I hate how ESPN frames their stories around the "stars" rather than just reporting the sports news. Examples are numerous but the ones that come to mind are how Tiger Woods did rather than the leader, how Danica Patrick did rather than the winner, then today how Maria Sharapova did rather than giving credit to Angelique Kerber.
ESPN and their star based reporting
- Thread starter NenoFone
- Start date
I agree, but it's all about what generates buzz. Are you more likely to look at the TV when they mention Tiger Woods, or Patrick Reed?
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,115
- 29,328
- 113
It's about ratings. In the case of Tiger, he's basically the only thing in the sport of golf that draws ratings. You do a story/highlight on Bubba Watson, and you're going to get your golf fans to watch, and that's about it. You put the focus on Tiger, and all of a sudden you've got more people watching.
Make no mistake, ESPN does what it does for ratings first. Telling the whole story and journalistic integrity are a lot farther down the list. It's frustrating, but it's reality.
My personal pet peeve is when they create a story out of nothing. Last year, Ron Jaworski made a comment on how he thought Colin Kaepernick could be a top 10-all time qb. For the next 24 hours, ESPN had all of their talking heads analyzing it. It was all over SportCenter, ESPN radio, ESPN.com, and everyone had to weigh in on their thoughts. They even interviewed Kaepernick about it. Where was the story? It was entirely manufactured.
Or when Mark Cuban said if he saw a black man in a hoodie, he would walk to the other side of the street, or if he saw a white bald man with tattoos, he would walk to the other side of the street. And ESPN starts attacking him saying he's talking about Trayvon Martin.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,115
- 29,328
- 113
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,115
- 29,328
- 113
If we're talking about television yeah, there's not much else. For print and internet, there are lots of other options.
There are lots of options, and quality ones at that. But they all do the same thing the op hates, so he's pretty much screwed.
- Jun 20, 2006
- 38,262
- 22,535
- 113
this happened immediately after the USMNT / Portugal game. The talking point guy (don't know his name) said three or four times just after the game (paraphrasing) "And the talk we are hearing is that the Germany game will be a draw".
HE was talking about it, only HE was referencing it ... Made me glad I don't pay for ESPN.
I don't know why you would even watch a highlight or talking head show on TV anymore. I get that ESPN or FS1 aren't going to drop SportsCenter and their ilk because they need to fill airtime around the live events, but it is much more convenient to just get the scores/recaps/highlights on your phone on your way out the door or quick on your computer at work than it is to sit through an hour long show, and maybe you care about half of it if you're lucky.
I try to say this in the nicest possible way... please no offense is intended. But it is always my suggestion (on this thread and every other thread on this subject I have ever seen) that people need to forget about the idea that the entity ESPN cares about sports. Or that the entity the Washington Post cares about news. They only care about one thing and that is maximizing their shareholders income. That is it. Individual reporters and sportscasters care. I'm sure they care deeply in some cases. But the entity itself could care less. They are providing a surface to draw as many eyes as they can. They may have integrity to not lie or cheat (maybe), but I wouldn't count on it. Keep that mindset in place at all times and you're life is much easier whenever you get mad at the TV or the newspaper or your favorite magazine. They don't care about "you". They do care about "us", they want to make "us" happy to maximize their income, but not "you" individually.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,115
- 29,328
- 113
well put. In media, if it's a choice between ratings and integrity, ratings win every time, and integrity can get lost. That's why a show like Honey Boo Boo can be aired on a channel that still dares to call itself "The Learning Channel."
Actually, it makes sense to me. How many people who care, don't know who won the tournament or the race? I'm actually a big fan of the Chicago Blackhawks, but it drove me nuts every morning after a playoff game how they'd go over every aspect of the game on the local news, when all I wanted to see was the weather. Wouldn't it be more than likely everyone who cared about the game, already knows the score, since it ended 12 hours ago.
This is the way to pull in other viewers and appeal to the masses. I could not care less who one the golf tournament or the NASCAR race. Because of their celebrity status though, it is fun to find out Tiger and Danica suck right now.
This is the way to pull in other viewers and appeal to the masses. I could not care less who one the golf tournament or the NASCAR race. Because of their celebrity status though, it is fun to find out Tiger and Danica suck right now.
Either I'm getting older and more cynical, or SportsCenter completely blows now. Probably both.
I used to watch SC religiously, sometimes two or three times a day. The only, and I mean only time I watch it now is if Iowa State won a big game that day.
I thought NBC Sports had something good going with "The 'Lights". Was disappointed to see that didn't stick around.
I used to watch SC religiously, sometimes two or three times a day. The only, and I mean only time I watch it now is if Iowa State won a big game that day.
I thought NBC Sports had something good going with "The 'Lights". Was disappointed to see that didn't stick around.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,115
- 29,328
- 113
Well, that's my point, isn't it? They call themselves "The Learning Channel" but have sold any integrity they might have had down the river in favor of ratings.
