Media Assumptions and the Brett Favre Saga

In the September Media Rant I take a look at the big business, pro-management assumptions underlying the coverage of the Brett Favre saga. Here it is:

Media Assumptions and the Brett Favre Saga

Media Rants

By Tony Palmeri

from the September 2008 edition of The Scene

UW Madison Professor Jon Foley recently announced that he would be leaving the Badger State for the University of Minnesota. Foley, the founder and director of UW's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, was UW Madison’s Gaylord Nelson distinguished professor of environmental studies and atmospheric and oceanic sciences and recognized as a campus star. Though Foley’s leaving is a loss for Wisconsin, everyone agrees that a high performing researcher has the right to obtain employment wherever he wishes.

Not so for Brett Favre. Unlike Foley, Favre operates in a workplace where management “owns the rights” to employee labor. Corporate media, not able to extricate itself from the big business and pro-management assumptions undergirding the [often crappy] content presented as news, reported and editorialized ad nausem that Packer management “held the cards” and could release Favre, trade him, or bring him back. Corporate news frames gave us pro-Favre and pro-management Packer fans united only in their belief that the decision about Favre’s future was management’s to make.

But suppose the decision wasn’t management’s to make? Suppose we challenge the assumption of management’s “ownership rights” of pro athletes? What if pro athletes (and all workers), whose labor after all produces owner profits, “held the cards” in the employee/employer relationship? If the “pursuit of happiness” is an “inalienable right,” doesn’t that at least mean the ability to determine whom one will work for?

Even if we accept the business model accepted uncritically by the mainstream press, the case for releasing Favre from his contract was strong strictly on grounds of gratitude for past accomplishments. Consider the facts: Favre is the NFL’s all-time leader in touchdowns (442), completions (5,377), attempts (8,758), and yards (61,655). He’s won more games than any other starting quarterback (160), and started a league-record 253 consecutive regular season games (over 270 including the playoffs). He’s won three MVP awards, led the Pack to 13 consecutive winning seasons from 1992-2005, and a Super Bowl victory in 1997.

If Favre’s on the field accomplishments were not enough to warrant a gratitude release, what about his impact on the financial bottom line of the Packers, the city of Green Bay, and the state of Wisconsin? A Green Bay Press Gazette story printed shortly after Favre’s March retirement announcement refers to Lambeau Field as “The House that Favre Built” and points out that the waiting list for season tickets increased from 12,000 in 1992 to about 78,000 today. Former Green Bay Mayor Paul Jadin, now President of the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, told the paper that "When you consider that Brett's play translated to victories and more playoff games, that put money in the coffers. He was a significant part of the economy here." The same story quotes Sarah Klavas of the Wisconsin Department of Tourism: "Brett Favre . . . helped put Wisconsin on the national tourism map and gave us many reasons to roll out the green and gold carpet for fans from other states."

Management’s refusal to release Favre on gratitude grounds looks even worse when considering the fact that they weren’t exactly enthused about the prospect of his playing for the Packers this year. Indeed, Favre’s retirement in March was somewhat the result of his perception that GM Ted Thompson wanted to move in another direction. Favre’s agent Bus Cook told the Associated Press that "Nobody pushed Brett Favre out the door, but then nobody encouraged him not to go out that door, either."

Not comfortable with the idea of Favre openly competing with Aaron Rodgers for the starting job, Packer management offered him a $20 million deal to stay retired. Had that deal been completed, it would have assured the Packer organization continued profit from association with Favre’s name and accomplishments even as they refused to grant him the respect that those accomplishments earned.

Given the realities of the football business, it wasn’t surprising that Packer management acted as ingrates. But the image worsened when the team announced the signing of former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer as a PR flak. Slate.com said “Ari Fleischer’s ability to repeat a lie even after it’s been shown, repeatedly, to be false is what separates him from the amateurs.” Packer statements on Favre or anything else must now be held under strict scrutiny given that such statements may first travel through the Fleischer filters of prevarication and misinformation.

The Brett Favre saga represents a textbook case of how profit driven corporate media fail to break through the haze of unstated, pro big business assumptions that color most reporting. In part because mainstream reporting took it as given that management “held the cards,” any resolution based on standards of gratitude and decency could never be seriously considered. Even millionaire athletes are “owned.” That’s why Jon Foley could freely choose Minnesota, but Brett Favre could only choose to accept or reject a trade to New York.

NY Times columnist Bill Rhoden had the best response to the business decision that forced Brett Favre out of Green Bay: “Business, for sure, though you would think that 16 years of blood, sweat and devotion might save you from the moat.”