Toth: And speaking of package deals, one of my co-hosts from Sportsnet Connected joins me on the airwaves now. The lovely and talented Evanka Osmak. How are you doing, Evanka?
Osmak: I'm doing pretty good, actually. Very well. I'm just coming in for the Canadian Open here.
T: Are you there to watch it, or are you there to cover it for Sportsnet?
O: There to watch it. Here to watch it with one of our co-workers, [Clint]"Bubba" O'Neil.
T: Oh, Bubba is a good man. And for people in Hamilton, Bubba O'Neil is a big man with a big name. He's a sportscaster at CHCH in Hamilton. He also does some key behind-the-scenes work for Rogers Sportsnet, as well, so say "hello" to Bubba. Evanka, we're right in the middle of this hornet's nest because I had the audacity earlier this week to talk about female sportscasters, and of course that spawned a lot of debate because it's, you know this, it's one of the hot-button topics on talk radio. Whenever you talk about female sportscasters, and heck, we worked together last night on Sportsnet Connected. Who would have thunk I would have helped get your picture in The Globe and Mail today because Bruce Dowbiggin, in his media column The Usual Suspects, has a little piece about something I talked about earlier this week. And there are the pictures of Evanka Osmak along with one of our co-hosts over at Sportsnet as well, Martine Gaillard. Who would have thought, I'm trying to get the name out, I'm trying to get the Osmak name out in the community, there you go.
O: Well, yeah, I was at my parents' house last night and I woke up this morning, you know, in a great mood. I had just worked with you last night as you said, and my brother says, 'Oh, your picture's in the paper. Toth was talking about you.' And I'm thinking, 'Oh, well maybe he's talking about, you know, how we work together.' And then there are a couple comments, and I'm thinking, you know, that can be taken out of context maybe. But I was a little surprised to read them. But I know you and I know … I think we have a great relationship together and you've always been very supportive of me at the station and everything. So I know there's more to it than what was said in the article.
T: There's always more to it.
O: There's always more to it.
T: First rule of journalism, you know that. And that's why I wouldn't get upset with Bruce Dowbiggin, 'cause you're right, he quoted me a couple of times. But of course, there's more to it. But I've been in his shoes before. You don't want to get to the 'more to it' part because it's much more spicy just to plant certain comments in the column, and you get everybody excited. But I've been there myself, I know how the business works. So I'm not too upset about that.
O: But you said right off the top that it's the age-old debate and we're right in the hornet's nest. It's just one of these things where it's like, why? Why is it the age-old debate, like really? Does anyone really care any more? Because I know I don't.
T: Well, people do care. I'm telling you, it's one of the hot-button topics in sports radio. Oh sure, it is. I've got the e-mails to prove it this week, let me tell you. Well, let's, let's take this in sequence now so people can figure out what the heck we're exactly talking about. The conversation we had regarding female sportscasters earlier this week on the radio station, when I got into it with Mike Hogan, was spawned with what developed, terrible story down in the States, where Erin Andrews, the ESPN sports reporter, was filmed in the nude in a hotel room by some crazy guy sticking cameras to the hotel door peephole. And all of a sudden, these pictures appear on the Internet. Now obviously, whoever did that is absolutely nuts, that goes without saying. If I have to say that they're nuts, and people out there are like, 'oh yeah, darn right they're nuts,' then I'm worried about society. Obviously that's crazy. But then it goes to the next level, and you talk about female sportscasters, and you say, here's Erin Andrews, she's been in Playboy, in terms of lists of the most sexiest sportscasters and that type of thing, and she's very well known for being a very good sports reporter, and let's be honest, for her sex appeal. And that's part of it. And so we got talking about where you draw that line behind the sex appeal and the knowledge of sports and the ability to be a good broadcaster. I mean, how do you look at it? It's a no-brainer, you just have to look at you and say, 'Oh Evanka Osmak, she's very attractive.' That's part of the package. I mean, it shouldn't lead to crazy things, obviously, like the Erin Andrews situation. But we'd be crazy if we didn't say that one of the reasons you're on the air is the fact that you're very attractive. Of course you're a good broadcaster and all those good other things, but, I mean, isn't that true? Why should we have to hide that fact or be afraid to say it?
O: No, I don't think we do. But I want to go back and say, Erin Andrews, she wasn't like in Playboy, it was just -
T: No, yeah, it was just a list. You're very right on correcting me on that. I mean, I wasn't thinking she was in Playboy, but maybe the way I said it it sounded like that. No, she was just part of a list of the sexiest sportscasters, right?
O: Exactly. She was not, you know, it was sort of [inaudible] And what happened to her, I mean, I cannot believe it.
T: Can't even imagine.
O: But the relation … pulling something out of that isolated incident which was so terrible and such a violation of her privacy and everything, I don't think has anything to do, really, with why people are taking this into female sportscasters or if we're good enough. It was just some sicko who is obviously obsessed with her. But she could be doing anything, it could be an actress, it could be someone in news or someone in weather, so why does it always go back to someone in sports? It's just this crazed fan.
T: Well yeah, but there's a lot of female sportscasters who, when the situation presents itself, use that sex appeal in a positive way. And I'm not knocking them for that, I'm just saying God's honest truth. We had a situation a few years ago where a number of local female sportscasters for instance were photographed for a magazine in quite provocative ways. And they didn't run away and say, 'I can't do this because my credibility might be called into question.' They realized that, you know what, this is a good promotional vehicle for myself so I'm going to take that opportunity. And yet, when someone actually brings this up in public, and says, you know what, some female sportscasters are on the air, in fact a lot of them are on the air, in part because of their sex appeal. And then everyone goes running for the hills, 'Oh, you can't say that! You can't say that!' Well that's the reality of the situation, is it not? What's wrong with that? It's television, people want to see good-looking females on television, there's nothing wrong with that. Why do we have to run and be afraid to say that?
O: No, it's true, but I also think you have to say that and in the same breath as I did also get my job because of my credibility and because I know what I know. Like I think they come, I would like to think they come, hand-in-hand and I'm not doing my job, I didn't get my job because of how I look, but it's also because of what I say and what I have to offer and what I put to the table.
T: All right, well let's look at the quote Bruce Dowbiggin used in his media column today [July 24]in The Globe and Mail, The Usual Suspects. And he took it out of a radio show we were doing on the subject of female sportscasters. And he quotes me as saying, 'This is going to sound harsh. But be that as it may, here it comes: There are no female sportscasters that I can think of that have more knowledge than their male counterparts.' Now the thing you have to realize, and I've said this before and I'll say it again folks, I've said it today, we can only speak in general terms. But I can speak to this situation because I've been in this situation for over 25 years. And I've never worked with a fellow female sportscaster, including yourself, with all due respect, who knows more about sports than I do. Now that doesn't mean you don't deserve a job and any of these other females don't deserve a job or anything like that, that's just the truth. And my hypothesis is, there's more to the package, you have to be an excellent broadcast as a female, you have to be an excellent communicator. And when I look at you, I think, check, check, for both of those things. You have to have a good working knowledge of sports, not a super-intelligent knowledge of sports, I mean I don't have a super-intelligent knowledge of sports. There's guys who know a lot more about sports than I do, and I'm working with some of them right now. Peter Loubardias, Michael Hogan, know more generally about sports than I do, and I'm not afraid to say that. So why is it such a terrible thing to say that most men that I've dealt with in this business know more about sports than most of the women that I've dealt with in sports? And the other part of that is, that's not everything, there's more to the package. There's being a great broadcaster, there's being a great communicator, there's being attractive on the air, and that's what you are, and that's what other females are, and that's a big thing. That's what TV executives are looking for. They're looking for the young male eyeballs who would rather look at the mug of Evanka Osmak than the mug of Mike Toth. That's part of the business. So why are we so afraid to state the truth?
O: Just because it sounds like, when you come up with a statement like that though, it makes it sound like we are, or the women you work with, aren't as knowledgeable or not as good. That's how you can perceive it.
T: Well, you're not as knowledgeable. But you're just as communicative (as) broadcasters. Heck, we all have different strengths, we all have different weaknesses. Knowledge is part of it. If we break (it) down, you and me for instance. Here are the pros going for me: I have a great knowledge of sports. Here's a pro we both have going for us: You're a sportscaster who gets out in the community to a lot of sporting events just like I do. Case in point, you're at the Canadian Open, which is a beautiful thing. That's a positive in your regard. Another positive is the fact that people like yourself and Martine enjoy getting out in the community, and quite frankly, people in the community, whether it's a charity event or anything like that. They'd rather have the Martine Gaillards and the Evanka Osmaks and obviously, especially if they're being run by men, because people like attractive women. Men like attractive women. So you get an opportunity to do all these other things, which is great for me because, a) I don't like doing it, and b) it's important from a public relations standpoint to get out there and represent your station. And that's one of the key things that you and Martine bring to Sportsnet. And that's one of the key things female sportscasters bring to the network. And that's very, very important. Why do we have to run and hide from that? We say, geez, we shouldn't talk about that. Mike Toth is going to MC golf tournaments if he wants to. No, it's more important that the females get out there. And that's a big part of your role, is it not?
O: Well, I guess it's a part of the role, I don't know if it's the biggest. Like I said, I like to be known for what I bring to the table in terms of my knowledge as well. I don't want to ... I'll give you a perfect example with my co-anchor, Jim Lang, we do the weekend (Connected). We were supposed to, we were going to do a golf tournament this week. And then he did it solo because the organizers decided they just needed a single, so there you go.
T: I hope he at least wore one of your outfits. [laughs]Oh, just when we were having a credible discussion.
O: But they'd pick you over myself, so there you go, there's a guy getting trumped over a female. Jim's a very good-looking guy. You know what, I've worked with some people ... I've come from an engineering background where I had to work very hard in a male-dominated society.
T: Sure.
O: I'm getting into this whole debate, and I don't mean to. And now in sports, where again, you know, males are the majority. And obviously the females are a minority. I hate that it is always looks first, looks first. Well, why can't it be because of my knowledge?
T: Well, it's a major part of it. Look at the word itself, 'television.' 'Vision.' It's visual, so most sports fans, and again we're speaking in general terms, people, so don't get excited, but most sports fans are males. A lot of males like looking at attractive females. So if you've got a female with a good working knowledge with sports who's an excellent broadcaster and communicator, and is a person who is not averse to getting out in the community and selling the network as a whole. . . that's a pretty attractive package. And that's why I'm saying, if I was a television executive I'd go looking for female sportscasters every day of the week, because there's more than just knowledge. You don't have to have a super knowledge, and in some cases that's overrated in TV. It's part of the package, but just because I've got more knowledge than my female counterpart, it doesn't mean I'm more valuable than she is to the station. Because everybody brings different things. But it seems to be a case of people not wanting to talk about the whole package, because in some ways it's sexist. It's not sexist. It's just the truth.
O: Well, I mean, I can say, can I be am analyst, can I be a play-by-play (commentator) of a sport? Well, of course not.
T: Well that depends on the sport. On ESPN they have women on the air doing WNBA games, they have women on the air doing college games. In fact, women have even done NFL games, for crying out loud. So it depends on the sport. If you've got a particularly strong knowledge base in a sport, of course you could.
O: But then I'm of the thought that where I think that if you want to be an analyst or a play-by-play (person) you have to have played at that level. Which, obviously, women don't in the NFL. The WNBA is different. I don't think that if you haven't played in the sport ... but that goes both ways, I don't think guys necessarily, who haven't played in a professional league should be in that position.
T: That's interesting. Because there are examples of men who are serving as analysts who haven't played at the particular level.
O: Well, been involved in that high -
T: We have an example at Rogers Sportsnet. Sam Cosentino, a very respected junior hockey man, but he never played in the Ontario Hockey League. And yet, he's our analyst, our expert analyst, at the Memorial Cup, but no one gives it a second thought because he's so darn good at what he does.
O: No, but he's played a lot of hockey. He's played at a competitive level. Whereas I haven't.
T: I see what you're saying. Interesting discussion, Evanka. The main thing is this: You got your picture in the paper thanks to your good friend, the old Toth. They spelled your name right, too.
O: Oh, I know. They didn't call me Evanko like you did last night.
T: There's the credible sportscast with all the great sports knowledge. What did they call you last night on the air? Why did I call you (Evanko) last night on the air? Right when I said goodbye, I said, 'Isn't that right, Evanko?' In fact, would you be willing to change your name to Evanko instead of Evanka? Because I can't afford to look bad, it would be bad for my credibility. So I think you should make a formal name change. [laughs]
O: I will consider it, and I will tell Bruce to put it in The Globe and Mail.
T: Thanks, Evanka. Enjoy the Canadian Open. There she is, Evanka Osmak. Oh, she's one of the best in the business and she is the total package. And I mean that in a positive way. Let's not be afraid to say that. She brings a lot to the table. And there's nothing wrong with that.