "Seattle fans do not want RW resigned!"?

This is exactly what you have here. Romano contacted many women, but only published the words of those who supported the 'We shouldn't have drafted him' party line. And people believe it reflects on all 'Hawk fans?

From what I've read, I don't see what Clark did as so horrible. What was he supposed to have done? He tried to walk away, but she kept hitting him.

IMHO: The biggest mistake he made was being with the woman in the first place.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Meghan Trainor is a Seahawks fan? She isn't from Seattle, is she? :shock:

Who's that?

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.

 

[Popeyejones]

If you were to ask 1,000 people from Seattle if they think we should resign RW to a contract, I bet you can find two who would say no.

Should you then publish an article saying, "Seattle fans do not want RW resigned!"?

This is exactly what you have here. Romano contacted many women, but only published the words of those who supported the 'We shouldn't have drafted him' party line.

I think you've got it backwards.

Romano had enough trouble finding a woman who supported the signing of Frank Clark that she even came here to try to find one, and ended up getting trolled mercilessly for her efforts.

Also, she didn't only publish the words of those who disapproved of the signing. She did enough legwork to actually find a woman Hawks fan who supported it. She quoted two women who didn't and one who did; she had to work to find the third.

Again though, I think this is an example of the problem with the way that jouranlists are trained to present neutrality.

Your RW example is actually a good case of that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that out of 1,000 hawks fans 990 think the Hawks should resign RW.

If a reporter is publishing a story about if Hawks fans think that the team should resign RW or not, to present neutrality he or she has to find one of those ten people to balance the story out, so that he or she can quote "both sides" by having a "no" person to go with all the "yes" people.

It's seems like it was the same deal with Frank Clark; a lot of her leg work was in trying to find a woman who liked the signing, and I'd guess she likely had to ask a lot of women who ended up going unmentioned to find her "yes" person to balance the article out.

Basically the issue is that presenting "unbiasedness" actually inroduces bias by making some issues come off as maybe being more divided than they are (AKA: if you're a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution, you're probably going to get quoted a lot ).

 

[LymonHawk]

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