Wednesday
morning Lolo Jones did an interview with the Today Show to talk about more than
her 4th place finish in the 100m hurdles final. Lolo had heard all of the
criticism directed towards her in the days leading up to the competition and
she was not happy. She specifically upset about an article in the New York
Times written by Jere Longman (which can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/sports/olympics/olympian-lolo-jones-draws-attention-to-beauty-not-achievement.html?_r=1).
At first when I watched her interview and heard her say the article
"ripped her to shreds" I assumed it probably only called her
overrated and she was overreacting. I went on to read the article and in fact
she was right, Longman's piece was extremely harsh and seemed very much like a
personal attack against Lolo. The article claimed that Lolo was more worried
about her image than her performance and that she had not achieved enough in
her career to warrant such high media exposure. Longman made sure to point out
the disappointing parts of Lolo's career such as her misfortune in Beijing and the
fact that she barely made the Olympic team for these games. Longman also went
on to say that the other two American 100m hurdlers do not get talked about
Lolo because they don't have the same exotic look as her. In her interview Lolo
emphasized how upset she was with the article and she broke down to tears as
she explained how hard she worked to get to London. I myself was very upset
with the article and found it to be extremely personal and biased. Here is why;
1. Lolo does not demand the media attention
Longman
claims that Lolo has "decided to be whatever anyone wants her to be-vixen,
virgin, victim- to draw attention to herself." He is pretty much saying
she will play different roles to make people talk about her. By vixen he means
Lolo plays the role of some exotic beauty that every man wants by posing nude
on magazines or doing commercials where she gets to show off her figure. Yes
she has posed nude before but there is a long list of female athletes that have
done this in the past. The media likes to take advantage of beautiful, fit
female athletes that wow people with heir looks and athleticism. People saw
Lolo dominate on the track before they saw her naked, which means she was
recognized for athletic achievements before her looks. The "virgin"
part of the article refers to the fact that Lolo openly discussed the fact that
she is keeping her virginity until marriage. her mentioning this was not an
attempt to make people fall in love with her purity. Many celebrities such as
Tim Tebow have come out and said this. It is not a publicity stunt, it's simply
giving the public insight on your life and answering a question that is asked.
The "victim" part refers to how Lolo discussed her rough childhood
when she and her mom temporarily lived in the basement of the Salvation Army in
Des Moines, Iowa and also how her father spent time in jail. Longman tries to
make it seem like Lolo wanted to make people feel bad for her. He might as well
accuse hundreds of other athletes and celebrities of this because we have heard
many heartbreaking childhood stories. The public is always interested in a
celebrity's rise to fame and part of that has to do with their upbringing.
Longman brings up a quote from another U.S. hurdler Dawn Harper where she said
that she had a rough childhood too but she didn't want to publicize it to get
attention. Well if Dawn doesn't want to share that's ok but that doesn't mean
that Lolo should be called out for sharing her story with us. Everything Lolo
has done with the media is not a case of her wanting to hog the spotlight. She
is just like any other celebrity who is approached by the media to share their
lives with the public. Longman claims that Lolo is the 3rd best U.S. hurdler
behind Dawn Harper, and Kellie Wells but yet she still gets more attention than
them. This is true but let's face it, Lolo is more marketable than them. No
disrespect to Dawn or Kellie but sex sells and they do not have the sex appeal
that Americans want to see which is why you don't see them on popular magazine
covers or advertisements. I mean if you look at female American athletes that get
publicity (Candice Parker, Allyson Felix, Sanya Richards-Ross, Nastia Lukin,
Shawn Johnson etc...) they are all pretty. You can only blame society for that
not Lolo Jones.
2. Lolo's achievements warrant the media attention
In his
article Longman only mentions the big disappointments of Lolo's career like the
stumble over the 9th hurdle in Beijing that dropped her from first to 7th and
the fact that she entered the London games as only the 3rd best American
hurdler with a season's best time that is barely in the top 20 internationally.
I know that journalism can sometimes be controversial but anyone trying to
prove a point must mention both sides of the story. Those are two examples of
disappointment in Lolo's career but Longman failed to even mention the many
successes Jones has achieved in her career. He failed to mention how she has
twice been world indoor champ, or how she owns the American indoor 60m hurdle
record, or that she had surgery on her spinal cord last year and impressed
people by even making this year's Olympic squad. He did mention that she was
leading the 100m hurdle final in the 2008 Olympics until she tripped over the
9th hurdle but anyone that watched the race would know that she had the gold
easily and the stumble was so bad that the rest of the field was able to make
up considerable ground on her. Longman's article would lead you to believe that
she is not as good as Harper or Wells because she is too worried about her
image rather than working hard to achieve Olympic glory. Let’s be honest here,
Lolo has been the #1 ranked hurdler in the world before and has a personal best
that was better than Harper's until these Olympics. Lolo has also been one of
the best American hurdlers since she was in college at LSU. If it wasn't for
the spinal cord injury she probably would've done better this year and even won
gold in these Olympics. Lolo has been one of the most recognized American
trackstars since 2006, these endorsements and magazine covers did not happen
overnight. Harper even acknowledged that she did not expect to beat Jones at
the 2008 Olympics and that if Lolo did not trip she would have probably blown
out the field. In Longman's article, Lolo was compared to Anna Kournikova for
being known more for her looks than athletic achievements, which is further
from the truth. Kournikova did not win major tournaments and was never the #1
tennis player in the world; Lolo Jones has won world championships and had a
stretch of being the #1 hurdler in the world. What an outrageous
comparison!!!!!
I
understand that celebrities are subject to scrutiny since they are in the
public eye but if you're going to attack them don't be so biased and come with
a weak argument. Lolo Jones has worked hard for the attention and endorsements
she has gotten. Being publicized for her good looks is just a case of American
society being mesmerized by a good looking and athletically gifted female. Sure
if she wasn't pretty the media probably wouldn't have put so much focus on her
this year but she is not the one hounding them to throw her on every ad and
magazine cover. My point to Jere Longman is next time you feel like calling out
someone for being more concerned about their image than achievements make sure
you do not pick someone who has achieved so much and worked hard for every bit
of notoriety like Lolo Jones. By the way congrats to Lolo Jones for finding a
way to finish 4th in the Olympics after having a rough year and supposedly
being "the 20th best hurdler in the world".
- Stay in Shape
- Stay in Shape
No comments:
Post a Comment