Greatly anticipated, every four years the summer Olympics are celebrated around the world with friendly competition between countries. Top athletes from participating countries train, in some cases their whole lives, for one shot at these very games. In an article written by Popsugar, a debate held by Tamara Holder on Fox’s Sports Court is analyzed. However, it wasn’t the incredible talent or the athlete’s’ performance that was closely examined and scrutinized by guests Bo Dieti and Mark Simone. Instead, the discussion focused in great detail on whether or not the athletes should wear makeup.
The source in this article is obviously the debate itself and the commentary between Holder, Dieti, and Simone, all people who have no qualifications when it comes to this topic of conversation. Both Dieti, a former detective for the NYPD, and Simone, a NYC radio host, have no experience in makeup or sports psychology for that matter. As mentioned in the article, Fox should have invited an Olympic athlete or coach to discuss this subject matter, not completely unqualified men. Dieti and Simone’s proximity to the subject matter was just simply watching the games like the average viewer. By no means did they conduct a study on why athletes should or should not wear makeup, rather this article criticises other’s opinions about Olympic athletes wearing make up. Another source used in the article is a quote pulled from a past interview with Shannon Rowbury, an American Olympian, where she points out why she chooses to wear lipstick during the competition.
The motivation of this article is clearly to point out the stupidity of Dieti and Simone’s remarks and the absurdity of the entire debate. By using sarcastic and contemptuous language, Popsugar gives their opinion on the opinions of the Fox Sport Court reporters. The article does not acknowledge and analyze anything but rather criticises Dieti and Simone’s opinions and the entire segment. This article uses both principled and unprincipled tactics to form an argument; it lays down the facts as they were given in the debate while also presenting personal opinions on the subject matter.
In the debate, Simone makes a point by saying “The whole point of the Olympics, the whole reason for this training . . . is product endorsements. Cosmetics companies are opening up a ton of revenue for product endorsements.” His evidence for this statement is in fact valid; many female athletes are signed with large cosmetic brands such as CoverGirl. But this piece of evidence that “backs up” his point was quickly shot down and never expanded on in the article. Although Proctor and Gamble, the owners of CoverGirl, is a sponsor of the Olympics, they provide the athletes with resources to succeed in the games, not redefine their career by being the face of their company. For example, when one looks at Shawn Johnson, the first thing that comes to one’s mind will most likely be former Olympic gold medal gymnast not a face for CoverGirl.
What is Left Out?
Although this article does contain a quote from a female athlete commenting on the subject matter, it was not a quote directly addressing the debate. Expanding on the debate of athletic endorsements and to what extent a role they play in the Olympics would have presented a more in depth analysis of the subject matter. Instead the article read like a bashing rant against Dieti and Simone and their opinions. As trivial as a news story about makeup in the Olympics sounds, this article did exactly what the Fox Sports Court debate did, shame someone for their opinions about something: it is merely an opinion about someone’s opinion.