ESPN discussion (from baseball thread)

[Duvall]

By the way, we're 20 minutes into the 11:00 SportsCenter and there hasn't been a single moment spent on anything other than Biogenesis and Manziel.

ESPN is just the worst.

[Duvall]

Oh wait! We could get a Puig Update at the bottom of the hour!

[dukebsbll14]

By the way, we're 20 minutes into the 11:00 SportsCenter and there hasn't been a single moment spent on anything other than Biogenesis and Manziel.

ESPN is just the worst.

Ugh, I know. Where's Tebow?

[tommy]

By the way, we're 20 minutes into the 11:00 SportsCenter and there hasn't been a single moment spent on anything other than Biogenesis and Manziel.

ESPN is just the worst.

The button is labeled "O-F-F"

[Duvall]

The button is labeled "O-F-F"

ESPN's descent into BS narratives and cheap sensationalism is going to be a problem for our sports culture whether we watch or not. Might as well talk about it.

[Dev11]

By the way, we're 20 minutes into the 11:00 SportsCenter and there hasn't been a single moment spent on anything other than Biogenesis and Manziel.

ESPN is just the worst.

MLB Network covers baseball 24/7 and they actually cover all of the teams. I recommend it.

[JasonEvans]

In fairness to ESPN, I would merely note that Biogenesis and Manziel are fairly significant sports stories that require some thoughtful discussion as they have potentially far-reaching implications. If you just want scores or highlights, you can get that on the internet or ESPN News. I don't see either of those stories as over-hyped "where will Tebow/Farve end up this year" kind of silliness.

-Jason "I need to take a shower now after defending ESPN... ugh" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

MLB Network covers baseball 24/7 and they actually cover all of the teams. I recommend it.

I strongly concur -- during baseball season, I live on the MLB Network.

It will be interesting to see how ESPN responds to the challenge from Fox Sports. I'd like to think the new 24 hour sports network would be more balanced and thoughtful that ESPN ... but it's Fox, so my hopes aren't high.

[Dev11]

I strongly concur -- during baseball season, I live on the MLB Network.

It will be interesting to see how ESPN responds to the challenge from Fox Sports. I'd like to think the new 24 hour sports network would be more balanced and thoughtful that ESPN ... but it's Fox, so my hopes aren't high.

One of the things I really like about the new networks and programs is that you get the option to hear different voices on a particular topic. Once upon a time, if you wanted the NFL, Chris Berman was the only one delivering it to you. Now, you have choices, and the competition should force each network to try a little harder to be good.

[weezie]

ESPN is just the worst.

"Back, Back, Back, Back!!" Stumble, drum, cymbals thump thump kaboom.
Hey, here's some cute footage of a squirrel playing ping pong....

[luburch]

I think that one of the main problems with ESPN is that it's 24/7. They run out of new topics so they rehash old ones so much that the stories become annoying. Not to mention their coverage of soccer, track, etc is pathetic.

ESPN's number one problem is that they continue to employ Skip Bayless.

[tommy]

In fairness to ESPN, I would merely note that Biogenesis and Manziel are fairly significant sports stories that require some thoughtful discussion as they have potentially far-reaching implications. If you just want scores or highlights, you can get that on the internet or ESPN News. I don't see either of those stories as over-hyped "where will Tebow/Farve end up this year" kind of silliness.

-Jason "I need to take a shower now after defending ESPN... ugh" Evans

I don't know, Jason. I think the problem that many have with ESPN on these kinds of stories is twofold. One is the oversaturation. It's like these stories are covered almost to the exclusion of all others. Much like a Tebow or Favre -- people just say "enough! I don't care that much! I get it! I care about other things. Please tell me about some other things going on in sports."

More importantly, though, is the manner in which ESPN "covers" these stories. The approach is not journalistic. It is not thoughtful. The issue of college players being paid or being able to profit off their signatures or likenesses is a very important issue -- see Ed O'Bannon and others -- but shining a bright light on the hypocrisy of the NCAA's position is left to Jay Bilas to do on Twitter all day today, where he very quickly and in an absolutely devastating manner just undressed them to an embarrassing degree. No, the ESPN coverage of Manziel is celebrity-like coverage. It's "Johnny Football." It's how this is another in a line of embarrassing "bad boy" stuff Manziel has done. It's the Kardashian-ization of Manziel that comes out of ESPN, and that is what is so distasteful and, frankly, boring to me.

Same deal on Biogenesis. If A-Rod wasn't involved, it's still a story to have all those other players suspended, but there are only a few other players involved that are well known to anyone other than fairly serious baseball fans. No, it's A-Rod the celebrity that is driving this. He's close to the ultimate Kardashian-like athlete at this point. If he didn't have all that celebrity-like stuff and Madonna and going shirtless in the park and all the rest in his past, and he was just another really, really good player, it's a different story. Would Biogenesis coverage be the same if the #1 guy getting caught wasn't A-Rod but instead someone like, say, Ryan Howard or Prince Fielder or Mike Trout? I don't think so. I for one am very tired not really of the steroid story, because that continues to be a festering wound on the integrity of baseball, but of the "celebritization" -- which by definition means diminution in substance of -- news in general, including sports news. ESPN is culpable in that in a big way, in my opinion, and the coverage of these two stories is simply further evidence of it.

[A-Tex Devil]

In fairness to ESPN, I would merely note that Biogenesis and Manziel are fairly significant sports stories that require some thoughtful discussion as they have potentially far-reaching implications. If you just want scores or highlights, you can get that on the internet or ESPN News. I don't see either of those stories as over-hyped "where will Tebow/Farve end up this year" kind of silliness.

-Jason "I need to take a shower now after defending ESPN... ugh" Evans

ESPN has become radio on the TV. Most people don't watch for more than 10-15 minute spurts, if that. So if they aren't doing the top stories on constant rotation, they lose viewers. It sounds counterintuitive, but my understanding is that it's real.

So if I want to find out what's going on with Manziel, I have 15 minutes, and I catch ESPN on a NL West recap from the night before, I probably turn the channel. It's why they have that little lineup on the left of the screen, too.

So ESPN picks the 3-5 stories that it knows people want to hear about, and put it on every 10-15 minutes to make sure it can pull in viewers for a commercial break or two.

As for Manziel -- I'm torn, because he's probably the most fun player to watch play since I don't know who, and it will be a shame if we don't get to see him play next year. On the other hand, it's fun to watch Aggie go mental....

[hurleyfor3]

In fairness to ESPN, I would merely note that Biogenesis and Manziel are fairly significant sports stories

And who decides those stories are significant at the expense of others? Espn.

[OldPhiKap]

ESPN has become radio on the TV. Most people don't watch for more than 10-15 minute spurts, if that. So if they aren't doing the top stories on constant rotation, they lose viewers. It sounds counterintuitive, but my understanding is that it's real.

So if I want to find out what's going on with Manziel, I have 15 minutes, and I catch ESPN on a NL West recap from the night before, I probably turn the channel. It's why they have that little lineup on the left of the screen, too.

So ESPN picks the 3-5 stories that it knows people want to hear about, and put it on every 10-15 minutes to make sure it can pull in viewers for a commercial break or two.


I think this is a big part of it. Absent a live event, ESPN is something you click through. Many places just have it on as background visuals with the sound off.

Sports ultimately are entertainment, not news. No surprise that it is covered that way.