Image of black car seat with orange seat belt across the middle

July 7, 2026

Time Machine: Buckling Up

Today, putting on a seat belt feels automatic. Most people get into a car and buckle up without really thinking about it, but that was not always the case. For years, seat belts were not ... Read Now >

News

7/15: Instant Replay in the MLB

July 15, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

“To err is human, to forgive divine.”
-Alexander Pope

A whopping 73% of baseball fans have told the Marist Poll that they like the idea of expanding the use of instant replay in baseball.

For all of its shortcomings, television coverage of the baseball games has given the armchair fans the best seat in the house for close plays and determining whether a pitch is in the strike zone.

It’s also put more pressure on the umpires to make the correct calls, and when they don’t, it puts them in the hot seat and casts a shadow on the integrity of the game.

We know the men in blue are human just as we are. They make mistakes. If it’s a judgment call, the call is not subject to dispute. If the ump errs and makes a ruling contrary to the rulebook, that’s another case and can cause the game to be played under protest.

So, should we apply the technology of television’s instant replay to become the final word on a judgment call?

I’m not so sure. I have mixed feelings.

I’m all for correct calls, but I’m also concerned about long games. I’m not crazy about the game being halted while officials study video replays on close calls.

Baseball showcases our shortcomings. We post defensive errors for all to see in the line score. Players in the field are so separated that there is never much doubt when one makes a mistake and which one that is. On the field, a batter who fails 70 percent of the time is a hero who bats .300.

Some players and their mistakes become legends. Ask Bill Buckner or Ralph Branca. Sometimes, close calls which could go either way become the difference in the outcome of the game. Sometimes, the emotions associated with them get the best of a team and turn the tide as well.

So, will the instant replay change all that? No doubt it would make a difference and certainly correct egregious errors. But, it won’t correct all of them. There’s always the problem of the different angles, and sometimes they can show different results.

Alexander Pope wrote “To err is human, to forgive divine.” We saw that illustrated last month when first base umpire Jim Joyce cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Joyce admitted his error, and Galarraga forgave him. It was the right thing to do, and it was classy.

Had the instant replay been in effect to overrule Joyce’s call it would have been a bizarre way to end such a triumph and undoubtedly would have taken some time to employ. It’s hard to picture the fans waiting around in the stands in suspense to learn the outcome.

Regardless, I suspect MLB will adopt the instant replay in some form or fashion. It probably won’t be perfect and will be refined over time. It may even bring about some new issues which we haven’t even thought about.

7/14: Multitasking Bad for the Brain?

July 14, 2010 | by Marist Poll

One could argue that digital technology has helped make us better multitaskers. These days, we can simultaneously check our e-mails, monitor our Twitter feeds and listen to a podcast, all while eating our breakfast. Wouldn’t it make sense that such a capacity for divided attention is making our brains stronger?

Unfortunately, that might not be the case. Experiments comparing the ability of heavy multitaskers – thus designated based on self-reports about their technology use – to non-multitaskers, found that the latter group actually performs better on certain cognitive tasks. In a Stanford study, cited in a recent New York Times article, subjects participated in a test that required them to ignore extraneous inputs, a measure of their ability to filter out distractions. (You can take a test on ignoring distractions here.) In another test, participants had to switch between tasks, showing their ability to adjust to new information and task demands on the fly. (Take a task-switching test here.) In both cases, the non-multitaskers performed better than heavy multitaskers. Based on these and other experiments, the scientists surmised that multitaskers are more responsive to new incoming information. On the positive side, one might say the multitaskers are more alert to new stimuli; on the negative side, one could claim their multitaskers’ focus is more easily disrupted.

As with many scientific studies, the tests in this case might not truly reflect real world situations. A cognitive test in a laboratory could fall short of replicating the experience of juggling computer applications. As always, more study is needed to examine, among other things, how different amounts of multitasking affect performance on cognitive tasks, and whether the recency of one’s immersion in technology affects the ability to direct attention. Nonetheless, it would appear that heavy use of gadgets and computers is influencing our brain function.

On the plus side, there is also evidence that screen technology benefits certain cognitive skills. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory that playing action video games improves visual attention in several ways. Gamers show the ability to process more visual inputs than non-gamers, the ability to process inputs across a greater field of view, and a better ability to process inputs presented in rapid succession. Considering the deficits shown by people with disabilities and the demonstrated erosion of certain cognitive skills among the elderly, perhaps, action video games – or programs that mimic them – can be used therapeutically.

Above all else, the experiments reveal the apparent power of technology to mold our brains, for better and for worse. The question, however, may be whether we can harness our gadgets’ power to maximize the benefits and minimize the harm.

7/14: Baseball Strikes Back

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

The other day I criticized television’s coverage of Major League Baseball — specifically television’s pre-occupation with taking shots and talking about things that have little to do with the strategies and nuances of the game being played on the field.

The dramatic close-up shots of the players, the shots of celebrities in the stands, and announcers talking about things other than the ongoing game are the things that I dislike most. I would like to see more shots of the entire field so I can see where the defense positions itself against different hitters in different situations. That doesn’t happen much.

So, what to do? Go to the ballpark to enjoy the game. The price of tickets, parking and concessions aside, there is nothing like an evening at the ballpark. You can see the entire field. You can enjoy the finer points of the game and the strategy employed by both teams. The pace is such that you can also enjoy a pleasant conversation with your companions at the same time. Well almost …

Two weeks ago, I went out to the Ballpark in Arlington to watch the Texas Rangers host the Pittsburgh Pirates.

I got quite a bit more than I had bargained for. For starters there were the loudspeakers blaring so loud I could not carry on a conversation with the person sitting next to me. Every batter has his own song which is played each time he makes a plate appearance. Most of these songs are rap or Tejano. There was one exception. Rangers shortstop Elvis Andrus singled, and the speakers started playing “Don’t Be Cruel.” Why, you ask? Think about it. It’s just another hit by Elvis.

Baseball isn’t the product being sold these days. The ball clubs will tell you they’re now in the family entertainment business. The game and its stars are no longer deemed enough to draw us there and hold our attention.

So, there’s the dot race, the kiss cam, the muscle cam, and the wiffle ball home run contest at the adjoining kids’ park. There’s also a contest where kids literally steal a base and get to keep it, a video version of the old shell game where you guess which cap the baseball is hidden under after being shuffled around, the Cotton-eyed Joe, and various other sponsored announcements blasting over the speakers and projected on the giant jumbotron for all to see and hear.

Just as television has determined that it must inject more excitement into a game, major league clubs are doing the same thing at the game itself.

Perhaps, these distractions are designed to make up for the lack of a pennant contender on the field. For way too many years that has been the case with the Texas Rangers. So far this season though, there’s something strange going on. The Rangers find themselves atop the AL West at the All-Star break. Gimmicks or not, nothing brings the fans out like a winner. So, besides voting for my All-Star selections, I also vote to cut back on the side shows at the Show. And, please turn down the volume on the speakers.

7/13: The President and the Midterm Elections

July 13, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

If there is a silver lining for President Obama in Marist’s latest national poll numbers, it is that well into his second year as president– by more than 2 to 1– the electorate still thinks current economic conditions are mostly inherited from the Bush years and not the result of Obama’s policies. Admittedly, the current number of voters who blame prior failed Republican policies—62%— is substantially lower than the 76% who felt that way in the spring of 2009. But, it still represents a strong argument for the president as he shifts into campaign mode and tries to preserve his party’s margin in Congress.

I suspect this view is reflected in the President’s internal polls and in what his advisers have been telling him. In his June 30th town hall meeting in Racine, Wisconsin, President Obama noted: “I just want everyone to remember—we’ve tried the other side’s theories…. We know where they led us… we can return to what we know did not work, or we can build a stronger future. We can go backwards or we can go forward.” Ditto for his Missouri campaign style swing where among other things he said, “It’s a choice between the policies that got us into this mess in the first place and the policies that are getting us out of this mess.” Not too subtle. Certainly, not a bi-partisan appeal.

But, things are far from rosy for President Obama and drawing upon the past is mixed. The Marist Poll finds that the nation is largely divided on his handling of the economy as it is on his overall approval rating. More troublesome for the president, however, is that for the first time, the Marist numbers point to more voters who now think Obama has fallen short of their expectations than think he has met or exceeded them. In this instance, turning the clock back to 2008 does not pay dividends for the president.

With the eyes of the political community already fixed on the midterm elections, national polls are providing some preliminary data that turnout is unlikely to demographically reflect the 2008 electorate. According to Charlie Cook’s analysis of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, interest is greater among McCain 2008 voters than those who supported Obama. GOP’ers are hopeful that the election is a referendum on President Obama, and this translates into a wholesale turnover in Congress. Team Obama wants to make it a choice about who can best lead into the future and is claiming that progress on many fronts has been slowed by obstructionist Republican representatives. The battle lines are being drawn as sides try to rally their base and appeal to the all important Independent voter.

But, which side will be taking a victory lap in November? Although the White House has been caught off-guard in the past, they seem to be gearing up on schedule for the fall elections. The somewhat daunting political task facing President Obama is how to re-energize his 2008 winning coalition. He needs to mobilize young and minority voters who provided him his winning margin two years ago while finding a way to win back independent voters who have strayed. This may prove to be a tall order for the president.

7/13: Lingering Effects of the Economic Collapse

| by Marist Poll

By Barbara Carvalho

Since 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid!” has been the mantra of American politics. Now, a frustrated electorate is waiting impatiently for any signs the economy is picking up.

There have been faint, sporadic glimmerings of improvement in some economic news. This month’s Marist Poll of Americans found that 33% of residents expect their family finances to improve in the next year. That’s up from 28% in Marist’s April 2009 survey.

These numbers are promising but nothing to write home about. And, the latest national reports on job growth, coupled with other economic indicators, have been disappointing. What’s going on? The electorate is assessing economic growth in terms of jobs. They understand what it means to be a lagging and not a leading indicator. The Gallup Poll estimates the number of underemployed at 18% and the long-term jobless face even tougher prospects. Recent gains in jobs were mostly tied to temporary hires for the Census. But, that’s old news. The addition of 83,000 private sector jobs in June did not keep pace with need as more than 600,000 Americans left the workforce. As The New York Times pointed out, this resulted in a somewhat “illusory decline” in unemployment to 9.5% from 9.7% last month. On the surface, this looks like an improvement. But again, it’s nothing to write home about.

The economic collapse from the fall of 2008 has lingered. Americans sense there’s no quick fix. As pols look ahead to this November’s elections, no doubt, they are worried whether there will be a sufficient economic recovery to cover their political backs. The White House is in an internal tussle between the deficit hawks vs. those who argue that the government must kick in with some added money to avoid a slowdown. The GOP is trying to tap into the frustration but needs to find a way to provide answers without being tagged obstructionists. The latest national Marist Poll shows that voters are almost evenly split between supporting their current congress person and casting their lot with someone new. A majority of Democratic voters want to stay the course whereas it’s the GOP’ers who want to throw the bums out. Independents are also clamoring for change. But, will it be an anti-incumbent or a partisan choice? This is a storyline that is still being written.

Regardless of which political force dominates this fall’s elections, expect the economy to be front and center, and the jobs agenda to be driving the discussion.

7/13: Expansion: A Role in Baseball’s Demise?

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

In my last blog, I suggested that television may have killed off the national pastime. In the latest national Marist Poll, 54% of the American public tell us that they do not follow baseball at all.

But, television can’t be held solely accountable for the demise of our great game. Expansion and some crucial decisions from Major League Baseball have also contributed.

Part of the problem dates back to 1993 and 1998. In 1993, the National League expanded into Denver and Miami with the creation of the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins. Each League would now have two divisions made up of seven teams each.

But in 1998 when baseball expanded again adding Arizona to the National League and Tampa Bay to the American League, the Milwaukee Brewers also moved to the National League. Now you have 14 teams in the American League and 16 in the National League.

Things start getting complicated. Each league now has three divisions. In the American League two of the divisions have five teams, and the West has only four teams. In the National League, two divisions have 5 teams, but the Central Division has six teams.

The critical factor, I believe, is with the time zones. In the American League West, the Texas Rangers are the only team in the Central Time Zone. The other three are all in the Pacific Time Zone which is two hours earlier. Think about it. If half of your games are played on the road, and most of them with teams in your own division, there are a huge number of games that don’t begin until 9:20 p.m. local time in Texas. Young fans have to stay up past midnight to watch those games. That certainly doesn’t work on school nights, and even in the summer, it’s a challenge. Then, there are the older fans who must be at work the next morning. They are also challenged. So, for the past 12 years, you’ve lost a whole generation of young fans, certainly in Texas, but elsewhere as well.

There are several options to fix this—none of them easy. One solution would be to create divisions and leagues within geographic clusters. That would require breaking some long traditions by moving teams into different leagues. That would also require rebuilding those teams that switch leagues as long as the AL and NL continue to play a different game because of the designated hitter. No one likes the prospect of either solution, but the present structure while bringing big league baseball to more cities is not fan friendly to kids. And without kids, the fan base will eventually erode, and the day will come when the economics will force baseball to reduce rather than expand. That won’t be pretty either.

An answer must be found, and the first step begins with the resolution of the DH dilemma.

Tomorrow: Baseball Fights Back. Are attempts to lure families to the ballpark helping or hurting?

7/12: Baseball’s Demise at the Hands of the Networks?

July 12, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

“God, I just love baseball.”
–Robert Redford as Roy Hobbs in “The Natural,” 1984

So, in the latest Marist Poll, 54% of the American public tells us they do not follow baseball at all.

Clearly, Roy Hobbs and I are in the minority. I’m writing this column in Texas as I watch my favorite team, the New York Yankees, do battle with the Oakland A’s on television. Friends of mine tell me the game is much too slow. It’s boring. They prefer the slam dunk on the basketball court or the action of the NFL which makes for the fast pacing television thrives on.

They don’t know what they’re missing. But, they’re missing quite a lot if they depend on television coverage.

One of my pet peeves is that I am at the mercy of the television director to show me what is going on. Instead of the game, I get far too many close-ups of Andy Pettitte and his intimidating stare as he gets the sign from Jorge Posada. I get shots of celebrities like Tom Cruise sitting in the high dollar seats at Dodger Stadium. Two weeks ago, Fox spent way too much time showing me the broadcast booth as Tim McCarver, Joe Buck, Tommy Lasorda and Reggie Jackson argued ad nauseam about a controversial play in the 1978 World Series while today’s game was going on.

To love the game, you must understand it. To understand it, you have to see an overview of the field — something the television director rarely shows you these days. Is the infield playing in or deep? Has the defense shifted to the right for Mark Teixeira? If so, and Brett Gardner is on second, should he attempt a steal with third base not being covered? How many outs are there? Who’s the pitcher? Does he know what Teixeira’s weakness is? Does Tex know that he knows?

You have to see the entire field to determine these things. Can it be that television which breathed life into the National Football League has killed off the national pastime?

There are other reasons baseball has diminished in popularity.

I’ll share those thoughts tomorrow.

7/7: Kids and Sports

July 7, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Carol Anne Riddell is a veteran reporter who specializes in issues dealing with children. She is also a mother. And, when she talked with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks, they discussed sports and what it teaches our children. Listen to the interview or read the transcript below.

Carol Anne Riddell

John Sparks
Carol Anne, the Marist Poll did a survey asking about people’s favorite childhood sport. Did you play sports growing up as a child?

Carol Anne Riddell
Yeah, I did a bit. I guess my favorite things were probably tennis and lacrosse. I wasn’t terribly good, but I was very, very good, I’m still very good, at air hockey. I don’t know if that actually counts as a sport, though, but I enjoyed sports.

John Sparks
Did your parents get involved in watching you participate?

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, not so much. My parents were very busy. They sort of had their own lives. They did periodically. I also went to boarding school. So, that was a different kind of arrangement, because my parents weren’t there all the time. But they were not as involved in that way, I think, as I am as a parent now.

John Sparks
I know that you’ve heard some of the same horror stories that I have about parents who get overly involved in their children’s sports activities. You’ve got young kids, are you one of those who lives vicariously through the athletic abilities of your kids?

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, John, I mean I think we’re all a little bit guilty of that. My six-year-old daughter is a great soccer player, and I admit that I get a lot of pleasure out of watching her tear up the field. But, I think for me, it’s more about just seeing them excel, not necessarily in sports, but sort of in anything. My nine-year-old is a voracious reader. So, we talk a lot about books, and I feel the same way listening to his amazing vocabulary and his ability to recount stories to me as I do watching her play soccer.

John Sparks
How are parents to instill values of sportsmanship that we say we value when they scream at their kids and the officials on the playing field?

Carol Anne Riddell
I think the short answer is that we don’t. What you hear over and over about every aspect of good parenting is you got to role model. You have to behave yourself the way that you want your kids to behave, and we can tell them over and over again to play fair and be gracious when they lose, but if they see us screaming like lunatics and over-reacting to losses, then all of that what we’ve said is pretty much meaningless to them. I think another thing about that is that you can role model that good sportsmanship, not necessarily, just on the field, but if you’re watching a ball game together. It doesn’t actually have to be taught in the middle of a game.

John Sparks
Well, we are kind of trained that winning is everything. So, how do we deal with our kids’ disappointments when they come up on the losing team?

Carol Anne Riddell
It’s tough. We all want our kids to be the best at everything. It’s just … I think it’s part of our DNA as parents, but adults also know that disappointment is a part of life. And in a lot of ways, the real measure of who we are, what makes us who we are, lies in how we handle those hurdles. Do you give up when you lose, and do you walk away, or do you get back up, and do you try again? I think we have to teach our kids, and it’s obviously easier said than done, that losing makes winning all the sweeter. We have to praise them for the effort and not just the victory, and I also think we really have to praise them. It’s really helpful to them to point out when they handle a loss well because, let’s be honest, it’s just — it’s a lot easier to win than lose. Do you ever hear of a sore winner?

John Sparks
Now, you were telling me about instances in some kids’ leagues where everyone gets a trophy, and there are no losers. Is that really a good idea when the real world does not operate that way?

Carol Anne Riddell
I don’t think that it is. I think that it really teaches kids in a sense to be over-entitled as if they believe that they’re just entitled to win, and I don’t think that there’s a lot of work ethic in that. I really think, and this goes beyond just sports for me, so this is obviously an issue I have a strong opinion on, that which we’re creating this generation of over-entitled children, that they don’t see the sacrifice and the hard work that has to go into winning. And, if we don’t teach them that work ethic, then, they run the risk of growing into these adults who just want the BMW at the end of rainbow.

John Sparks
The other thing, there is such an emphasis on sports, especially professional and major college sports, that at a very early age, if a young boy or girl shows any athletic ability, the parents bring in paid professional trainers and coaches, and they carry through with select leagues all for the goal of getting an athletic scholarship or a pro contract. What kind of problems does this create?

Carol Anne Riddell
I got to say, I believe it’s just a whole host of problems. I mean obviously they’re going to be kids who are exceptional athletes, but the vast majority of them are not going to be turning pro anytime. So, as adults, we set them up to struggle against this very unrealistic expectation. I think that also when we as the grownups invest so much time and, by the way, so much money in things like private training and coaches, what we’re saying to our kids is this is what matters. And, what we should be saying to them is this is one of many things that matter. What about academics? What about citizenship? What about just being a good friend? I think we really have to ask ourselves, and again, I am not perfect at this: Do I want this for the good of my child, or do I want this for myself?

John Sparks
We glamorize professional athletes, and some of these folks that play in the professional league, their behavior is really reprehensible, even criminal sometimes, but yet they score touchdowns, sink buckets, hit a baseball 400 feet, and we look the other way. What does that really say about our values?

Carol Anne Riddell
Well, this one is sort of a sore subject for me, because I do really have a strong opinion. I think it is bad for kids and bad for adults to glamorize some of these celebrities who in so many ways model poor behavior, and I just — I think we have to be really discerning as parents. The kids are going to hear about the big celebrities whether we think they’re good role models or not, but there are sure sport figures who are in fact good role models. So, I think what we have to do, what I try to do with my kids is like figure out who some of them are in a sport that your child loves and, then, tell your kids why you like them. Maybe that celebrity is involved with worthy causes, or maybe they demonstrate good sportsmanship, or maybe they’re devoted to their families. The point is, I think we really have to teach our kids to look up to some of these figures whose values actually align with ours as opposed to just those who seem to be the most athletic, but their behavior otherwise may be questionable.

John Sparks
You know there’s another problem I see and that is I think that sometimes we as adults over-schedule our kids. I’m just curious, are you one of those soccer moms who spends a big part of your day making sure your child gets to the game and practice?

Carol Anne Riddell
There is so much I am guilty of as a mom, but so far that’s not my issue, at least not yet. However, my daughter’s starting a soccer league in the fall, so we’ll see if I end up following my own advice or not, for sure. I do feel like it’s important once they’ve committed to something that they be committed to it. That they show up. That they go to the practices they’re supposed to go to, but I have to say that I think a lot of our kids these days, and it’s not just with sports, it’s with lots of things, are just scheduled to the nth degree, and I’m not sure if it’s the best thing.

John Sparks
You know when I was a kid, a lot of us just played sandlot ball, no adults around. We got in fights. We had differences, but somehow that’s the way we learned to get along with another. Do you think perhaps that it might be good to let our kids go about being kids, and we as adults and parents stay out of it?

Carol Anne Riddell
I’d say absolutely, John. I mean I think some of the greatest life lessons that I ever learned were while I was playing kick the can with the kids in my neighborhood, but you know it was a different time and that was in Michigan, and I don’t have the luxury of sending my kids out into the parks of Manhattan to play a game of pick-up. So, I think we have to balance; sort of creating those opportunities for them to learn on their own with the practicalities of just raising kids in 2010. I do love those four words – Work it out yourselves, and I use them a lot around here.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, I really appreciate your time. Anything else you want to add on the subject of kids and sports?

Carol Anne Riddell
Yeah, just one other thought that I had, John, that I think has been really helpful to me is that I think it’s so important to teach kids about winning and losing really early on. And, one of the best ways, I mean it’s obviously not directly related to sports, but one of the best ways that I think we’ve done that is to play board games with them. You can play board games with kids of almost any age because there are things that appropriate for even very young children, and it allows you an opportunity to really teach them about winning and losing and for them to experience winning and losing. And, I think when they win a little bit, it becomes that much easier to lose the next time, because they understand what it is to win, and they understand that they can win again. So whether it’s like Chutes and Ladders or Candy Land or whatever it is, I feel like I started having those conversations with my kids about winning and losing at very young ages, and it hasn’t always been perfect, but I do think it starts to get the message to them very early on.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, I really appreciate it. It’s always good to talk to you.

Carol Anne Riddell
And, you too.

7/7: World Cup (Vuvuzela) Buzz

| by Marist Poll

By Stephanie Calvano

GOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!! Get your vuvuzelas ready because the World Cup semi-finals are underway … or you can do what I did and download the vuvuzela app!

Stephanie Calvano

After nearly a month of competition, a new country will be crowned World Cup King on July 11th. A quick look at the history books will tell you the first FIFA World Cup was held in 1930 where host Uruguay won it all, and believe it or not, the United States placed third overall that year. With the game clock still running in 2010 … the 19th World Cup is being played in South Africa, and there have been plenty of upsets (reigning World Cup winner Italy and runner-up France were knocked out after the first round), controversies (bad calls, disallowed goals), and excitement, not to mention the constant buzz of vuvuzelas.

But, have people in the U.S. been watching the World Cup? According to the latest national Marist Poll, 37% of Americans, me included, say they are watching most or some of the month-long event. As someone who has been watching since it started in early June, and continues to watch even though U.S.A. has been eliminated, that finding was bittersweet. At first glance, I thought, “only 37%.” Then, as I thought about it further, I realized that nearly 4 out of 10 watchers isn’t so bad considering supposedly “nobody watches soccer.”

I personally equate the World Cup to the Olympics. Regardless of one’s interest in the game of soccer, the bottom line is that, as a country, we rally behind our guys. You may not know all the players’ names, that the field is called the “pitch,” or understand all the rules, but you know that there’s a group of guys representing the red, white, and blue and want them to succeed. I was watching the USA’s final World Cup game against Ghana at a restaurant. There were “ohs” and “ahs” when a great opportunity to score was missed, there was cheering, there was an entire restaurant on the edge of their seats when Landon Donovan took his penalty kick and then sent it into the back of the net to tie the game. That day, everyone there was a soccer fan, because everyone was a USA fan.

In 1998, I was on a school trip to France and Spain the year the World Cup was in France. I remember we were getting on the metro to go to dinner, and it was packed with people coming from a game. Their faces were painted, and they were singing. It was incredible to see and a moment I will never forget. My classmates and I, as well as other hotel patrons, hovered around the small TV in the lobby to watch the games (when our educational tour schedule permitted, of course). At 15, it didn’t sink in then, but it’s incredible that one event can have such a unifying effect. We didn’t all have the same native language, but we all spoke one language … The World Cup.

Soccer is a language I’ve been speaking for a while. It has been an important part of my life since I first stepped onto a field at 6 years old. For the next 12 years, it was something I could not do without. I played on local town teams until I aged out, joined the JV team in middle school, and played Varsity soccer in high school. And, because playing in the fall wasn’t enough, I played indoor soccer in the winter. I even sustained an injury that left me with six screws and a plate in my ankle as mementos. Granted, it has been a decade since the last time I played soccer competitively, but that doesn’t mean I enjoy the sport any less. As it always does, watching the World Cup makes me want to get back out there and play again.

I believe playing soccer as a child makes me more inclined to follow the World Cup. In fact, when you look at the results from Marist’s latest national survey, of USA residents who played soccer when they were young, nearly 6 in 10 — 58% — say they are watching most or some of the World Cup.

It’s no secret that professional soccer in the United States doesn’t hold a candle to “futbol” in Europe and South America. But, this World Cup has been making headlines with atrocious officiating, talks of using instant replay, upsets, and even “off-the-pitch”drama. Is that enough to make Americans want to take in a soccer game? Or does Major League Soccer need to revamp and find ways to “Americanize” the game to make it more attractive here? I don’t know the answer, but I do hope that Major League Soccer can ride the World Cup wave and maybe, just maybe, at the next World Cup in 2014, it won’t take a bad call, a milestone goal, or a tabloid story for everyone to know the group of guys that are Team USA!

Carol Anne Riddell

July 6, 2010 | by Marist Poll

Carol Anne Riddell served as anchor of News 4 New York’s 6 and 11 p.m. Sunday evening newscasts. Joining News 4 New York in September 1996, Riddell also covered children and education, and in 2005, launched “Family Matters,” a weekly segment that focuses on family and parenting issues. In addition, Riddell has covered the New York City School System overcrowding crisis, filed multiple reports on the deplorable conditions of several city schools and examined how the system handles the special needs of disabled students. Riddell’s reports have also helped shed light on some of the specific problems affecting New York City schools, including a story on a child who missed weeks of class due to a busing error. After Riddell reported this story, the child finally received proper transportation. Her series on schools disposing of uneaten food also prompted the Board of Education to review its policies and to meet with groups that deliver food to the needy. Carol Anne recently received awards from the NY State Associated Press Broadcasters Association for First Place in Best Feature and was also honored in the category of general excellence in individual reporting.

Carol Anne Riddell

Before joining News 4 New York, Riddell served as reporter, host, and anchor at New York 1 News from 1992-96 where she covered politics, education, and investigative and general assignment stories.

Riddell has garnered numerous awards including three New York State Broadcasters Association awards for Outstanding Individual Program/Series Designed for Children (2002), Outstanding Hard News Story (2001) and Outstanding Public Affairs Programming (2000); part of the News 4 New York team honored with an Emmy®-award for the 2003-04 series, “What Matters;” “New York Cub Reporter of the Year” and a Feature Award honor from the New York Press Club; a National Award for Education Reporting by The Education Writers Association for her story, “Lost Bounty;” honored, along with Gabe Pressman and Melissa Russo, by the Citizens Committee for Children for their coverage on what is affecting kids; and the first-ever Hunter College School of Education Media Appreciation Award for her outstanding efforts to convey the challenges and opportunities of urban education. In 2006, she served as President of the Inner Circle, an organization of journalists that raises money for local charities. In 2000, Riddell served as President of the New York Press Club, after serving as a member of the Club’s Board of Directors. Riddell graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Tufts University, and received a Master of Science degree in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.