By Brad Locke
November 18, 2005

(AgapePress) - We sports writers can appear to be an insensitive lot. When a running back starts showing physical wear as he grows older, we write things like, "He's getting too old to beat those quick linebackers to the corner." When a coach can't make his team a winner, we write things like, "He hasn't been able to make the transition from assistant to head coach." When a high school kid throws to the wrong base, we write things like, "Smith's mental lapse allowed Jones to score from first base."

I once wrote something like that last one. Kid's mom didn't like it. I wrote nothing that wasn't true -- the kid had a mental lapse that cost his team. I did nothing wrong. I was simply reporting what I saw. Often those who read the newspaper don't comprehend that, however, and as a result, my kind is often accused of biased or unfair reporting, or of putting too much emphasis on negative news.

Before I go further, there must be a distinction made between objective reporting and opinion columns. Something like a game story should have no opinion, just an accurate depiction of what occurred. A column is, of course, expected to have a strong opinion, but the writer is still expected to be fair in his or her reporting. The "insensitive" label is most often applied to columnists, not writers of straight game or feature stories.

But sports writers have often been accused of having an agenda even in their non-opinion stories. This past spring, several people became angry with me over a story I wrote about a basketball player who was forced to sit out his senior season because of a transfer rule. He said he left his previous school because of problems with his coach. The coach would not comment on the player's or his parents' claims, so the story was unbalanced in the sense that I had all these accusations by the player and his parents, but no rebuttal by the coach. Many folks thought I was trying to make the coach look bad -- though in my opinion, it was the parents who wound up looking bad, because it was their fault that they misunderstood a transfer rule -- but it only seemed that way because the coach would not talk with me.

The focus of the story was not on the coach, but on the kid and how he dealt with not being able to play. This is what often happens with readers -- they hone in on a minor part of the story, usually a part they don't like, and blow it out of proportion, losing perspective on the bigger picture in the process. The other contributing factor to such negative reactions, though, is the emotion these people have invested in a story's characters. The only people I received negative reaction from were fans of the coach's team or his friends and colleagues. I heard not one negative comment from someone with no ties to the coach or his team. In fact, the story elicited some very positive reaction from people unacquainted with the story's subjects.

Objective reporting can at times seem heartless, even detached, to the reader. But objectivity should not be confused with negativity.

All that to say, the messenger needs to stop getting shot. Bearers of bad news should not be chastised for doing their job. But this happens in many areas of life. Underlings fear telling their bosses that the company lost money last quarter. High school coaches fear telling parents their kid didn't make all-division. Some people just don't want to hear bad news.

That's why Christians are often so vilified, because their message isn't what a lot of people want to hear. It's ultimately a message of hope, but where there is hope, there is also danger (otherwise, there would be no need for hope). It's the latter part that irks people. Sin and hell and the narrow path we're instructed to walk are subjects that can elicit verbally violent (and in some parts of the world, physically violent) reactions. Christians are called insensitive or, worse, intolerant.

The big picture can be rather overwhelming, and people tend to think too well of themselves. So any message that upsets one's tidy little worldview is rejected, and quite often so is the messenger. That should not deter Christians from carrying out the Great Commission. I think being a journalist has helped thicken my skin in this regard. I've learned to brush off negative feedback like so much dandruff. And that's all it is -- dead skin; worthless words. I've learned that the message is more important than my being liked by the message's recipient.

So I'll just keep calling it like I see it.