Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Bowling Green State University, 2017, Media and Communication

In 2014, the leadership performances of National Basketball Association (NBA) Commissioner Adam Silver and National Football League (NFL) Commissioner Roger Goodell (both men who occupy White positionality), in response to two critical moments in their respective leagues, offered insight into prevailing racial and gender ideologies between United States (U.S.) professional men's sport, and ultimately, U.S. society. In the NFL, a domestic abuse incident between NFL star Ray Rice and his then-fiance Janay Palmer, two individuals who do not occupy whiteness, and in the NBA, racist comments made by then-owner of the Los Angeles Clippers Donald Sterling, a man who occupies whiteness, required responses and disciplinary action from the commissioners. Utilizing critical rhetorical analysis as a method of textual analysis (McKerrow, 1989), this dissertation examines and critiques Commissioners Silver and Goodell's rhetorical performances as leaders in response to these incidents as well as the surrounding global news and sports media reactions to their decisions. Informed by concepts within critical whiteness studies (e.g., Nakayama & Krizek, 1995), intersectionality (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989; 1991), Black Feminist Thought (BFT) (e.g., Collins 1991; 2004; Griffin, 2012b; hooks, 2004), hegemonic masculinity (e.g,., Trujillo, 1991), and dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981; Baxter, 2011), this dissertation examines the intersection of whiteness and hegemonic masculinity within the commissioners' performances to explore how whiteness functions dialectically and intersectionally to secure its persuasive power as a strategic rhetoric. The analyses within the two case studies revealed two distinct dialectics: (1) rhetorics of postracism vs. critical rhetorics, and (2) rhetorics of honor vs. rhetorics of shame. Overall, this project extends understanding of how the rhetorics of whiteness work dialectically and intersect with the rhetorics of masculinity within the NBA and NFL via the rhetorical p (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Alberto Gonzalez Dr. (Committee Co-Chair); Lisa Hanasono Dr. (Committee Co-Chair); Christina Lunceford Dr. (Other); Ellen Gorsevski Dr. (Committee Member) Subjects: Communication; Rhetoric

Bachelor of Science (BS), Ohio University, 2014, Journalism

Black Sunday, the day when, for the first time on October 17, 2010, three NFL players were fined for vicious and illegal hits, was the starting point of what would then become a national debate about concussions and football-related brain trauma. Just three years later, brothers Mark and Steve Fainaru, reporters from ESPN would collaborate with PBS’s Frontline to expose how the NFL attempted to cover up its knowledge of the risks of brain damage in League of Denial. This thesis uses a variety of analytical tools, including metaphor, valence, framing, source, and descriptive statistical analysis to better understand how the mainstream sports media have covered what has been deemed the “concussion crisis” at the professional, collegiate, and youth levels of football. In 489 articles from both ESPN and Sports Illustrated, this study finds a distinctly negative slant to the reporting, and a prevalence of war, violence, death, and sickness metaphors. It additionally examines through what frames journalists have tried to make sense of this debate, finding frames of labor/management, race/gender, public perception, scientific debate, and opinion. Lastly it analyzes the implications of which sources these media organizations most frequently cite for medically based information.

Committee: Thomas Hodson JD (Advisor) Subjects: Journalism