I was very surprised to read this on the ESPN website. The author goes into great detail and has done a lot of research about how ESPN has lost its journalistic integrity. It is worth reading.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=ombudsman&id=501
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I remember I wrote a similar paper in college four years ago. Mainly discussing how ESPN creates and manipulates public opinion, which I think they are very aware and proud of.
Kinda like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Daily Show, any news media outlet not named NPR. When money is on the line, you proverbially milk the cow. That's why I like NPR; profit is not their bottom line.
NPR has its own agenda as well. Basically, all media manipulate.
I'm convinced CSPAN is the only 100% unbiased news source.
At Thanksgiving, my family had a brief discussion about news sources and we all pretty much ended up agreeing that if you want straight news, then PBS, BBC, and Al-Jazeera are the ways to go.
I think the conflict regarding ESPN is pointed out early in the linked column. Are they an entertainment company or a journalism company? If they're entertainment, then they're gonna be chasing dollars by giving people things that will entertain them. If they're a journalism company, then they need to beef up their game with a few more Bob Ley types.
Either way, I'm glad to hear this coming from someone who works there.
I'm trying to imagine my family agreeing that PBS and Al Jazeera are good news outlets, and it's hilarious. Most of them are more into "fair and balanced" coverage, if you catch my drift
"If you watch TV news you know less about the world than if you just drank gin straight from the bottle." Garrison Keillor
And now I have a new quote for my sig line. Thanks.
I'm in complete agreement on BBC - great for unbiased news. ESPN is an entertainment company by nature, and expecting it to be unbiased is unrealistic.
I'm just sad that a discussion on news becomes a thinly veiled discussion on politics. Not that any of of it is or isn't true, just that there's such an obvious connection.
As an avid NPR listener, I would differ in the categorization of their mission. Profit may not be the bottom line, but as the government $$$ has dwindled, they have become increasingly dependent on their contributors. That is basically a shareholder relationship.
Their contributors have a very clear demographic and the more the popular views that support that demographic are reinforced, the happier the contributors are. Their agenda is on display everyday, for much the same reason FoxNews is. Make the people happy, the money keeps rolling in (well, trickling in for NPR, but sufficient to keep the lights on)
And NPR has a monopoly. That's another discussion altogether.
I don't have enough "legs" to dole out any "legs" myself, so I'll just give you an informal "leg" by replying!
There is some definite truth to this. I can't deny that. I just find NPR most rational (i.e. lack of scare tactics). Maybe that's because I'm part of the demographic they target.
I'm not sure if I am part of their demographic or not, I consider myself an independent moderate and often vote for both parties on one ticket. But I like news and I like the style of pieces they put together (yes, I cry at StoryCorps every Friday morning).
But what I really like about NPR is identifying the easter eggs they throw out there every day in the perspective of their pieces that does cater to their demographic. Its very subtle but I think of it like a game. This morning they talked about Asaad piggybacking on NATO airstrikes but didn't criticize the State Dept's initial Syria reaction as part of the problem.
I also like NPR because it's polite news. I can't stand elevated voices talking about news, whether they are geopolitical or sports related. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I can sum up the value of NPR news coverage in one word: length. So many rush to be the first outlet to scoop a news story, and cover it badly because they put so much emphasis on being first they don't have time to get the story right. NPR doesn't seem to mind covering yesterday's news, but they will spend ten minutes on a subject that deserves ten minutes, where the other guys give it 30 seconds and then OH LOOK! SOMETHING SHINY!
(apologies for the long winded reply)
Thanks for posting. Very good article. I think Mr Lipsyte hit the nail on the head and touched on the thing that I always debate about. Is ESPN a Sport Journalism Company or just a Sports Entertainment Company?
To be true, they started as a Sports Entertainment Company. Back in the "rumbling, stumbling" days of ESPN some of the most controversial journalistic endeavors centered around what the nickname of a new player would be. It was about dissecting, analyzing and reviewing what we all just saw on TV from a purely sports entertainment perspective. Personally I don't see anything wrong with keeping to that. However, with the proliferation of online journalism, 24 hour media and social media reporting there is just so much access to what's behind what we see on TV during gameday. As THE sports juggernaut how do you not report on that? Can you imagine Ray Rice/Goddell incident happening and ESPN completely, and obviously, avoiding the topic and only reporting on what happened on the field? No way that could happen.
Which leads me to Mr Lipsyte's ESPN-J, something I have often considered. Why not set up a Chinese Wall and build an investigative branch dedicated to sports journalism? Something that could report on Ray Rice incidents with people that are more informed than former players, etc. The major problem with that is that after decades ESPN has built up the inroads and frankly control over sports and sports viewership that make these types of investigative journalism endeavors distinctly dangerous for them. Can you imagine if they consistently break stories of cover-ups, abuse of power, or what else on the NFL? When contracts come up in next cycle the NFL would be loathe to give to them because they are just going to get abused by the journalism side. It's a catch 22 for their business model and in all honesty they are a business.
This applies to their SEC TV rights as well. Yes, we ALL know they are biased and it sucks to constantly hear SEC this, SEC that but at the same time they are a business first and the SEC TV rights pays HUGE money. It's smart business.
I dislike a lot about ESPN but at the same time I watch and read it all the time. From where I live in Shanghai it is my second most visited sports site besides TKP. It's THE portal to sports even in a sea of a shit ton of television and online sports reporting.
Finally, despite everything, all schools like VT (non-national names prior to 90's) owe ESPN a lot. It may be seen as tangential but without ESPN (or some other company in its form) becoming a sports viewing portal for the nation, rural universities like VT would never have gotten the awareness. SI magazine was a great thing when I was growing up but it was something that only reached die hard sports fans and had only so many pages to report on every sport. ESPN and its national syndication changed everything. For the first time ever a mountain school called Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University was broadcast to the furthest reaches of sports fandom and when they beat Texas more people than ever said: WTF? and when the magic of '99 happened even more had the WTF moment. Everyone claims the bias helps keep SEC teams at the forefront and keeps the disparity of the haves and have-not's in sync but I would say that it has allowed more schools than ever to profit from football, and to help those schools, like VT, grow from obscurity to a national brand.
I'm not a lover of everyone on it, or the obvious bias, but I understand it. I would prefer they just own up to it and say they are not journalists. They are an entertainment only company. Nothing wrong with that.
Great post. Good points all around. This is what grinds my gears when people rail about ESPN. They are damn good at what they do. And what they do is produce entertainment, and access to a huge amount of sports and events. I don't read ESPN's blogs and opinion pieces, and I rarely watch any of their shows outside of SportsCenter (occasionally) and their All-Access shows, and that's because they are basically driven by the players and coaches. I do watch a TON of live sports on ESPN though, and that's what they're very good at producing. Some people like the other stuff they air, and that's fine; everyone just needs to realize the context under which ESPN is operating at this point.
Good stuff. I often roll my eyes at Hokies who whine about the SEC bias. They must be too young to remember the late 1990's when TheSabre did spoofs of VSPN, the Vick Sports Network. I remember those days with Mike Golic calling VT games on ESPN2. They made us, in a lot of ways. Beamer realized what was happening and went hat in hand to ESPN to put on on those Thursday nights and it built our brand.
My experience with ESPN has evolved over the years. I don't watch SC and I rarely even watch Gameday (it's often on when I'm making breakfast for the kids). I don't partake in ESPN.com at all. But I am thoroughly plugged into ESPNRadio, with 30+ mins of Mike/Mike in the morning and often catching some of SvP or Cowherd at lunch. At the gym, I'll often listen to the previous day's SvP. My frustration lies with the self-aggrandizing.
When Jaws says something like "Colin Kapernick can be the best QB ever!" on Mike/Mike then Cowherd covers it then SC has it on in the evening, it's ridiculous. Stop creating your own news. The NFL Draft, a behemoth born solely from ESPN studios, is full of 2-3 weeks of ESPNRadio sponsorship, of multiple experts covering the same dozen players. None of what they say matters or comes true. But the Emperor has created this monster and you look around and see the NFL Draft really has no clothes.
I have been a big proponent for years for someone other than ESPN to start covering college football with skill. We have seen the Fox package improve dramatically the last two years. CBS owns the #1 SEC game. NBC has (is stuck with?) Notre Dame. It's better than it was three years ago, but I would like to see CBS make a bigger play. I would like to see the Bowls broadcast on more channels. More competition is good.
Please tell me you only listen to Cowherd because you have to, not because you WANT to.
Cowherd....is.....an interesting case. I've listened to him since he's been on. He's become much more of a caricature the last two years than he was. He's morphed.
Richard Deitsch hates Cowherd and rips him constantly for his half-baked socioeconmic conclusions. I know where Deitsch is coming from, but I don't necessarily disagree with everything Cowherd is saying.
I'm, at heart, a contrarian so I connect with CC in that manner. But I also realize that he's just a master....um....troll (the 13 year old in me was tempted to say baiter). The way he brings ND, Tebow and USC football into discussions for no reasons is laughable.
I don't go out of my way to listen to CC. I do go out of my way for SvP, who I think is fantastic.
I used to enjoy listening to Cowherd. I certainly didn't agree with everything he spewed, but it was at least entertaining. And God knows I still think his rant against UVA fans was/is the greatest rant ever! But he lost me as a listener several years ago when he decided to make a political statement on air and shared his very negative views about a political party. I listened for his often wacky but usually entertaining look at the sports world. I don't want to hear his personal (slanted) take on politics. And I've not listened to him since.
SvP is great, and one of the few national ESPN guys I can stomach. Le Betard isn't bad either, but not sure if he counts as national
I 100% agree with everything here.
SvP is awesome, and a great listen. The thing about Cowherd is that he's not a bad listen when he's not on his show. I've heard him do other podcasts and things like that, and he's great on those.
I think they're both, which is why they take a lot of heat. They do some investigative reporting, and I'm sure articles/ideas have been silenced in order to respect business agreements, but that's the way it is everywhere. E60, Outside the Lines and (sort of) 30 For 30, are all journalistic productions, OTL being exclusively investigative reporting. While OTL isn't aired often, it does provide a lot of breaking stories.
I also want to add that ESPN has revolutionized view technology. The are the first media outlet I can think of to provide live online streaming.
Finally, I think their 'bias' is over-exaggerated, especially on online message boards like this one. The NFL is without a doubt the most popular league in America. I do think the SEC is clearly the best conference. Maybe not as deep as ESPN claims, but I do think they would win a majority of games if they lined up head to head (1v1, 2v2, etc) against any conference. It does irk me when I see E$PN or ESECPN.
Great post. Phantom "leg" for you too!
I also see what you did there. Shanghai? Chinese Wall? You very clever man...
The ESPN-J thing in the high schools sounds a lot like Hitler-youth journalists to me. No thanks.
This whole piece is focused on Sports as news and addressing social wrongs through sports windows. Its just squirmy and weird in many ways.
I get the points about wanting to keep pressure on certain uncovered issues to be sure that the end result (change) is instituted for the greater good.
But some of the PC stuff and establishing a bunch of high school level tattle tales in the guise of improving journalism is N/A and has many social drawbacks he didn't address. That is a community none of us want.
Leg simply for the absurdity of going Godwin on ESPN. Looking forward to the Downfall spoof.
I just re-read that part of the article and you are right. It was absurd, I mis-read that section and thought he was recommending something else. The workshop idea for journalism from high school on up to re-establish "working real journalism" is a good idea.
I respectfully apologize. I read it too fast and missed the meaning. Thanks for pointing that out in your own special way. I never meant to "go Godwin" on it, as you said. Sorry about that.
Interesting side note touched on in the article.
The president of ESPN is John Skipper-who grew up in Lexington, NC (yes, where American barbecue was perfected, praises be) and is a graduate of UNC-CH........
So I'm thinking: 'is there currently a story about student athletes at a particular NCAA participatory university that could be intriguing enough to investigate by a media entity powerful enough to get a foothold on the issue?'
(A quick search on the ESPN engine of 'Chapel Hill NCAA academics' revealed only 22 entries over the past 2+ years-last was dated October, 2014)
Great point! And even better catch!
BTW, I grew near Lexington, and while I love Lexington style chopped barbecue, I have to admit that I favor the down east styles a little more. Wilbur's and King's immediately come to mind.
B's Barbecue in Greeneville is really good, too. I like Wilbur's better than King's, but it's probably more about the atmosphere than the actual barbecue.
I can understand that about Wilbur's.
On a side note... Halleluiah, Holy Shit! I can now give out Turkey Legs. It's a happy day!
Yeah, I helped all I could with that. I found several of your comments to be leg-worthy. Gotta respect a former Hokie player and a barbecue aficionado.
This is a great article. Not exactly what I was expecting, and pretty long, but worth the read.
By the way, this is what the ESPN ombudsman should do. He's gotta pull up the curtain.
If you like stuff like this, catch Richard Deitsch's weekly column on SI.com that comes out Monday AM's. He covers sports media and is often both critical and supportive of ESPN. He weeds out the useful stuff from Deadspin and AwfulAnnouncing that is useful, not just their normal ESPN hate.
ESPN has gotten too big for its own good. They control every aspect of the system, from the narrative, to what's actually being reported. They do a very unhealthy blend of both journalism and sensationalism where they pass each off as the other. And even worse yet, they're in bed with a select few entities too much to the point where they legitimately control both supply and demand for the sports world.
First of all, ABC and ESPN need to split. Secondly, ESPN needs to split their entertainment and their journalistic entities. Their credibility has been destroyed over the pandering of their entertainment endeavors to appease their sponsors, which bleeds into their journalistic integrity to the point where their legitimate news writers aren't allowed to do proper newsworthy stories.
Microsoft was split up in the 90s because they got too big for their britches and controlled too much of the marketplace for there to be legitimate competition. The same now applies to ESPN. I am in complete favor of the government stepping in and forcing the divide.
ABC and ESPN are split. Each is a separate 'property' of disney. ESPN is no longer under ABC in the corporate hierarchy.
This is an interesting concept. I might even suggest three departments: Journalism/reporting, entertainment, and Live Broadcasts. It's just tough, because there is so much overlap.
Mmm disagree here. This will never be the case as long as CBS/FOX have rights to NFL, CBS has rights to SEC, etc. Also, in the age of the internet, SB Nation, Deadspin, beat writers online and privately owned forums/blogs/etc (like TKP), ESPN will never be big enough to violate anti-trust laws.
My biggest problem with ESPN is that they act like frustrated op-ed writers and focus way too much on social commentary disguised as sports coverage. I don't really care to hear what a bunch of sanctimonious jock-sniffers with a computer and a microphone think about social issues.
By my read, it sounds like the ombudsman wants more of that, not less.
BINGO!! Nailed it!
Gimme some charts, and some stats to look at. Show me some top plays and i'm good. I don't want my sports network in on anything else but the games and the results. The major news networks are bad enough, I don't want ESPN spoon feeding America their social opinions as well.
I felt like the writer was arguing more for a news program like 60 minutes with investigative journalism that goes for the real scoop as opposed to 'LeBron has Egg McMuffin for breakfast: Has he given up on the season?' kind of headlines. More stories about the shadiness of recruiting or the life of a minor league baseball player, the stories which could be fascinating but nobody funds. Having former players be on panels used to be a good thing for me, but I can't watch NFL Countdown or other shows where it's ex-players giving no new info/toeing the company line. Honestly, Michael Sam, Ray Rice, and similar social issue stories may have been covered excessively, but I'm not opposed to seeing them on ESPN since it does pertain to sports. There's no way to appease everyone, but that doesn't mean ESPN can only appeal to the lowest common denominator and not be great journalists.
It's ok to cover it but at some point it becomes too much.
I was watching sportscenter once and that little scrolling thing that has to upcoming stories on it, it had the Ray Rice Controversy listed twice at the same time.
When I want to watch sports, I want to escape for a little bit. This was getting my head pounded into the wall with it. I didn't watch sportscenter for a few weeks afterward.
Now that I'm out of the habit, the only time Iwatch is when I'm at the local bar that keeps the TV on ESPN.
My problem is whether the dog is wagging the tail or the tail is wagging the dog?
An example would be Michael Sam...was it really a big sports story or was it a sports story that became big through repetition? My opinion would be that if it had just been reported as a sports news item, it would have simply gotten a collective shrug -- as in "didn't we just go through this a few months ago with Jason Collins...?".
But instead ESPN (and others to a lesser extent) kept at it...discussing the impact, the implications, etc. etc., when in fact, the impact and implications were negligible in sports beyond making Michael Sam into some kind of cause celebre.
The Michael Sam thing was an interesting scenario. It almost got to the point that it was a story purely so that the media (ESPN) could pat itself on the back about how tolerant they were and about how progressive and forward thinking they were throughout the process. But in doing so, they went so far with it that it almost came off as incredibly bigoted because there was more focus by the media on the sexuality of the player than his abilities on the field of play. Was almost a classic "I have black friends, too... see?" move as a whole by them that really didn't come across very well at all. I mean at one point they kept hounding Rams players about how controversial a player Sam was in the lockerroom and how the other players were going to act around him in the showers, when there was absolutely no inclination at any point during the entire process that there was any issue at all. They were creating the issue in an effort to create controversy so they could have something to report on and continue pressing a narrative that simply wasn't there.