Today, in an effort to catch up on news I had missed over the weekend and curious of the trending stories, I checked CNN. The first thing I saw was this:
At first, I was extremely pleased that he had the courage and bravery to release this information that could potentially cause backlash in the media. But then I thought: What's the big deal? Why is this news becoming the most televised and circulated story of the weekend? Why does such a small factor of this boy's life have to have such surprising reactions that could make another gay player feel as though this is unethical or wrong?
Upon further research, I came across this article. Apparently, Michael Sam could become the first openly gay player drafted by the NFL, which is why there is such a hype around this particular story. He informed his team of his sexual orientation in August, and "Mizzou not only played the entire season without leaking Sam's preference to the media; It supported him, made him a team MVP and watched him sack the quarterback 11.5 times" (CBS). Even from the name of this article, "Mizzou Treats Michael Sam's Sexuality as Non-Story" is so highly respectable, I felt utter content when I read the piece.
It is such a large contradiction: the reaction of the media resulting in the hype of Americans worldwide, and the silence from the team, showing they believed Michael's sexual orientation was irrelevant. The NFL should take note on how the team acted and realize that it shouldn't be a big deal. But the very fact that there was such a hype from the mere sexual orientation of a potential NFL player shows that this idea is not yet fully accepted in media and worldwide.
Do you think that this story should have gone public, to account for the bravery that Sam showed and the responsibility of the Mizzou team? Or should it have been left as a "non-story", that the very fact that he is gay doesn't have anything to do with his skill on the field and that it truly is not a big deal?
No comments:
Post a Comment