Not Buying It

I read a rumour that Zosea was looking to charge pay per view for surf competitions. Given the internet’s propensity to then insist on pirating anything like that for free, I was pretty sure that would actually increase audience numbers while simultaneously duping those that don’t know any better to pay for “The World’s Best on the World’s Best Waves.” Any publicity is good publicity, right? Stir up controversy to spark up an otherwise disinterested audience,  and then never actually do it.

My experience of watching professional surfing has been to turn off the commentary and hope to make sense of the mess myself. I am not the only audience member to decide this but this weekend I braved the event with the commentary on to see what I’d been missing. It was then that I figured out what I thought was wrong with surfing commentary and why I don’t believe in paying for it.

It doesn’t matter WHO is in the commentary team. It’s like there’s a list of things people have to mention in order to emphasise surfing’s validity as a sport and it reads like a bingo card. I know, because I made a bingo card about it.


Oh snap. Time to change the logo. That’s probably the only thing that’s changed.

I should stop there but I won’t. There’s this hierarchical structure when I listen to commentary at surf comps, where you’re the best surfer, a pro surfer, someone who knows pro surfers, someone who goes to parties with pro surfers, and then the fans.

Any sports event that I watch has fans. The world cup cricket is on and my country was trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yesterday. I watched for ages but wasn’t anywhere near as annoyed with their commentary- even though cricket is arguably less exciting, theoretically, than surfing. (Let’s blame the lack of sharks. Even with that comment you can’t tell if I’m dissing cricket or surfing, though.)

The cricket commentary is so much less amateur than the WSL because they don’t feel the NEED to validate cricket. It’s a sport. People know there are fans. They don’t mention the fans as if cricket was a popularity contest.

Yesterday the WSL commentators talked about getting arthritis because of signatures. They discussed how the world’s top surfer was popular with the ladies. The only thing they seem to know about him for certain is that he’s Brazilian, and there are a lot of Brazilians supporting him. The fans. And the ladies. Brazil has an extremely interesting mix of cultures which can be intense, but surfing is just all about the girls on the beach.

Every time I’ve watched a surf competition the commentators always mention “THE FANS” and then have to validate their status as commentators above the audience. They have to put themselves in the story and they have to mention the popularity and therefore their own significance, as if the audience should care. You know what they say. If you have to point it out..

Let me just say, I never liked her...

Let me just say, I never liked her…

What does it mean for the audience to be listening to a commentary team that doesn’t respect the audience itself? You’re not cool if you’re a fan. You’re cool if you’re a pro surfer. Period.

If the commentary team are given guidelines I’d hope they had a copy of Matt Warshaw’s works alongside and were hooked up to the Encyclopedia of Surfing. Give us some context that gives the sport some depth. Mind you I doubt we’ll ever have reference to apartheid or Suharto but that is exactly what surfing’s history is- and why I consider it remotely relevant. The sport has blood on its hands and people underestimate it.

Surfing is about people. It’s not just about the competition run by ZOSEA, but say for a minute that it was. ZOSEA is competing with an audience used to viewing sport and listening to commentary. If someone like me can predict, analyse and dismiss their commentary as superficial and insecure, what does it mean for the rest of the world?

Right now it’s like listening to a college fraternity reunion. Mind you I’m not the target audience. I’m betting on ZOSEA betting on an audience too young to see through it.


Surf Media Bias: Standing Against Otis Carey

When Otis Carey was first described in derogatory terms in Surfing Life magazine, it wasn’t just the surfing community who took notice. The issue was raised by mainstream media everywhere from HuffPo to Buzzfeed. Predictably, people in surfing have responded by publishing their own responses in magazines like The Inertia. In “On Otis Carey and Australia Surfing Life’s Accidental Racism” Tetsuhiko Endo says:

The liberal media the world over, smelling a chance for the righteous outrage that they so relish, began to circle and by evening London time no less than the Guardian had picked up the story and the slavering narcissists on its comment boards were snarling over who could make the most pious condemnation.

Strong words, but not the first time surf journalism has shown contempt for mainstream commentary on surf issues. In Surfer Mag, “To the Parochial Outsiders“, Chas Smith wrote:

HBO and Outside have nothing invested in our world. They know nothing and can come in and wave a stick around and beat their chests as purveyors of awesome and unbiased truth, but their perspective is worthless. They could have invested time and energy. They could have talked to interesting people. They could have come to a less ham-fisted conclusion or chosen not to have their minds made up before damning an entire industry. But they didn’t.

Both articles are talking about distinctly different issues but again refer to people outside of surfing, making judgments about issues within the surfing community, although Chas Smith is also specifically attacking HBO and Outside for skewing his own contribution to a story on Andy Irons.

What seems to motivate these articles is a sense of injustice; of the narrative being hijacked for the purpose of selling mainstream media’s version of reality, and of course selling mainstream media to advertisers and a global audience using surfing. I see a distinct irony in this situation where surf magazines, who have long trivialised female athletes in sexualised photo spreads; who don’t seem to recognise the diversity of sexuality within surfing; publish complaints about their voice being silenced by the majority. For instance, this is a description of the very first women’s pro surfing tour in the 1970s but could easily apply to the way women and other minority groups in surfing can be approached by some publications in the current day.

It was a humiliating first lesson in what the next few years would hold for us with regard to women’s pro surfing. He would be the first of many reporters to encounter us, a relatively unknown group of women athletes who garnered spectator curiosity but not respect. At least not to the degree that men did. One thing was certain, though. Wherever we went, we attracted attention.

~ Patti Paniccia, Progessions (TSJ Vol 12 #2  2003)

We return to the current situation. The Inertia article by Ted Endo depicts mainstream media in dismissive terms as “liberal” and calls anyone commenting on the Guardian as slavering narcissists. Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one’s own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride.” (Wikipedia) Liberal media suggests a view biased “well to the left” in that it might tend to promote views that support social agendas without also reporting on alternative issues or perspectives.

To describe surf media bias, I would consider the recent publication of Nathan Myers’ views in the Inertia and Tracks mag. While The Inertia takes pains to insist the views do not reflect its editors or contributors it has already published two, no THREE articles either painting Otis Carey as agressive, refusing to communicate and chasing money (one, two) or decrying criticism of the Surfing Life article as racist. Cori Schumacher is quick to define the term as having historical pejorative meaning in “I stand with Otis Carey” but the Inertia tends to focus on the word simply as an adjective, a careless comment; an article in stark contrast to a Huck article by Ted here.

Tracks, The Inertia and Wade Davis, Editor of Surfing Life, all state they have ‘reached out’ to Otis Carey to try to get his side of the story, as if they are trying to represent his point of view and provide a sense of balanced journalism. However, publishing Nathan’s opinion could quite possibly be considered unfair in the first place. He might be facing financial ruin, is under stress, is publicly vilified, and should probably be considering his legal defence instead of being exploited to supposedly tell the ‘other side of the story’. I think instead that the global interest in this story means that surf media publish articles about it to attract attention to their magazine and audience.

Otis Carey has spoken through litigation, and neither Tracks nor the Inertia has outlined to readers why his depiction in Surfing Life could be considered defamation. They also fail to address issues of racism appropriately in either the interview in Tracks or the articles in the Inertia. As Cori Schumacher has already said, all of these magazines could have spoken to surfers representing different ethnic groups, contributors other than their staff, but in saying that, would anyone want to discuss their opinions with mainstream surf media given its reaction and its coverage so far? Stab Mag’s piece is the only article I’ve found currently addressing litigation: the perspective there, legally, seems to suggest that the campaign following litigation could help Otis’ case if only because the slant given to these articles is distinctly against Otis and distributed to such a wide audience.

Nathan Myers’ open letter in the Inertia is quite revealing in itself. The piece blames Otis Carey for putting the magazine, and the livelihood of its employees at risk. People might well assume that Surfing Life could not afford a lawsuit. Is this the case? We see no evidence for or against. We see only an opinion. There is defamation insurance available in Australia and if you click that link you can see it covers negligent and accidental defamation.

Morrison Media owns Surfing Life and four other ‘fresh air’ magazines. This is a successful company that is making and breaking magazines. In acquiring Slow Magazine they stated:

“Slow is listening to the market – it has a highly engaged readership which we intend to satisfy with excellent content.”

It could well be that the writing has been on the wall for Surfing Life but then again, Morrison Media states that the Surfing Life downloadable app has given them access to audience, and therefore information to sell to advertisers, like never before. They are selling more print editions through interaction with online digital audiences.

Either way, I’ve presented an alternative perspective that any of those writers could have researched in the interests of ‘fair balance’ and I find their failure to report on this or counter Myers’ claims as a distinct bias. They insist they are attempting to tell the whole story but do not have the evidence to support Myers’ claims. If I was Otis Carey I would certainly not be engaged with this journalistic ‘process’.

Now consider the idea that the global audience commenting on the Surfing Life article is narcissistic.  Consider Morrison Media’s approach to audience. This industry is intent on reaching audience. Even the Inertia has its contributors listed not just alphabetically but by popularity. Consider ASP’s approach to marketing its athletes. Hypersexualising female athletes, encouraging self-sexualisation through social media: audience is seen as key. Again, even in the 70s when women first got into surfing, this was the case. Patti Paniccia, in TSJ, on how a competition eventually came up with money for female surfers:

Chapstick did manage to come up with $600, a little more than half of what we originally had been promised. The men’s event had a purse of $6,000. We were told that this lesser amount was justified because there were so few women. The great irony for us about the money gap was that it was the women who drew the enormous crowds and media attention that year and, thus, gave the sponsors their maximum exposure. A local newspaper headline extolled our propensity for attracting spectators: “Six Shapely Surfers Steal the Show!” it read.

To define a mainstream audience as narcissistic is to undermine the credibility of surf media’s relationship with its own subscribers and comments sections. It has long been the case that in many instances, one should ‘not read the comments’, but here Surf Media see the smaller surfing community, the commercial community, as bullied by the larger global audience of mainstream media, and argue that Otis Carey is responsible for this in continuing to litigate.

Otis Carey is one man.


The Inertia, Tracks Mag and Surfing Life have a combined audience reach of




That’s one man against a media machine, being publicly decried in front of an audience of over a quarter of a million people after being humiliated on the world wide stage thanks to poor decisions in surf media in the first place.

Screen Shot 2014-04-18 at 12.59.27 pm



I believe that the coverage of this issue is not fair or balanced and that the continued campaign works against itself. Meanwhile, Otis Carey is vilified by an audience who reads these magazines, some of them visiting his page to affirm the sentiments expressed in these publications.

Screen Shot 2014-04-18 at 12.58.53 pm


Sadly, this may well be the case.

Perhaps this does reflect a lack of awareness in the wider surfing community, that in turn is influenced by the sheer numbers of people misinformed through sloppy writing and the ‘wrong choice of words.’ I leave you with this:

Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are overriding principles for all journalists.

(a) They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.

(d) They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in their professional duties.

(f) They shall not allow advertising or commercial considerations to influence them in their professional duties.

~EPMU New Zealand, Journalists Code of Ethics (Similar Australian Code here)

Stand with Otis Carey.