ESPN Is Pathetic

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Depends on what kind of organization you want to have. Don't most serious news organizations have a pretty strict firewall between the editorial and and business sides? If Paul Krugman wants to criticize in print one of the New York Times' biggest ad buyers, nobody is going to stop him.
ESPN long ago ceased to be a serious news organization if it ever was. It doesn't even pretend otherwise, apart from a few sanctimonious one offs from Bob Ley.

And Vinto's distinction is exactly right when it comes to Florio. He focuses mainly, if not exclusively, on the business of football on and off the field. He has not come close to calling for a boycott. He also made it crystal clear, going in, that he has editorial independence when NBC bought PFT. She obviously did not have this arrangement; nobody at ESPN does.

And when it comes to the news business, NBC and ESPN are not on the same continent, much less the same zip code.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
ESPN long ago ceased to be a serious news organization if it ever was. It doesn't even pretend otherwise, apart from a few sanctimonious one offs from Bob Ley.
It does pretend otherwise, though. Every six months or so, there'll be a column from the ombudsman or public editor, or whatever they're calling it today quoting some ESPN exec and claiming that there is complete independence and blathering on about journalistic integrity and standards.

If ESPN had the stones to come right out and say she was suspended for biting the hand that feeds them, I'd have a lot less problem with it. But they continue to hide behind vague references to the "social media policy" rather than admit what we all know to be true.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Nobody paying attention takes that stuff seriously.

It does, though, provide nice fodder for faux outrage Deadspin articles.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
ESPN is not pushing her out, but her mission I believe is to get fired and then claim martyrdom.
This is ridiculous. She has a show on the network that advertising money is poured into. She’s not wrong on her views either. The Cowboys are disgusting to say players who don’t stand aren’t playing. It’s BS. Free Hill!
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Nobody paying attention takes that stuff seriously.

It does, though, provide nice fodder for faux outrage Deadspin articles.
This is correct - ESPN ceased being a serious news organization more than a decade ago.

Putting all that aside, the most shameful thing ESPN has ever done is to make people defend the otherwise execrable Jemele Hill.
 

gingerbreadmann

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
750
This is correct - ESPN ceased being a serious news organization more than a decade ago.

Putting all that aside, the most shameful thing ESPN has ever done is to make people defend the otherwise execrable Jemele Hill.
Gosh, you'd think they would have at least put out a press release when they ceased to be a Serious News Organization! I must have missed the memo. Serious News Organizations would never bend to the will of the almighty dollar, but even if they did, we would be wrong to call them out because serious people who are paying attention know that there is nothing more sacrosanct in the Real World than keeping your mouth away from the hand that feeds you, and that is the way it should be forever.

Agreed that the real tragedy in all this is that deep down Jemele Hill actually sucks and now we have to defend her. People forget that.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Gosh, you'd think they would have at least put out a press release when they ceased to be a Serious News Organization! I must have missed the memo. Serious News Organizations would never bend to the will of the almighty dollar, but even if they did, we would be wrong to call them out because serious people who are paying attention know that there is nothing more sacrosanct in the Real World than keeping your mouth away from the hand that feeds you, and that is the way it should be forever.
If the point you are attempting to make is that ESPN is no more compromised than any other news organization, go ahead and make that case and we'll have a discussion. I will note that the link you provided does not make that case, but then you already knew that.

If your point was to be a sarcastic asshole, then I'll just put you on ignore.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Gosh, you'd think they would have at least put out a press release when they ceased to be a Serious News Organization! I must have missed the memo. Serious News Organizations would never bend to the will of the almighty dollar, but even if they did, we would be wrong to call them out because serious people who are paying attention know that there is nothing more sacrosanct in the Real World than keeping your mouth away from the hand that feeds you, and that is the way it should be forever.

Agreed that the real tragedy in all this is that deep down Jemele Hill actually sucks and now we have to defend her. People forget that.
The press release came 14 years ago next month when ESPN cancelled Playmakers after a spectacular and critically acclaimed first season. Tom Brady was in his 4th season at age 26 and headed to his second Super Bowl. We can't even blame Goodell; that happened under Tagliabue's watch. Forget news organization, ESPN surrendered its street cred as an entertainment enterprise at that point.

Anyone who takes a dime from ESPN knows exactly what they are getting into. But it is the way of a child to want her cake and eat it too.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
I don't like Hill either, but it's like people aren't even bothering to read what she wrote. She was reacting to people calling on Dez and Dak and other Cowboys to defy Jerrah and kneel. She said she thought that was an unfair burden to place those players, and anyone who was that upset about it should take it up with Cowboys' sponsors. She also specifically said she wasn't calling on a boycott of Cowboy sponsors, just re-directing people who were calling on Cowboy players to put their own livelihoods at risk.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable take to me. ESPN is hopeflessly caught in the middle of all of this now and will continue to fuck it up at every turn.
Cowboy's sponsors=NFL sponsors=ESPN sponsors. If I call for a disatified folks to either boycott or "take things up" with my company's sponsor's after already being warned about my social media posting, I'm pretty damn happy to be only getting two weeks off. Many here were quick to jump on ESPN for tolerating the things that Schilling was posting before the shit hit the fan with him. YES the content of Hill's and Schilling's posts were vastly different, but both were equally stupid in the vacuum of the work place.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I barely watch ESPN anymore, but isn't part of the problem that they let their personalities have too much personality and none of them - outside maybe SVP - are talented like Dan Patrick or Kenny Mayne were? The channel seems to be entirely personality driven whenever I flick by or get stuck at an airport, but it's all just a bunch of yelling and hot takes.
Agreed. The anchors became bigger than the sports they cover.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
Cowboy's sponsors=NFL sponsors=ESPN sponsors. If I call for a disatified folks to either boycott or "take things up" with my company's sponsor's after already being warned about my social media posting, I'm pretty damn happy to be only getting two weeks off. Many here were quick to jump on ESPN for tolerating the things that Schilling was posting before the shit hit the fan with him. YES the content of Hill's and Schilling's posts were vastly different, but both were equally stupid in the vacuum of the work place.
Hill was commenting on an actual sports story that is sort of relevant right now. People were calling on Dak and other Cowboys to defy their owner and kneel and face the consequences. Her opinion was that it was unfair to ask these guys to put their actual livelihoods on the line now that Jerruh had gone and drawn the line, and that it would be more effective if they took it up with the Cowboys sponsors if they were that bothered by it.

It's a fine line, and I suppose reasonable minds can differ on whether she crosssed it (although if she cannot express that opinion I"m not sure how she can opine on the story at all). However, it is not in the same universe as Schilling's completely out-of-nowhere comments about transgendered bathrooms and nazi memorabilia that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that ESPN hired him to comment on.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Hill was commenting on an actual sports story that is sort of relevant right now. People were calling on Dak and other Cowboys to defy their owner and kneel and face the consequences. Her opinion was that it was unfair to ask these guys to put their actual livelihoods on the line now that Jerruh had gone and drawn the line, and that it would be more effective if they took it up with the Cowboys sponsors if they were that bothered by it.

It's a fine line, and I suppose reasonable minds can differ on whether she crosssed it (although if she cannot express that opinion I"m not sure how she can opine on the story at all). However, it is not in the same universe as Schilling's completely out-of-nowhere comments about transgendered bathrooms and nazi memorabilia that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that ESPN hired him to comment on.
I don't see the line as being all that fine. Believe me when I say I have no dog in this fight, Ms. Hill tweeted the following.

Or, how about not patronizing the advertisers who support the Cowboys? You can watch and do that, right?

This play always work. Change happens when advertisers are impacted. If you feel strongly about JJ's statement, boycott his advertisers.

If you strongly reject what Jerry Jones said, the key is his advertisers. Don't place the burden squarely on the players.

No it's not the same universe as Schilling. As I said the content is vastly different, but the vehicle and the employer are the same. ESPN, similarly to the NFL, finds itself in a position of trying to close the barn door after the horse has been set loose.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
Deitsch thinks hill will be gone from ESPN within months. don't have link but he wrote it. Said writing is on wall and actions of admin suggest she's done.

Meanwhile I am watching Ryan Clark on M&M this am. Maybe he is being groomed to replace her? He isn't polished but he has real opinion that aren't just hot takes
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,380
I moved all the Barstool Van Talk...talk to the Barstool thread. It works in either spot but there were two discussions happening so figured it was best to put it in one place.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,962
Florida
Aug 24, 2017
397
John Skipper is doing a terrible job. People go to Twitter for Breaking News and so now he wants to ensure his organization is never the one doing it?
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,605
The Eastern Suburbs
Is the idea the opposite - that he only wants his organisation doing it under an official banner, not a journalist? It's not unheard of. Most newspapers would tweet breaking news under their banner, with links driving the traffic to their site, not let individual journalists do it themselves. ESPN isn't journalism but I think it's still a relevant comparison.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,308
So during the draft, or at the trade deadline or the start of free agency, instead of refreshing twitter where I can easily find out all the news instantly espn expects me to... I'm not really sure, be refreshing their website over the over and hope I see the news after they review and post it? Or watch their tv coverage which is almost always delayed in reporting anything. Yeah this seems like a great idea.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
So basically they want to turn back the clock on the social media news age and go back to the days where you had to tune into a single channel for all the news. A return to the days when individuals weren't allowed to stand out on ESPN airwaves.

I can see where the ESPN execs think that's a great idea for the brand, but the genie is out of the bottle. People follow Schefter for NFL and Woj for NBA and so on. Habits are tough to break.

And there's no way they're getting me to follow a central ESPN twitter for breaking news. Guarantee they'd flood it with nonsense and ads in between the headlines...shit I don't want clogging up my feed. There's a reason I don't watch the channel (outside of a live game or two) or visit the site, but follow their reporters. I just want the facts.
 

Rusty13

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
5,351
There is no way Schefter will live under this new "social media news rule" long term. His whole brand was built on breaking news and being THE source for all NFL related scoops.

He has built up enough sources and independent reputation and credibility to survive beyond the ESPN umbrella, and I would not be surprised to see him bolt over this once his contract is up. I would think Woj is also at the same level, even though he JUST became an ESPN employee.
 

budcrew08

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2007
8,558
upstate NY
As a journalist, this doesn't read as "ESPN reporters can't break news," it reads that they need do it more on things like ESPN.com, etc. for example, they may want a story on the dot com about a trade or whatever and then linking to that. Still means Schefter and the rest can still break news, it's just a different way to do it.
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
9,534
Kernersville, NC
As a journalist, this doesn't read as "ESPN reporters can't break news," it reads that they need do it more on things like ESPN.com, etc. for example, they may want a story on the dot com about a trade or whatever and then linking to that. Still means Schefter and the rest can still break news, it's just a different way to do it.
It’s not breaking news if you have to write an article. Every minute (or second) counts when you are scooping a story.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I would guess that the breaking news will be a link to a story--albeit a short one--on ESPN.com. So if Wojo tweets out, "Shaq making a comeback! See: www.espn.go.com", the story will be very short like, "NBA Hall-of-Famer Shaquille O'Neal is mulling a comeback to the league. More details to follow."

At least, that's what I think that they're looking for. This way, Twitter isn't getting all the traffic, ESPN.com is getting some too. Because wasn't it just a Tweet like, "Shaq making a comeback."? That's it, with no link.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
I would guess that the breaking news will be a link to a story--albeit a short one--on ESPN.com. So if Wojo tweets out, "Shaq making a comeback! See: www.espn.go.com", the story will be very short like, "NBA Hall-of-Famer Shaquille O'Neal is mulling a comeback to the league. More details to follow."

At least, that's what I think that they're looking for. This way, Twitter isn't getting all the traffic, ESPN.com is getting some too. Because wasn't it just a Tweet like, "Shaq making a comeback."? That's it, with no link.
Or it may just be a tweet from ESPN directly: "Woj reporting Shaq may make a comeback." Instead of breaking it on their own handles, they improve the brand by breaking on their accounts. Which, yes are full of other crap, but it is other crap ESPN really wishes you paid attention to.
 

budcrew08

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2007
8,558
upstate NY
I would guess that the breaking news will be a link to a story--albeit a short one--on ESPN.com. So if Wojo tweets out, "Shaq making a comeback! See: www.espn.go.com", the story will be very short like, "NBA Hall-of-Famer Shaquille O'Neal is mulling a comeback to the league. More details to follow."

At least, that's what I think that they're looking for. This way, Twitter isn't getting all the traffic, ESPN.com is getting some too. Because wasn't it just a Tweet like, "Shaq making a comeback."? That's it, with no link.
If I had to guess, I think this is the answer.
Although the story would lead with that line, there'd be a couple hundred words of filler: O'Neal retired after winning X championships and was an analyst for TNT, etc etc.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,605
The Eastern Suburbs
Yes, indeed. I don't even think it's unreasonable. How many journalists across real news are being paid for their names?

So during the draft, or at the trade deadline or the start of free agency, instead of refreshing twitter where I can easily find out all the news instantly espn expects me to... I'm not really sure, be refreshing their website over the over and hope I see the news after they review and post it? Or watch their tv coverage which is almost always delayed in reporting anything. Yeah this seems like a great idea.
This is interesting because the answer is, obviously, yes. Like in real actual news. It's not exactly groundbreaking.
 

garlan5

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2009
2,684
Virginia
It might sound silly but it could be the one hail mary that could save the brand. If they did a total overhaul of their shitty website and streamlined everything and had a redirect from (ex) Adam Schefter with something like "breaking nfl news".... hyperlinked to a totally redone website it might work. They would need to clean the site up by getting rid of the auto play videos and keep any ads up top or on the side but everything else important in a clean fashion. Stop the bait and click b.s that everyone is doing. Nothing makes me more mad than clicking on a article and having to "read more"
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
Everyone in media seems to believe that Twitter is an extremely important component to the industry, and it is, but it has been a struggle to make it financially prosperous. In short, people reading tweets does not directly equal a media company making money. If ESPN has Schefter breaking all this news on Twitter, they are not really seeing any financial gain from that, except in a roundabout fashion involving people identifying Schefter as a reliable source of breaking news, and since he works at ESPN that means ESPN.com is the best place for reliable breaking news.

Under the new model, they would still have all the scoops from Schefter and Woj, but by linking it to their website like JMOH indicated, they would be able to bring people directly to the site, as opposed to just letting them read all the news on Twitter without hitting up ESPN.com.
 

Leskanic's Thread

lost underscore
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,775
Los Angeles
But isn't the issue with this that, if they have reporters post breaking news on Twitter in the form of a link to the ESPN website, that someone else will just tweet out what it says on the website and then get all the retweets (since that has all the info)?

As someone was saying earlier, I guess I could see this working a little better if it all means that a centralized ESPN account is doing all the news-breaking, with people like Schefter and Woj having direct access to posting there for time-sensitive material. But then that is presumably going to also have a ton of other clutter on it (to try to push more traffic to the site in non-breaking news situations). Or, if they go with a "breaking news only" Twitter account, that will have the same basic problem: it will break the news but not necessarily drive traffic anywhere.

Man, it has to suck running a media outlet these days.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,881
Twin Bridges, Mt.
ESPN is pathetic and I hate Mike Greenberg. I clicked on the M&M show for a minute yesterday and he is just short of this.

"This question brought to you by Quality Insurance company, Mike, did you see that hit on Sunday?" He f'n sucks and I hope his new show goes deep into the tank!
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
ESPN is pathetic and I hate Mike Greenberg. I clicked on the M&M show for a minute yesterday and he is just short of this.

"This question brought to you by Quality Insurance company, Mike, did you see that hit on Sunday?" He f'n sucks and I hope his new show goes deep into the tank!
Wha?