Old and New Forms of Racial Bias in

Mediated Sports Commentary: The Case

of the National Football League Draft
Anthony Schmidt and Kevin Coe

Applying Social Identity Theory and Linguistic Intergroup Bias to the analysis
of mediated sports commentary, this study examines racial bias surrounding
the National Football League draft. A content analysis of 41 mock drafts
amounting to more than 1,300 descriptions of individual athletesrevealed
significant differences in how commentators discussed White and non-White
athletes. In particular, commentators more often described White athletes
and in-group athletes in terms of mental traits, but described non-White ath-
letes and out-group athletes in terms of physical traits. Additionally, in-group
athletes were talked about in more abstract terms, consistent with Linguistic
Intergroup Bias.

Race has long been a defining issue in America, so it comes as no surprise that
scholars have devoted substantial attention to examining racial bias in media (e.g.,
Mastro & Stern, 2003; Mendelberg, 2001). Some of this scholarship has focused on
the context of athletics, where race and media regularly converge in important and
complex ways (Whannel, 1992). For example, research has uncovered evidence of
racial stereotyping in media coverage of collegiate athletics (e.g., Eastman & Billings,
2001; Rada & Wulfemeyer, 2005), professional athletics (e.g., Eagleman, 2009;
Rainvill & McCormick, 1977), and the Olympic games (e.g., Billings & Angelini,
2007; Billings & Eastman, 2003). These studies generally find that commentators
stereotype Black athletes as born athletes (Staples & Jones, 1985; Whannel, 1992),
whereas White athletes are more often described as having superior intelligence
and determination (Birrell, 1989; McCarthy & Jones, 1997). Recent scholarship,
however, indicates these trends may be changing. Angelini and Billings (2010)
analysis of the 2008 Olympics uncovered several trends challenging existing stereo-
types, concluding that televised sport commentary no longer contains overarching,
predictable trends (p. 8).

Anthony Schmidt (M.A., University of Arizona) is an instructor of Communication at Edmonds Community

College. His research interests include sports media and political discourse.
Kevin Coe (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is an assistant professor of Communication at the University of
Utah. His research interests include political discourse, news media, and public opinion.
2014 Broadcast Education Association Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58(4), 2014, pp. 655670
DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2014.966364 ISSN: 0883-8151 print/1550-6878 online

655
656 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

This possible shift illustrates the need for additional research, but also suggests
that new analytical approaches might be necessary to capture the subtle forms
of racial bias that may be present in sports commentary. The present study aims
to provide both. It does so, in part, by drawing on Social Identity Theory and
applying a widely used content analysis taxonomy to a relatively new context:
National Football League (NFL) mock draft commentary. Such commentary, wherein
analysts project and evaluate the likely selections in the NFL draft, provides a unique
body of discourseone that reaches large audiences, focuses directly on discussing
and describing athletes, and has the potential to set the standard for how future
journalists describe athletes (Eastman & Billings, 2001). The study then takes an
additional step by incorporating into the content analysis a theory largely untested
in the domain of sports commentary: Linguistic Intergroup Bias. This multi-layered
approach provides needed insight into the variedand sometimes subtleways
that racial bias can influence commentary about athletes.

Race, Media, and Commentary About Athletes

It is well established that sports commentators have, historically, portrayed ath-

letes of different races in divergent ways. More often than not, these variations
are consistent with existing racial stereotypes. Billings (2002), for example, found
that commentators often described Tiger Woods (who is of mixed ethnicity) with
descriptions in line with stereotypes of Black athletes, such as experiencing a loss of
composure when he was underperforming in competition. Numerous studies have
found similar patterns in a host of other contexts (e.g., Billings & Angelini, 2007;
Billings & Eastman, 2003; Eastman & Billings, 2001; Mercurio & Filak, 2010). Com-
mentators are more likely to use physical traits (e.g., powerful, natural ability,
athletic) to describe Black athletes. Conversely, commentators are more likely
to use mental traits (e.g., emotionally composed, intelligent, determined) to
describe White athletes.
Such stereotyping has persisted for decades in sports commentary. Rainvill and
McCormick (1977) conducted one of the earliest content analyses on professional
football commentary, finding that White athletes were significantly more likely than
Black athletes to be celebrated for their success on the field. Meanwhile, commen-
tators were significantly more likely to criticize Black athletes than White athletes
for failure during competition. Rada (1996) also examined the NFL, finding that
broadcast commentators characterized Black athletes in terms of physical attributes
and White athletes in terms of cognitive abilities. Mercurio and Filak (2010), in the
only study to date to analyze race in mock draft commentary, focused on how a
single sports magazine portrayed Black players as athletes playing quarterback
as opposed to White players who were depicted as athletic quarterbacks. The
authors argued that this distinction assumes that Black quarterbacks are playing
out of position whereas White quarterbacks can handle the mental demands of the
position.
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 657

The NFL is, however, just one of many contexts where such stereotyping oc-
curs. Eagleman (2009) conducted an analysis of Major League Baseball players
as featured prominently on the cover of 8 years of Sports Illustrated. The exam-
ination found that White athletes were characterized as hard workers and Black
athletes as naturally talented, and also that Black athletes personalities (e.g., angry)
and personas (e.g., hip-hop) were more often included and scrutinized in sports
commentary. Collegiate athletes also receive such commentary. Denham, Billings,
and Halone (2002) found that during the mens and womens NCAA basketball
tournaments Black athletes were more likely to be praised for athletic ability and
physical strength than for any other sports-ability descriptor. Rada and Wulfe-
meyers (2005) content analysis of collegiate football and basketball had similar
results.
There is some evidence, however, that these trends may be changing. For exam-
ple, Byrd and Utslers (2007) content analysis of Sports Illustrated coverage of six
White and six Black NFL quarterbacks over a three-year period found evidence
of familiar stereotypes, but also revealed that these stereotypes were declining.
More recently, Angelini and Billings (2010) studied the NBC networks coverage
of the 2008 Summer Olympics, focusing on how White and Black athletes success
and failure were framed and interpreted by U.S. television commentators. Their
findings indicated that stereotypes had diminished. Specifically, White athletes were
more likely than non-White athletes to be described as being successful because
of superior athletic strength and consonance. Further, the authors found that com-
mentators labeled Black and Hispanic athletes as successful because of experience
(as opposed to innate ability). These findings mark a notable shift in the literature,
running counter to stereotypical notions of White athletes as intelligent/determined
and Black athletes as born athletes (e.g., Denham et al., 2002; Staples & Jones,
1985; Whannel, 1992).
Our initial hypotheses take a step toward clarifying these competing findings.
They do so in the context of the NFL draft, where commentators primaryeven
solefocus is evaluating athletes. Given the balance of evidence still supports the
presence of stereotypes in various sports-commentary contexts, the hypotheses are
as follows:

H1 : Sports commentators will more often use mental terms to describe White
athletes than non-White athletes.
H2 : Sports commentators will more often use physical terms to describe non-
White athletes than White athletes.

Social Identity and In-Group/Out-Group Bias

If there has indeed been some movement in sports commentary trends, one
explanation for this change may involve the race of the commentators. Some early
sports-media scholars argued that sports commentators, who were predominately
658 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

White, identified more strongly with White athletes and therefore made more effort
to mention the positive characteristics of White athletes (e.g., Rainville & Mc-
Cormick, 1977). Subsequent research has indicated that the employment of more
racially diverse commentator teams has led to more balanced coverageat least
quantitativelyof Black and White athletes (Eastman & Billings, 2001). We consider
the role that commentator race might play in stereotypical sports coverage through
the lens of Social Identity Theory (SIT)a useful theory for this context given its
focus on in-group/out-group relations and the call for scholars to better integrate
SIT into research on stereotypes and media (see Mastro, 2003).
SIT explains that an individuals self-concept is founded in group memberships
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Naturally, people desire positive self-evaluations and, often,
those evaluations are linked to positive characterizations about groups to which they
belong. For example, if an individuals in-group, compared to a relevant out-group,
is perceived to have prominent status, then the privileges/advantages associated
with the in-group will also be linked with the individual (Mastro, Blecha, & Atwell
Seate, 2011, p. 529). The opposite can also be true. If an individuals in-group,
compared to a relevant out-group, is perceived to have secondary status or undesir-
able attributes, then the disadvantages associated with the in-group are sometimes
linked to the individual. As a result, individuals often workconsciously or not
to contribute to the positive value of their in-groups while devaluing out-groups
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Such social identity judgments often result in stereotypical
evaluations of out-groupswhich, in the media context, can become manifest
in negative representations that have potentially deleterious effects. For example,
negative media representations of minority groups can reinforce majority groups
stereotypical perceptions and shape beliefs about those underrepresented groups
(Burgoon, Burgoon, Carvalho, Greenberg, & Korzenny, 1983). Indeed, even subtle
racial framing is capable of polarizing attitudes along racial lines (Mendelberg,
2001).
These SIT processes have obvious relevance to sports commentary. Stereotyping
occurs when people are viewed primarily for their shared group characteristics,
rather than for unique, individualistic traits (Turner, 1982). Sports commentators are
often in a position where they are commenting on a variety of athletes, many of
whom they know little about. This is particularly true in mock draft commentary,
when the players in question often are less familiar than they would be in other
cases (e.g., when athletes have already had long professional careers). Thus, absent
more specific information, commentators might be especially likely to rely on readily
available stereotypes that favor their own in-group. Doing so could, in turn, have a
lasting impact on the way media consumers perceive athletes. As Johnson, Hallinan,
and Westerfield (1999) pointed out after their research demonstrated that people
attribute the success of White basketball players to hard work and the success
of Black basketball players to innate abilities, if certain population groups are
expected to excel in a sport because they are stereotyped as possessing inherited
physical characteristics, patterns of discrimination could be perpetuated (p. 52; see
also Atwell Seate, Harwood, & Blecha, 2010).
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 659

With all of this in mind, two additional hypotheses are proposed that rest on the
SIT premise that people are inclined to favor their own in-groups, and thus will offer
more favorable characterizations of in-group members:

H3 : Sports commentators will more often use mental terms to describe in-group
athletes than out-group athletes.
H4 : Sports commentators will more often use physical terms to describe out-group
athletes than in-group athletes.

Linguistic Intergroup Bias

To the extent that commentators use of stereotypes may be shifting, it becomes

necessary to identify new strategies that might adequately capture more subtle forms
of racial bias. We suggest that one such strategy is to apply Linguistic Intergroup Bias
(LIB). First developed by Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, and Semin (1989), LIB predicts that
individuals are likely to describe positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors
with more abstract language than negative in-group and positive out-group behav-
iors. LIB builds from the work of Semin and Fielder (1988), who introduced the
concept of language abstractnessranging from concrete to interpretive to abstract.
Concrete language (e.g., call, kiss, talk, stare) is context-specific and not generaliz-
able beyond a phenomenon or action as it occurs in a finite moment. Interpretive
language (e.g., help, cheat, inhibit, imitate) describes a general class of behaviors
and, unlike more concrete language, contains positive or negative connotations.
So, for example, staring at someone occurs in a specific moment, and can be good
or bad. Cheating, however, begins to suggest a more enduring quality and almost
always has a negative connotation. Finally, there is abstract language (e.g., like,
hate, notice, envy). Abstract language is generalizable beyond the instance being
described, and more resilient to disconfirmation. A person described as hateful,
for instance, is being characterized broadly and would have some work to do to
disprove that assessment.
LIB helps bring Semin and Fielders (1988) work into the realm of in-group/out-
group bias. As Semin and Fiedler explain, concrete language is more likely to
produce situational attributions (i.e., beliefs that a given behavior is an isolated
event), whereas abstract language is more likely to produce dispositional attributions
(i.e., beliefs that a given behavior is the result of an enduring affective or mental
state). In their words, [T]hese different linguistic categories, in fulfilling different
functions, direct observers attention to different aspects of an ongoing episode
(1988, p. 566). By employing more abstract language to describe in-groups, speakers
can convey that the positive behaviors of in-groups should be viewed as more
valuable and enduring than the positive behaviors of out-groups. Similarly, through
abstract language speakers can convey that negative behaviors of out-groups should
be viewed as more revealing and enduring than negative behaviors of in-groups.
Consequently, when linguistic bias is present, speakers will unconsciously use
660 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

abstract language to describe the positive behaviors of in-groups and negative

behavior of out-groups. In turn, speakers will therefore unconsciously use concrete
language to describe the negative behavior of in-groups or positive behavior of
out-groups.
LIB has tracked such bias in various contexts. For example, Gorham (2006) ex-
amined LIB responses to local American news media crime reports. This experiment
examined how race influenced the study subjects descriptions of TV news crime
stories. Gorham found that exposing study participants to stereotypical news cov-
erage primed racial stereotypes, which guided the way in which those participants
described suspects featured in the crime news stories. Specifically, study subjects
unconsciously used more concrete language to describe White suspects (e.g., the
man : : : probably hurt the victims) and more abstract language to describe Black
suspects (e.g., the man : : : is probably violent). In a different study, Schnake and
Ruscher (1998) showed the predictive power of LIB through an experiment that
revealed high-prejudiced White participants, when compared to low-prejudiced
participants, used more abstract language to describe the stereotypical behaviors of
an African American.
In the context of sports, the application of LIB is still in its infancy. Desmarais
and Bruce (2010) employed LIB-like constructs in a qualitative study that exam-
ined New Zealand commentator discourse in a single rugby match. They found
that broadcasters created and reinforced symbolic differences between nationalities
based on national stereotypeseven when on-field play contradicted or was not
accurately represented by their descriptions. In one of the only studies to apply LIB
to U.S. athletics, Mastro et al. (2011) content analyzed three national newspapers
reports on athletes and crime from 2005 to 2007. The authors found that crime
reports about White athletes were more thematically driven and promoted situ-
ational explanations for the criminal behavior while Black athlete reports were
episodically driven and prompted evaluations that emphasize personal/internal
blame (p. 540).
The present study builds on this foundation by applying LIB to NFL mock draft
commentary. This appears to be an excellent fit because LIB scholars have sug-
gested the theory should be applied to contexts that already contain well-defined
stereotypes (see Maass, Cecceralli, & Rudin, 1996). The above hypotheses sug-
gest that mock draft commentary is precisely that kind of context. Our general
expectation, consistent with extant research that has applied LIB in the domain of
race (e.g., Gorham, 2006; Mastro et al., 2011), is that positive in-groups behaviors
will generally be described with higher levels of abstraction than will positive
out-group behaviors. Applying this expectation to the context of NFL mock draft
commentary, where the vast majority of descriptions are positive, leads to a final
hypothesis:

H5 : Sports commentators will describe in-group athletes with higher levels of

abstraction than they will out-group athletes.
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 661

Method

These hypotheses are tested in the context of commentary surrounding the 2011
NFL draft. The NFL is a multibillion-dollar industry that has become the most
watched sport in America, with its championship game (the Super Bowl, last won
by the Seattle Seahawks) setting a new television viewership record nearly every
year. Because of the massive popularity of the NFL in America, the leagues annual
draft has become a highly anticipated media event. National media devote entire
sections of their Web sites to draft analysis, and the event itself is a ratings bonanza:
In 2011, for example, at least 42 million viewers watched some part of the drafts
3 day coverage (Hiestand, 2011). In the months leading up to each years draft,
sports commentators garner substantial attention by predicting the drafts outcome.
These mock drafts contain the authors projected player selection for each team,
along with analysis that explains the projection and, often, analyzes the athletes
strengths and weaknesses. Mock drafts occur across the full spectrum of print media
outlets. Examined as a group, they provide a body of discourse that focuses directly
on describing athletes and that reaches millions of football fans across the country.
Our interest in these mock drafts is if and how their authorswhom we refer to as
commentatorsexhibit bias when describing athletes.
To date, only Mercurio and Filak (2010) have conducted similar research on mock
draft commentary. Their work focused solely on quarterbacks, and analyzed a single
publication over a 10 year period. Building from Mercurio and Filaks work, we add
to the literature a focus on LIB, an analysis of all positions (not just quarterbacks),
and an uncommonly broad sample of mock drafts. To achieve the last of these aims,
analysis focused on a single year (2011, the most recent available at the time data
collection began) and attempted to retrieve the census of mock drafts published by
established sports writers that year. First, all major national sports media (e.g., ESPN,
CBS Sports) Web sites were searched. Newspapers were also searched, relying on
those identified by Coe, Domke, Graham, John, and Pickard (2004) as leading
outlets from across the country. Television networks (e.g., FOX Sports), magazines
(e.g., Pro Football Weekly), and Web-based publications (e.g., Pro Sports Blogging)
were also accessed. Strictly Web-based publications, such as mock draft blogs, were
identified via The Huddle Report (www.thehuddlereport.com), a Web site that rates
mock drafts.
Any mock draft retrieved through this search was used in the study if it met
three criteria. First, it had to be available online. This criterion likely broadened the
audience for these mock drafts and also facilitated collection. Second, each mock
draft had to include a complete first round with projected draft picks for all 32
selections. Third, the mock draft had to include at least some player analysis by
a sports commentator, as opposed to analysis only of team needs. This procedure
generated a sample of 41 NFL mock drafts that were published between January 10
and April 28, 2011. Of these, 19 were large readership publications (e.g., ESPN,
CBS Sports) that reach national audiences, and 22 were smaller market or local
publications (e.g., Boston Globe, Scouts Notebook).
662 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

The first round selections of each of these mock drafts were content analyzed,
with the unit of analysis being the text describing a single projected selection (i.e.,
one player projected in one draft position). For example:

Round 1, Pick 8: Jake Locker (QB, Washington)The Titans want to put the Vince
Young era behind them. Locker provides Tennessee a key element Young lacked
leadership. Locker was a two-year captain at Washington and a very charismatic
player.

Each mock draft contained 32 such units, providing a total of 1,312 units of
analysis that described 67 different athletes. In a few cases, a single unit of analysis
included mentions of multiple players. In these instances, only the projected players
descriptors were coded. Each unit of analysis was coded employing the following
three strategies.
First, the apparent race of athletes and commentators (White or non-White) was
discerned via photographs that were posted with the mock drafts or with general
biographical material on related Web sites.1 A total of 52 athletes were non-White
and 15 were White. Of commentators, 5 were non-White and 36 were White.
We term this apparent race as opposed to race in recognition of the fact that
individuals might assign themselves to different racial categories than would a given
viewer of their picture.
Second, coders employed a modified version of Eastman and Billings (2001)
taxonomy. This taxonomywhich has been adapted in various ways and widely
used to examine racial bias in sports commentary (e.g., Angelini & Billings, 2010;
Billings & Angelini, 2007; Billings & Eastman, 2003)was designed to analyze
live broadcast commentary. We made a few simple modifications so that it was
suitable for analyzing mock drafts.2 The resulting dichotomous coding categories
were: (1) physical description (e.g., 64 240 lbs), (2) physicality/athleticism
(e.g., some experts question his athleticism), (3) physical power (e.g., very
strong), (4) speed (e.g., quick first step), (5) versatility (e.g., versatile pass
rusher), (6) hard work/effort (e.g., hard-working lineman), (7) intelligence/mental
skill or power (e.g., makes quick decisions), (8) leadership (e.g., has a leader-
ship mindset), (9) determination/motivation (e.g., will do whatever it takes to
get better), (10) personality (e.g., patient), (11) team orientation (e.g., egoless
player). We then grouped these categories as either physical or mental, to facilitate
testing of our hypotheses. The two groupings consisted of 6 physical categories
(physical description, physicality/athleticism, physical power, speed, versatility, and
hard work/effort) and 5 mental (intelligence/mental skill/mental power, leadership,
determination/motivation, personality, and team orientation).
Finally, each unit of analysis was assigned a category according to Semin and
Fiedlers (1988) Linguistic Category Model (LCM)a tool that can help analyze
LIB as it occurs through language. According to the LCM, commentators might
characterize athletes behavior using one of four categories. Level one, descriptive
action verbs, characterizes action in the moment that said action occurs on the
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 663

field. For example, a commentator may state, He tackled the running back.
The second level, interpretive action verbs, describe actions with verbs that have
interpretive connotations. For example, a commentator may state, He attacks
running backs. In this case, attack provides an interpretive judgment that was not
present in the simple description of a running back being tackled. Level three,
state verbs, both describe the actual instance and transcend time by attributing
the action to some enduring state. For example, a commentator may state, He
makes such intelligent plays. The term intelligent both describes the play and a
more enduring mental ability. Finally, level four, adjectives, are highly interpretive
describing a general disposition that transcends specific instances and time. A
commentator may state, He is extremely aggressive. The term aggressive here is
highly abstract and could potentially be applied to any number of situations beyond
the field of play.
For the purposes of this study, we made one adaptation of the LCM. Descriptive
and interpretive action verbs were collapsed into one classification level. Mock
drafts, by nature, do not contain verb usage as the LCM describes it. That is,
mock drafts are prepared well in advance of publication and consequently do not
describe athletes in the same way a live commentator would. Accordingly, the
descriptive and interpretive action verb levels were collapsed into a single category
more consistent with the mock draft context. Our modified LCM thus included
a three-level scheme ranging from least to most abstract: (1) descriptive and/or
interpretive action verbs, (2) state verbs, and (3) adjectives. One of these categories
was assigned for each code that was made according to the Eastman and Billings
taxonomy described above. For example, a unit of analysis coded for speed and
LCM descriptive and/or interpretive verbs may read, His ability to explode by
offensive tackles is unrivaled. A unit coded for hard work/effort and LCM state
verbs may read, He works hard in the trenches and plays angry. Finally, a unit
coded for intelligence and LCM adjectives may read, Hes a smart player, a second-
team Academic All American. After data collection, we created a variable that
indicated overall majority LCM (i.e., level one, two, three, or equal) for each unit
of analysis. Majority was determined by the aggregate number of LCM levels used
to describe an athlete. Equal indicates an athlete received the exact same number
of LCM level descriptions across the different subcategories. This variable allowed
us to test H5 .
One person completed the content analysis. To establish reliability, a second
person coded approximately 10% of the data. Chance-corrected agreement (using
Krippendorffs alpha) was as follows: apparent athlete race (1.0), apparent com-
mentator race (1.0), physical description (.93), physicality/athleticism (1.0), physi-
cality/athleticism LCM (.95), physical power (.83), physical power LCM (.78), speed
(.88), speed LCM (.76), versatility (.80), versatility LCM (.80), hard work (1.0),
hard work LCM (.96), intelligence (1.0), intelligence LCM (1.0), leadership (1.0),
leadership LCM (1.0), determination (1.0), determination LCM (1.0), personality
(.79), personality LCM (.69), team orientation (1.0), and team orientation LCM
(1.0).3
664 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

Results

Framing of Whites and Non-Whites

We first examined whether commentators discussed White and non-White ath-

letes differently, focusing on the use of mental and physical terms. H1 predicted
that sports commentators would more often use mental terms to describe White
athletes than non-White athletes. Consistent with this expectation, results indicated
a significant difference in descriptions of Whites (n D 64) and non-Whites (n D 77),
2 (df D 1) D 27.45, p < .001. Specifically, whereas non-Whites were mentioned in
terms of mental traits only 8% of the time, Whites were mentioned this way in 18%
of projected selections. Thus, White athletes were framed in terms of intelligence,
leadership, determination, personality, and team orientation at a much greater rate
than were non-White athletes. For example, one White player was described as a
smart, egoless player who processes the passing game like Peyton Manning. H1
was therefore supported.
H2 predicted that sports commentators would more often use physical terms to
describe non-White athletes than White athletes. Again, results indicated a signif-
icant difference between descriptions of non-White athletes (n D 436) and White
athletes (n D 140), 2 (df D 1) D 3.53, p < .05. Whereas Whites were mentioned
in terms of physical traits in nearly 40% of projected selections, non-Whites were
mentioned this way in almost 46% of projected selections. This reveals that non-
White athletes were significantlythough not markedlymore likely to be framed
in terms of size, athleticism, power, speed, versatility, and hard work than were
White athletes. For example, one non-White athlete was characterized as a huge
running back that can run with the best of them. H2 was therefore supported.

In-Group/Out-Group

We incorporated sports commentators race to allow for testing of our in-group/out-

group hypotheses. H3 predicted that sports commentators would more often use
mental terms to describe in-group athletes than out-group athletes. As predicted,
results indicated a preference to describe the mental attributes of in-group athletes
(n D 64) over out-group athletes (n D 77), 2 (df D 1) D 11.26, p < .001. Specifically,
in-group athletes received comments about their mental abilities in almost 15% of
projected selections, whereas out-group athletes received such comments in just
9% of projected selections. H3 was therefore supported.
Similarly, H4 predicted that sports commentators would more often use physical
terms to describe out-group athletes than in-group athletes. Consistent with this
expectation, results indicated a preference to describe the physical attributes of
out-group athletes (n D 414) over in-group athletes (n D 162), 2 (df D 1) D
10.40, p < .001. Specifically, if the commentator and athlete did not share the
same race, that commentator described the athlete in terms of physical ability in
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 665

47% of projected selections. When those individuals did have race in common,
commentators mentioned physical ability in less than 38% of projected selections.
H4 was therefore supported.

Linguistic Intergroup Bias

Our final hypothesis explored the degree to which racial bias occurred through
the level of abstraction present in mock draft commentator language. Specifically,
H5 predicted that commentators would describe in-group athletes behaviors with
higher levels of abstraction than they would out-group athletes behaviors. Results
supported this expectation, 2 (df D 3) D 10.40, p < .01. In describing in-group
athletes, commentators employed the highest level of abstraction (level three) in
33% (n D 56) of projected selections, but employed the lowest level of abstraction
(level one) in only 17% (n D 30) of projected selections. Conversely, in describing
out-group athletes, commentators employed the lowest level of abstraction in 28%
(n D 117) of projected selections, but employed the highest level in only 23%
(n D 96) of projected selections. For example, one commentator described an
in-group athlete by saying he had great competitive spirita highly abstract
characterization. In contrast, an out-group athlete was described very concretely,
as someone who was very strong against the run and can also get after the
passer. Similarly, in another case an in-group athlete was described as tough
and supremely confident whereas an out-group athlete was spoken of as someone
whose strength lies in his run defense and knack for penetration. H5 was therefore
supported.

Additional Analysis

One additional series of analyses was undertaken to provide greater insight into
these data. As detailed previously, the sample included 19 national publications and
22 regional publications. Splitting the results by this variable can provide insight into
whether regional and national commentators vary in how they talk about athletes.
It seems possible, for example, that national commentators would subscribe to
more traditional journalistic norms, which might encourage certain descriptions of
athletes. To consider this possibility, each of the above analyses was re-run with the
file split by regional versus national publications. In all cases but one the findings
remained consistent. The one exception is that national and regional commentators
differed in how they framed athletes in physical terms. National commentators
described White and non-White athletes in physical terms at nearly identical rates,
2 (df D 1) D .03, n.s. However, regional commentators tended to describe the
physical attributes of non-Whites (n D 213) over that of Whites (n D 59), 2 (df D
1) D 6.00, p < .05. In particular, whereas regional commentators described non-
Whites in terms of physical traits in 41% of projected selections, they described
Whites in such terms in just 31% of projected selections. These findings provide
666 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

an important clarification for H2 . Only regional commentators, not national ones,

more often framed non-White athletes in terms of physical attributes.

Discussion

This analysis provides several important insights into both familiar and novel forms
of racial bias in sports commentary. First, sports commentators consistently framed
White athletes, compared to non-White athletes, in terms of their mental abilities.
The use of this mental frame has been a consistent stereotype in sports commentary
(see Byrd & Utsler, 2007; Rada, 1996), and our study reinforces these past findings
to a remarkable degree. Even when data were separated by national versus regional
publication type, commentators described White athletes for mental traits like intelli-
gence, motivation, and personality more often than they did for non-White athletes.
The clear conclusion of these findings is that commentators continue to reinforce
existing stereotypes about the lesser mental capabilities of non-White athletes.
Second, non-White athletes were more likely than White athletes to be framed
in terms of their physical abilitiesa finding consistent with past research on the
born athlete stereotype (e.g., Staples & Jones, 1985; Whannel, 1992). However, a
noteworthy trend emerged. Regional commentators, like those from smaller-market
professional sports blogs or regional newspapers, employed the born athlete frame
for non-Whites, whereas national commentators portrayed Whites and non-Whites
for physical abilities at a nearly equal rate. In some ways, this trend is a hopeful
one, considering national commentators, such as those employed at ESPN or Fox
Sports, have the potential to affect the greatest number of audience members. At
the same time, it is clear that as the media environment continues to specialize and
fragment, there will be an increased focus on localism (e.g., via ESPNs regional
sites). It is possible that this localism will dilute national news norms in such a way
as to keep familiar stereotypes in circulation.
Third, the results indicate very clearly that in-group/out-group bias was present in
sports commentary. Commentators generally focused on mental capabilities more
for in-group athletes than out-group ones, and more on physical abilities for out-
group athletes than for in-group ones. Quite telling is that these findings were
significant for both national and regional commentators, lending considerable cre-
dence to SITs predictive power. These findings have particular import to mock
draft audiences making social comparison judgments. Given that many NFL fans
consume numerous mocks leading up to the draft, any form of broad devaluation
of out-groups based on stereotypes has the potential to influence fans in-group
favoritism. That is to say, the evidence suggests that mock draft commentary is
regularly exposing audiences to content that might ultimately encourage people to
think more highly of members of their own racial group than members of other
racial groups.
Finally, commentators exhibited linguistic bias indicating a preference for their
own racial in-group. In particular, commentators used more abstract language to
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 667

describe the behaviors of in-group athletes than the behaviors of out-group athletes.
These findings support the utility of LIB in helping to understand racial bias as it
plays out in subtle linguistic patterns. According to LIB, abstract language produces
dispositional attributions and is thus perceived by audiences as signaling endur-
ing qualities that extend beyond the field of play. Conversely, concrete language
produces situational attributions and is thus perceived by audiences as indicating
isolated, context-dependent qualities. Consider, as an illustration of how in-group
athletes could have benefited from such subtle bias, one of the examples included
in the results section. Describing someone as having a great competitive spirit
is an abstract characterization that suggests an enduring trait and thus speaks well
of the athletes makeup. That is, it says something about who they are. In contrast,
describing someone as very strong against the run is useful in the draft context,
but such concrete language suggests nothing enduring about the athletes character.
Instead of speaking to who that athlete is, concrete language speaks only to the
players specific on-field talents. By employing more abstract language when talking
about in-groups, then, commentators have directed audiences attention to more
dispositional attributions. In so doing, they have likely communicated that positive
in-group behaviors are more enduring than those of out-groups (see Maass et al.,
1989; Semin & Fiedler, 1988).
Broadly, the trends presented here suggest racial bias is still present in sports
commentaryand can be found if one knows where and how to look. The context
of the NFL draft is one where athlete descriptions circulate widely, and racial bias
manifests itself in both more obvious and more subtle forms. To uncover these
patterns it was necessary to pair a commonly used sports research taxonomy with
the Linguistic Category Modela pairing that future scholarship should be able to
usefully apply to other athletic contexts. It is clear that in the current context the
patterns uncovered are concerning. Consider that the vast majority of mock drafts
are written by White authors about non-White athletes (88% of the commentators
studied here were White and 78% of the athletes were non-White). Past research
indicates that the medias negative representations of minorities can reinforce a
majority groups stereotypical perceptions (e.g., Burgoon et al., 1983), even in the
context of sports media in particular (Atwell Seate et al., 2010). Additionally, such
in-group favoritism can have a harmful psychological effect on the self-esteem of
minority racial groups and, in some cases, affect consumers self-worth and feelings
of community (Fryberg, Markus, Oyserman, & Stone, 2008; Tan & Tan, 1979). It
seems quite likely, then, that the content patterns uncovered here have serious
implications for the audiences that encountered them.
It should be noted as well that these potential impacts on the audience likely
do not emerge strictly from the textual material that has been our focus. As Oates
(2007) points out in his analysis of the complex sexualized and racialized discourses
surrounding the NFL draft, Looking is often linguistic as well as visual. Virtual tours
of the human form come via the printed word as well as by way of the camera or
the canvas (pp. 7677). There is little doubt that those who read mock drafts also
regularly encounter images of these draft prospectsimages that may interact with
668 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

textual messages to reinforce or, perhaps less often, to challenge the stereotypical
portrayals uncovered herein.
The present study was not without limitations. Our sample included only 1 year
of data, which made it impossible to track commentator trends over time. Future
research might assess whether or not these results are consistent from year to year.
Additionally, race was divided into only two categories (White or non-White) as
opposed to specific racial groups. This broad distinction proved sufficient to test in-
group/out-group hypotheses, but future research might profit from a more detailed
assessment of race (cf. Coe & Schmidt, 2012). Finally, this study focused on just one
sporting context, the NFL. Future research could consider bringing together different
sporting contexts in a single study to illustrate if and how bias varies from sport to
sport. For example, there might be something about the particularly physical and
masculinized world of the NFL that encourages certain forms of commentary (cf.
Oates, 2007)forms that might be quite different from some Olympic sports, for
example. Addressing these and other issues will help scholars better understand the
nature of racial bias in language.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dana Mastro, Dale Kunkel, Jennifer Ervin, and the anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments.

Notes
1 There were two cases where commentator apparent race was not possible to determine

(despite email contact), so those cases were not included among the 41 mock drafts analyzed.
2 These modifications were as follows. First, positive consonance (e.g., all of a sudden,

shes firing on all cylinders) and negative consonance (e.g., not in his rhythm) were deleted
since those categories are designed for analysis of live commentary. Second, we collapsed
intelligence/mental skill (e.g., thinks on her feet) and mental power (e.g., toughness off the
bench) into one category called intelligence/mental skill or power. Pilot testing of the two
original categories showed the distinction too difficult for coders to identify given this studys
non-live context. Third, looks/appearance (e.g., shes changed her hair style) was replaced
with physical description (e.g., 325 lbs.)a similar but more useful category for the less
visually oriented context of mock drafts. Finally, we deleted the category of background
(e.g., has some off-field issues) because it did not neatly align with either mental or physical
description and was therefore not relevant to our hypotheses.
3 Two additional notes about the coding are necessary. First, there is no LCM code for

physical description because this category captured reports of things such as height/weight.
These simple descriptors did not lend themselves to LCM judgments. Second, three of the
coding categories that appeared infrequently in the full dataset (leadership, determination,
and team orientation) did not appear at all in the reliability sample. Consequently, the values
among the two coders were invariant, making it impossible to calculate alpha. In those cases,
the 1.0 indicates 100% raw agreement.
 Schmidt and Coe/RACIAL BIAS IN SPORTS COMMENTARY 669

References

Angelini, J. R., & Billings, A. C. (2010). Accounting for athletic performance: Race and
sportscaster dialogue in NBCs 2008 summer Olympic telecast. Communication Research
Reports, 27, 110. doi:10.1080/08824090903526547
Atwell Seate, A., Harwood, J., & Blecha, E. (2010). He was framed! Framing criminal behav-
ior in sports news. Communication Research Reports, 27, 343354. doi:10.1080/08824096.
2010.518917
Billings, A. C. (2002). Portraying Tiger Woods: Characterizations of a Black athlete in a
White sport. Howard Journal of Communications, 14, 2938. doi:10.1080/106461703
04274
Billings, A. C., & Angelini, J. R. (2007). Packaging the games for viewer consumption: Gender,
ethnicity, and nationality in NBCs coverage of the 2004 Summer Olympics. Communica-
tion Quarterly, 55, 95111. doi:10.1080/01463370600998731
Billings, A. C., & Eastman, S. T. (2003). Framing identities: Gender, ethnic, and national parity
in network announcing of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Journal of Communication, 53, 215
230. doi:10.1093/joc/53.4.569
Birrell, S. (1989). Racial relations theories and sport: Suggestions for a more critical analysis.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 212227.
Burgoon, J., Burgoon, M., Carvalho, R., Greenberg, B., & Korzenny, F. (1983). Mass media
use, preferences, and attitudes among adults. In B. Greenberg, M. Burgoon, J. Burgoon, &
F. Korzenny (Eds.), Mexican Americans and the mass media (pp. 79146). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.
Byrd, J., & Utsler, M. (2007). Is stereotypical coverage of African-American athletes as dead
as disco?: An analysis of NFL quarterbacks in Sports Illustrated. Journal of Sports Media,
2, 125. doi:10.1353/jsm.0.0002
Coe, K., Domke, D., Graham, E. S., John, S. L., & Pickard, V. W. (2004). No shades of gray:
The binary discourse of George W. Bush and an echoing press. Journal of Communication,
54, 234252. doi:10.1093/joc/54.2.234
Coe, K., & Schmidt, A. (2012). America in black and white: Locating race in the modern
presidency, 19332011. Journal of Communication, 62, 609627. doi:10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2012.01652.x
Denham, B. E., Billings, A. C., & Halone, K. K. (2002). Differential accounts of race in broadcast
commentary of the 2000 Mens and Womens Final Four basketball tournaments. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 19, 315332.
Desmarais, F., & Bruce, T. (2010). The power of stereotypes: Anchoring images through
language in live sports broadcasts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 338
362. doi:10.1177/0261927X10368836
Eagleman, A. (2009). Investigating agenda-setting and framing in sport magazines: An analysis
of the coverage of major league baseball players from 2000 through 2007. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 69(8). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Eastman, S. T., & Billings, A. C. (2001). Biased voices of sports: Racial and gender stereotyping
in college basketball announcing. Howard Journal of Communications, 12, 183201.
doi:10.1080/106461701753287714
Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Oyserman, D., & Stone, J. M. (2008). Of warrior chiefs and
Indian princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 208218. doi:10.1080/01973530802375003
Gorham, B. (2006). News medias relationship with stereotyping: The linguistic intergroup bias
in response to crime news. Journal of Communication, 56, 289308.
Hiestand, M. (2011, May 2). NFL drafts TV dip shows lockout dent. USA Today. Retrieved
from www.usatoday.com
Johnson, D. L., Hallinan, C. J., & Westerfield, R. C. (1999). Picturing success: Photographs
and stereotyping in mens collegiate basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 4553.
670 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/December 2014

Maass, A., Cecceralli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-
group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512526.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512
Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., & Semin, G. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts:
The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981993.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.981
Mastro, D. E. (2003). A social identity approach to understanding the impact of television mes-
sages. Communication Monographs, 70, 98113. doi:10.1080/0363775032000133764
Mastro, D. E., Blecha, E., & Atwell Seate, A. (2011). Characterizations of criminal athletes: A
systematic examination of sports news depictions of race and crime. Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media, 55, 526542. doi:10.1080/08838151.2011.620664
Mastro, D. E., & Stern, S. (2003). Representations of race in television commercials: A content
analysis of prime-time advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 638
647. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4704_9
McCarthy, D., & Jones, R. L. (1997). Speed, aggression, strength, and tactical naivet. Journal
of Sport & Social Issues, 21, 348362. doi:10.1177/019372397021004003
Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of
equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mercurio, E., & Filak, V. F. (2010). Roughing the passer: The framing of Black and White
quarterbacks prior to the NFL draft. Howard Journal of Communications, 21, 5671.
doi:10.1080/10646170903501328
Oates, T. P. (2007). The erotic gaze in the NFL draft. Communication and Critical/Cultural
Studies, 4, 7490. doi:10.1080/14791420601138351
Rada, J. A. (1996). Color blind-sided: Racial bias in network televisions coverage of pro-
fessional football games. Howard Journal of Communications, 7, 231240. doi:10.1080/
10646179609361727
Rada, J. A., & Wulfemeyer, K. T. (2005). Color coded: Racial descriptors in television cov-
erage of intercollegiate sports. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 6585.
doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_5
Rainville, R. E., & McCormick, E. (1977). Extent of covert racial prejudice in pro football
announcers speech. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 2026. doi:10.1177/107769907705400104
Schnake, S. B., & Ruscher, J. B. (1998). Modern racism as a predictor of the Linguistic Inter-
group Bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 484491. doi:10.1177/0261927
X980174004
Semin, G., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing
persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
558568. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558
Staples, R., & Jones, T. (1985). Culture, ideology, and Black television images. The Black
Scholar, 16, 1020.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin,
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tan, A. S., & Tan, G. (1979). Television use and self-esteem of Blacks. Journal of Communi-
cation, 29, 129135. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1979.tb01691.x
Turner, J. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In. H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social
identity and intergroup relations (pp. 1540). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Whannel, G. (1992). Fields in vision: Television sport and cultural transformation. London,
UK: Routledge.
Copyright of Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media is the property of Broadcast
Education Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.