Graham, R. (7 December, 2004). “Cheaters are Still Winners in the Eyes of Many Fans” The Boston Globe.

OVERVIEW

(Download Cheaters Still Winners? overview as a PDF)

Graham begins by describing the extraordinary event of witnessing Barry Bond’s historic 660^th home run. But even the mention of the name of this baseball slugger today is bound to trigger the word ‘steroids’ in our mind. Or does it? Says Graham:

“I want to say that whatever pesky questions I had about whether Bonds had ever taken steroids were only temporarily lost in that euphoric moment, but the truth is I’ve never spent much time considering my suspicions. I was entertained, so I don’t dwell on the finer points.”

Even though more evidence of steroid use among baseball players has come to the fore. Graham’s response, she admits, seems to represent a common attitude: Don’t let the moral sermonizing detract from the entertainment value of athletic achievements. What fan’s care about is the performance, not the rule-bending that comprises the integrity of the game.

After all, many popular singers lip-synch their way through “live” shows, and audiences don’t seem to care. When Sir Elton John criticized Madonna for doing this very thing, Madonna’s fans assailed him for taking moral high ground and detracting from the spectacle of Madonna’s overall entertainment package. Graham thus draws a sobering conclusion:

“Entertainment has always been about illusion. Now the difference seems to be our willingness to accept deception, contrivance, and artifice, whether it’s chemically enhanced athletes or lip-synching pop performers. As usual, the fault lies as much in ourselves as our stars.”

Questions for Reflection and Discussion:

1.      Is Graham right about our open-ended view of entertainment?

2.      Do we care if athletes or musicians take obvious short-cuts?

3.      What does it tell us about our culture when Elton John is accused of being needlessly moral?

Implications:

If the ultimate premium is on entertainment delivery, pop stars and athletes have an easy defense: We’re just doing what it takes to give people what they want. But Graham is pressing us to ask if we want authenticity. The problem is then twofold: How can we advocate for authenticity? How can we defend a so-called ‘moral’ position? Our adoration for spectacle needs to be tempered with an allegiance to integrity.

Christopher S. Yates cCYS