On the MTVization of ESPN, and ESPN v. The Blogosphere
Over at SBNation's Georgia Bulldogs website, there is a very good (and very lengthy) critique of ESPN, and the way it chooses to program and market itself, that I'd encourage folks to check out.
0 recs |
26 comments
Comments
Yep
by Ed Coffin on Jul 22, 2007 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I often wonder how some things happen
Is nobody standing up and screaming, "What the hell does this have to do with sports, or the job of reporting sports?"
I for one know I would be personally embaressed if an idea like that was given more than 45 seconds of discussion.
by TexGoesYard on Jul 23, 2007 12:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
who's now?
by Randy Richardson on Jul 23, 2007 3:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
MTVSPN
My wife loves how much I hate ESPN as it saves us on our cable bill, because after my 4mos (I get cable for college bball) I am so fed up with ESPNs rediculous pandering that I kill it.
Wish it didn't have to be that way ESPN, get rid of the hot seat, stephen smith, and over blown, rediculous controversies. I thinkthe nonsense reporting is the worst (I'm looking at you sports reporters). It feels like I'm watching a boring (by comparison no less!!) and stupid version of the McLaughlin Group.
by bushe on Jul 23, 2007 7:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
re
What?
Yeah that comment doesn't make any sense at all.
And am I the only person who's life really isn't terrorized by "the hot seat"? I mean, I dunno, I didn't realize it was such a big deal. I hardly ever even see it.
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a fun game
by tangiers on Jul 23, 2007 5:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow
I'm no big fan of ESPN, but that guy thinks he (and blogs in general) is just a liiiitle too important.
Also, it was written very poorly, such that it wasn't really worth wading through, or interesting. And it talked a lot about how wonderful the blogs are and well, patting yourself on the back too much is generally not good.
Also, why did he whine about ESPN then say he wanted a explanation why Dan Patrick left. This makes me thinks he likes Dan Patrick, which kind of ruins his credibility.
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 6:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Talk About
by jf55510 on Jul 23, 2007 8:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Disagree
I found it well thought out and, at the very least, worth the time that I spent reading it.
And IMO, he mentioned the Dan Patrick and Harold Reynolds situations to speak to the transparency (or lack thereof) of ESPN. For example, if Fox News were to let Geraldo Rivera go, I'd like to think that we, the public and the consumers (essentially, the reason Fox News can exist), would get an explanation as to why.
The author thinks that we, the public, are entitled to an explanation as to why we won't be seeing a certain face anymore, and I happen to agree. It adds transparency to a news organization, something that the American media relies on (or, at least, should rely on).
by ghtd36 on Jul 23, 2007 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did find it
Cowherd pissed him off and he went off about it in about 5M words.
I think he's right though, they are going the way of MTV and in probably 5 years, there will be no sports highlights at all.
by badradiorules on Jul 23, 2007 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
espn
About the only thing on ESPN I watch is around the horn and the occasional sports center.
by rentz on Jul 23, 2007 8:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I've never read that guy before
http://www.dawgsports.com/story/2007/5/27/8010/48344
"Let us leave aside the almost comically ignorant vanity underlying such an assertion when made by a man who writes for a newspaper that publishes an on-line edition yet somehow seems to presume that his readers are more sophisticated if they happen to get ink on their fingers while perusing his work."
Later:
"Is it really so preposterous to suppose that intelligent readers who consume books because of an insatiable appetite for learning might be as competent to review works of literature as professional critics with personal grudges, political agendas, and ties to the publishers who provide them free copies of books to review and to the other authors who will be reviewing books of theirs?
By the same token, is it really so absurd to imagine that the fans who are in the stands because they have loved their team for as long as they can remember are as knowledgeable and capable of intelligent and insightful commentary as the reporters in the press box who are on the job, under a deadline, separated from the actual action, handcuffed by oftentimes artificial impartiality, and bound by the stylistic guidelines imposed by their corporate employers?"
Very bright, very funny. Schickel comes across as ridiculously pompous in his column.
I also learned about this little gem of an invention:
Kind of like wheels on a suitcase, it makes you wonder why they didn't think of it sooner.
by Brian Thomas on Jul 23, 2007 8:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I like ESPN radio
Sure, it has it's share of annoyances, but it's straight sportstalk.
I like it.
I will say it was pretty funny when Cowherd owned all the michigan fans, of which that blog writer was probably one.
Because you know, the stats obviously proved Michigan deserved the title game bot Florida.
Or, that was the PC thing, anyway.
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 8:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cowherd
At least.
All the LSBers said Michigan was better too.
You guys are pretty dumb when it comes to football.
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
who are you arguing with?
by bushe on Jul 23, 2007 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of it
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
College football
Of course, maybe that is because it is a baseball site...
by JBImaknee on Jul 23, 2007 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You should
They dont really know baseball, either. I mean they do, but they hate the rangers so..that leads to..Jason Botts is the best player ever.
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really enjoyed that article...
My big problem is that they have decided to take advantage of the average fan. I think they realize that the casual sports fan is manipulatable. If the Boston - New York matchup is hyped up enough, the casual sports fan will watch the game, even if they weren't planning on it. Likewise, if they hype up Ohio St. - Texas football game, they know they will get more viewers leading up to and after the game. Thus their entire "news" division becomes nothing more than a long commercial for themselves.
I have a big problem with this. Not the fact that they are in it for money - because that is fine. But because they come across as trying to be unbiased, when they surely are not. Because this putting all their eggs in some baskets means that they NEED Boston and New York to win. This leads to things like their tools Gammons and Stark writing articles saying small team GMs like Daniels should take whatever they get for their players - an action that only feeds the teams that everyone hates, a result that incidentally leads to higher ESPN ratings....
by JBImaknee on Jul 23, 2007 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hubris
by t ball on Jul 23, 2007 9:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The bottom line
by tricer on Jul 23, 2007 10:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They're not that bad
I think on balance, you know, they're not that bad.
I mean, if this bloggers dude was expecting a bunch of sabremetric crap on ESPN, well that's not going to happen.
Certain anchors of theirs are bad, Stuart Scott and Chris Berman.
Theit baseball coverage is often pretty bad, but a lot of that is due to the fact they're required by law (more or less) to hire a certain qouta of unqaulified minorities, and also for some reason that baseball players dont seem that bright. The contrast to me is football, that has a lot of entertaining personalities among ex players. And since, they have to hire a bunch of ex players..it kind of doesn't give them a hell of a lot of options.
I just dont know what yall really expect. Blogs are blogs and ESPN is a national, the national, sports network.
Talking about how they promote arena football..well who cares.
Anyways, I'm all up for criticizing ESPN, but that blogger didn't do a very cogent job of it, and seemed awful patronizing and full of himself.
And the article was also boring. I sort of gave up on reading the hyperlink fest before long.
by Sharky on Jul 23, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















