Second Reflection: An Analysis on Media Coverage of Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and Backlash
The NFL has been in the spotlight for the past year or so, but not for a surge of interest in football. Rather, the NFL has become the home of one of the most heated political debates regarding the American flag and the respect to which people show it. The catalyst for this debate was Colin Kaepernick, the former 49ers quarterback, who protested racial injustice in America by kneeling during the national anthem in 2016. In many ways, Kaepernick has become the center of this controversy, and this fame (or perhaps infamy) has led to him becoming the new face of the clothing brand Nike. Nike’s decision to have Kaepernick heading their ad campaign has been met with much support and criticism, and below, I will analyze two articles discussing this newfound controversy.
An effective explanation of the story can be found in the Washington Post’s article, “Trump: Nike ‘getting absolutely killed’ with boycotts over Colin Kaepernick’s ‘Just Do It’ campaign” by Amy Wang and Rachel Siegel (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/04/people-are-destroying-their-nike-gear-protest-colin-kaepernicks-just-do-it-campaign/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aba56a710f90). To highlight effective strategies in the piece, we’ll look at three things: how the chronology of events is clearly laid out, how past events related to the story are incorporated to heighten the Post’s credibility, and the consultation of industry experts in evaluating the backlash towards Nike. First, the piece is structured in a way that allows readers to easily piece together events as they happened. Opening with a description of the backlash and the root of its cause, readers are immediately given a comprehensive summary of events before the piece shows the actual order in which they happen. The reader thus has context for the story within the first seconds of reading, meaning the rest of the story can be instantly understood, even without any prior knowledge on the topic. This also serves to build trust between readers and the Post, showing how the piece’s actual structure and composition are effective in conveying the news. Secondly, the Post explains past events that led up to the current situation. In regards to Trump’s criticism of the NFL protests and Kaepernick himself, the Post brings up recorded comments from 2017, before showing one of his tweets to demonstrate the verifiable nature of their reporting, and the consistency of Trump’s statements. They also explain the history of Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign, and how it has been subject to criticism before for taking controversial stances and drawing parallels between past and present backlash to the campaign. In doing so, they explain more than just the story, providing their reader’s ample context to the situation. Finally, the Post predicts potential ramifications for Nike, but not before consulting an industry expert. Recognizing their place as a news agency and not market specialists, they consult marketing professor Sonya Grier and business professor Joe Holt to evaluate the likely effects on Nike’s business as a result of the new campaign. All of these factors serve to make this an effective article, and while it still has its issues, it tells the story far better than some others do.
Covering the same topic, but with nowhere near the depth or accuracy as the Post’s article, we have the CNN article “The Hypocrisy of the Nike Outrage” by LZ Granderson ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/opinions/nike-outrage-hypocrisy-opinion-granderson/index.html). The problems with this article are immediately obvious: from the title alone, it immediately establishes opposition to the backlash, rather than analyze it first. If the title alone weren’t enough of an indication, the opening paragraph certainly distinguishes itself from the previous article, and not in a good way. Whereas the article by the Post uses its first paragraph to establish the various reactions people had to the new Nike campaign and address the source, CNN instead zeros in on the reaction of a particular talk show host. In doing so, it misrepresents the volume of backlash Nike received, making it feel personal and petty, how the responses to the ad campaign are portrayed for the remainder of the article. Where the Washington Post withheld judgement until they analyzed both sides of the argument, including the history of both Nike and those angry with the new campaign, CNN immediately takes a confrontational tone with the argument, refusing to analyze the backlash and make a more effective argument for it. Even further, the Washington Post surveyed two professors of relevant fields before discussing the business ramifications of Nike’s campaign, whereas the author of CNN’s article makes assumptions based on his own experiences. Were LZ Granderson a professor of business or marketing, this wouldn’t be a problem, but he’s a journalist and former actor. Whereas the Post relies on the testimony of experts, CNN relies on intuition, failing to build the same level of trust as the Washington Post did. While CNN reports on the situation, the objectivity of the article is hindered by bias and self assurance, making the article and argument less effective on the whole.
