OT(?): Interesting Deadspin article about the business that is ESPN
The above-linked article on Deadspin describes the myriad ways that ESPN has dropped journalistic integrity for the sake of profit. It takes particular note of SportsCenter's decision to cover Tim Tebow purely for the sake of ratings.(*1) It also notes, among other things, ESPN's general failure to cover the NHL and the 2012 Olympics, presumably because ESPN did not or does not have broadcasting rights to those sports/events. The quote below from Bruce Feldman, speaking of his time at ESPN, encapsulates much of the article:
"It is a business first and foremost," Bruce Feldman, a 16-year veteran of ESPN who left for CBS last year, told me. "The people who run the company told me as much when I was going through it with them. There's still an element of ESPN that does journalism and there are some people there who are really good journalists. But above all it is a business."
Some might say that ESPN is, of course, a business and ask what's wrong with that. My response would be that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it, but a big problem arises when you position yourself as the premier sports news organization but also edit your reporting for the sake of driving a profitable agenda.
There are a lot of OSU fans on Bucknuts who believe that ESPN purposefully attacks the Big Ten because it is in competition with the Big Ten Network.(*2) I tend to agree with them (why, for example, doesn't the network attack the ACC or the Big East with the fervor that it attacks the Big Ten?). The reason that I think this post may not be OT is because, as others have suggested here since yesterday, I think that we can take the additions of Maryland and Rutgers as the Big Ten fortifying itself against ESPN. They are partners to some extent (Big Ten games are still on ESPN, of course), but they are foes as well, and yesterday's news is an unquestionably ugly but perhaps necessary bit of realpolitik on the part of the Big Ten to keep a stronghold in a system (collegiate athletics) whose media leader is thoroughly corrupt and even antagonistic.
(*1)The point of this post is not to knock Tebow, whom I like.
(*2) See this article for a description of the Big Ten's somewhat acrimonious break from ESPN and the creation of the BTN. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-01/sports/ct-spt-0701-big-ten-nebraska--20110701_1_commissioner-jim-delany-john-wildhack-espn-officials
November 20th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
Journalism is still somewhat of an art form, but ESPN has sold itself down the river for the sake of the almighty dollar.
However, journalism and newspapers as a whole are not a non-profit - they're in business to make money. So one cannot fully disconnect these two. But I think the morale of the story is the ESPN has taken it to the extreme. Where an optimal pairing between the two is desirable, ESPN has basically kicked the integrity part to the curb.
I think this album cover from Warrant sums up my thoughts on ESPN rather nicely,
November 20th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^
Interesting article. Thinking ESPN might want to start treating the Big Ten better with the conference's television rights coming up for bid. Have to think Fox will provide some competition for them for the rights.
November 20th, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^
"There's still an element of [any news media organization] that does journalism and there are some people there who are really good journalists. But above all it is a business."
November 20th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
To my knowledge, the NY Times isn't a business partner with the NY Giants, the Wash. Post isn't a business partner with the Potomac River Basin Indigenous Persons, etc. The cynicism of saying that all media is for-profit lets the really bad actors like ESPN off the hook.
November 20th, 2012 at 10:55 AM ^
I agree on both counts: I am cynical and ESPN should not be left off the hook.
Keeping the argument within the realm of sports, news media orgs don't have to be "business partners" with a team or a league to leverage bias for ratings/readership (the freep "jihad", for example). It shouldn't surprise anyone that ESPN spends a disproportionate time "reporting" on NBA basketball because they have business relationship with them.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
ESPN is owned by Disney, who is a publicly traded entity. The people that make decisions at ESPN are incentivized to get viewers, period.
If ESPN gets more viewers because every Sports Center talks about Tebow's breakfast every day, then who is anybody to criticize them and claim they should cover more Olympics? If you want to watch NHL or Olympic coverage, go to Fox Sports, NBC sports, or the Internet.
They are talking about the things (stupid) people want to hear.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
The criticism is fair b/c ESPN positions itself as a news outlet when it suits it to do so. I wouldn't have anything against them if they, like Disney, were openly an entertainment company. I could live with the ESPN-SEC-SUPER-FANTASTIC NIGHT OF FOOTBALL AND MYLEY CYRUS*, but ESPN pretends to be in the journalism business.
*Well, maybe not.
November 20th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
November 20th, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^
...but it's not like Deadspin has cornered the market on sports journalism. (They might like to think so.)
As for coverage of the Olympics; a lot of people think that ESPN was brilliant to steer clear of it. The Olympics are largely a demographic of non-sports fans. Women are a big part of the demographic. People who don't routinely follow sports, but who follow the news and biographical stories surrounding the Olympics, are all a part of that demographic. Hard core team sports fans have been quite willing to stay with their teams and their sports through Olympics coverage.
November 20th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
Yeah, seriously. Deadspin is part of a media company that has encouraged tabloid journalism to drive page views so they're really no better (even if they were once a solid site under Will Leitch).
And I do get ESPN's Olympic issue, if only because there's no highlight footage available and that makes SportsCenter coverage damn near impossible.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^
Remember UTL? Remember the hype, Gameday, the week long commercials, etc? And how awesomely ESPN covered all that?
They ignored this year's game because it was on NBC.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:58 AM ^
Absolutely true. And that's just a microcosm of how ESPN handles competition. Take a look at the NHL. It gets negligle amounts of time dedicated to it by ESPN simply because ESPN has very little to gain by promoting it. Comparatively, the third game of the Heat's season gets hyped up like it's win-or-go-home. Why? Well you already know the answer but it's because ESPN has TV rights to NBA games so they stand to profit from their constantly promoting it.
It all comes down to the almighty dollar. This is nothing new. (and don't get me started on ESPN's conflict of interest of having the rights to nearly all the BCS games)
November 20th, 2012 at 11:05 AM ^
I am beginning to think that "journalism" has always been based on an impossible ideal: human beings producing objective work. Journalism has always been about money and/or advancing one's own agenda.
The main difference: the traditional newspapers are more like the high-class hooker who does millionaires, while ESPN is the streetwalker offering her services for $10.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^
I tend to think MLB is only sport in which ESPN has excellent journalists and reporters. Buster Onley is a very talented writer and I believe Tim Kurkjian is a great reporter. Kruk is a solid analyst as well.
I still do enjoy ESPN radio, though. Much more appealing in the weekdays day-time than ESPN TV at least.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^
I love watching ESPN, but this is why I take their opinions with a grain of salt. I'm smart enough to come up with my own conclusions about the overall trends/effects in sports. Just give me the highlights and statistics, and let me worry about the rest. It's the same reason that I often turn off the sound when I'm watching sporting events, especially Michigan games.
November 20th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^
"A programming battle ensued. Morning SportsCenter producers "noticed that First Take was killing them in ratings with Tebow stuff, so they made a conscious effort to deliver more Tebow," the source said. "ESPN is a competitive environment and the competition between SportsCenter and First Take is very real.""
It seems to me that this is part of the problem at ESPN now, that these programs literally compete with each other and track what each one covers and then try to add their own take to the popular stories, even when there is literally no new information out there. The Tebow phenomenon on ESPN was literally an internal flashfire of sorts that led to near-constant coverage in the absence of many notable Tebow events, both off and really on the field.
There are a lot of shows that I do enjoy on ESPN, but like many here undoubtedly, if there is any one statement or question that intrigues me on a given show, I will make note of it and do the necessary research at my convenience. I found this quote from an unnamed ESPN "insider" rather telling:
""We can't be purely journalistic because we have too many business interests with the subject we're supposed to cover objectively. But in a way, it's a copout. We move the journalistic line when it suits us."
That's probably true, and at the same time, unfortunate for the viewing audience because the casual fan, the ones who don't sit and digest every bit of statistical, biographical and other information about their team (or other teams) will have even less to go on in terms of real information.
November 20th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
Ever notice how you never hear any news about the hockey lock out?
Ever notice how for some teams you don't hear anything at all?
ESPN doesn't cover what they don't hold any stake in. And they create stories when there are none in things they do. It's gross. I wish they used their money to do investigative journalism which actually digs up the rampant cheating in college football and basketball recruiting like Yahoo did/does, but they won't because if it crushes the SEC then ESPN is shit out of luck. That's fucked up.
November 20th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
It goes far beyond Tebow. Try to sit through one Sportscenter without reverence to the Yankees, Cowboys or Lakers. I'd venture that roughly 40% of Sportscenter's non-highlight related content is on each of those teams for their respective league. Nauseating.
You could probably take the collective fluff peaces ESPN has done over the last 10 years on the Milwaukee Bucks, Utah Jazz and Atlanta Hawks and you'd get about as much content as one week's worth of Lakers fluff.
Today I turn on Sportscenter and what do I walk into? "Can the 5 and 5 Cowboys make the playoffs?" I instantly turned that shit off.
It's all about catering to the teams with the biggst fan base. Beyond obvious.
ESPN aka the CLYT network (Cowboys, Lakers, Yankees, and Tebow).
November 20th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
I will say, Deadspin has always had a hard-on of sorts against ESPN. Not saying their complaints are unfounded, but a website that posts half-naked pictures of athletes and private dong shots really shouldn't take the high road on journalism, especially when it then tries the whole "we're not sports journalists" when it suits them.
November 20th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^
I belive ESPN has stopped putting the "1st tier" play by play and color guys to reinforce down playing the B1G. When is the last time Brad Nessler or Mike Patrick did a B1G game. We get Joe Tessatore and who ever that was vs. Iwoa. No disrespect but Greise is young in his career and even as a Mich alum. he is on the bottom of the totem pole.