Ink Influences Viewership?

An article from the Kansas City Star titled In NBA playoffs, less ink means more viewers claims that more people would watch the NBA if players were not inked up and/or they covered up their tattoos with long sleeves. My first reaction was that is riduclous but I wanted to read the article to see how he justifies his claim. Turns out my intital response is correct.

Whitlock speculates that "Less Ink Means More Viewers" without any evidentiary support except a misleading poll and a couple of comparisons to fat people having sex and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit models, both of which are extremely poor comparisons to make.

The poll he has up asks "What do you think of tattoos on players?" which does not address his claim that less tattoos would equate to an increased viewer audience. Currently the majority of people answered that they didnt like tattoos on players which is misleading because at first glance you might think it supports the claims in the article but it doesnt because he isnt asking if tattoos influence if they will watch.

I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits. You're wrong. Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people.

Nude scenes with fat people an accurate analogy to players with tattoos, really? That is hardly the same thing. You watch basketball for the action, for the game itself and tattoos are not the main focus, they are a minor physical attribute of some of the players. If you are watching the game for its intended purpose you may not even really notice them. If you are watching fat people in nude scenes though, you have no where else to look or to focus on, that’s your focus. It is a poor comparison at best.

Do you think Sports Illustrated would let its swimsuit models cover themselves in tattoos? Models are paid to look good. Athletes are no different from models. Everyone accepts that female basketball players — when possible — are pushed to showcase their feminine beauty.

And Sports Illustrated not having swimsuit models covered in tattoos is an even weaker argument. First of all there is a different set of standards of what is physically appealing in men versus women. If you are a swimsuit model there is a very narrow definition of what is beautiful and acceptable. In this society tattoos are more acceptable on men than women so it isn’t an equal comparison. Also the only focus of a swimsuit model is her body and physical appearance. “Models are paid to look good. Athletes are no different” claims Whitlock. Actually athletes are paid to play well, not look good otherwise there would be a lot of players out of a job. Once again in basketball the actual game is the focus not the body art. And I dont even know what he is getting at with his "Everyone accepts that female basketball players — when possible — are pushed to showcase their feminine beauty" comment.

Whitlock make claims that are poorly supported. Not everyone wants to see only clean cut basketball players. Diversity in appearance is a reflection of society and we aren’t all clean cut. We don’t all look the same and we shouldn’t. If you are closed minded to automatically assume that inked players are “menacing, tattooed brutes” that “have so little genuine self confidence that they find it necessary to cover themselves in tattoos as a way to mask their insecurities” then you are out of touch with reality. Having tattoos does not equal insecurity, that’s an asinine assertion. Just because it is something that doesn’t appeal to you, doesn’t mean other people should be judged for it.