One of the biggest scandals to hit Australian sport has posed a question greater than that of homosexuality in the locker room. ‘Aker-gate’ as it is fast becoming known, has challenged the freedom of speech of sporting identities and whether it’s ethical for their opinions to be pre-approved by third parties or sanitised to toe a particular line.
Two weeks ago, when Jason Akermanis, former Brownlow medallist and renowned AFL loud mouth suggested gay men stay in the closet in his weekly column for The Herald Sun, an unprecedented debate was ignited by sport lovers, the gay community and the general public. Seven related articles on http://www.news.com.au/ have attracted no less than 68 commments each in the past two weeks.
As a consequence, the Western Bulldogs has put a media ban on their veteran forward. However, even prior to this sanction, Akermanis’ columns were subject to a rigorous approval process by his club and the AFL. It is interesting to note that as Akermanis’ career winds down and his popularity sours, his media contracts provide a greater source of income than his playing contract.
Akermanis is renowned for his unwelcome frankness about upcoming opponents and the form of his teammates. Unwilling, or unable to curb his media activities, Aker’s playing career reached a considerable low at his former club when a comment arose on his blog describing then-coach Leigh Matthews as a "f***wit". He never played another game for the Brisbane Lions. It seems that what the player saw as honesty in an online forum, the club saw as destructive disloyalty.
Off-field, he is equally as colourful, learning sign language so he can converse with his hearing impaired in-laws, he speaks Spanish, plays chess and has an ideas whiteboard in his house. Surely a player as interesting as Akermanis does not deserve to have his blog shut down? Two key issues arise around ethics in online communication in this instance.
In an online world where so much of what we say is sanitised, Akermanis goes out on a limb. He has the playing ability and sheer flamboyancy to back it up. Ethically where does the responsibility lie; does Aker have to choose a media career or football and should his comments be regulated because his opinions are not a reflection of the club? Restricting the comments of a colourful character may help to create unity, but is it good for the sport?
Or, is it ethical for Akermanis to provide commentary on the performance of his players or the relationship break-down with his former club on a blog?
Aker-gate follows the sacking of The Age journalist Catherine Deveny after her Logies tirade against the likes of Bindi Irwin and Rove McManus. The ethics of this online controversially seem to be a more black and white scenario; Denevy was sacked immediately. Her blog belonged to The Age. Akermanis writes as a football personality, not as a forward for the Bulldogs.
Given that we spend so much of our time with our work colleagues, the question does arise as to how far our online opinions reflect our employers? How much should our activities on social networks be a sanitised version of our belief systems and observations to comply with company policy or norm? At what expense do we entertain our online followers?
No comments:
Post a Comment