The ESPN Bloodbath

[peestandingup]

1. There is a difference between a perspective and a "bias".  For instance: I have a liberal perspective, but I am not biased, in that, for example, I would not deny that Obama drone bombing children or taking $400K for a speech to bankers is bullshit.
2. I didn't say there's no bias in sport coverage.  I said ESPN sure as shit isn't anything close to "liberal".
3.  Is there anything in what the podcasters state that is "biased"? No.  The podcasters definitely have a perspective. To call them biased, you'd need to actually know about them and be familiar with their work, not simply who owns the forum under which they publish.  Outkick, and Clay Travis himself, however, have made very clear that they are hanging their hats on the white resentment angle of sports.
4. Good try at a quick takedown without actually thinking about what you were saying.

Uh huh, and you're here to set me straight is that right?. Lol. That sure is a whole lotta words to defend a shitty sports blog that constantly finds ways to work in social issues to their coverage & dogging the political right every chance they can, while having headlines like calling people idiots & telling Ted Cruz to eat shit after an obvious joke on Twitter (and sick burn I might add). But whatevs.

I don't even watch sports, but I know a lot of people who do. And I'll go out on a limb & say those types prob don't appreciate their sports being mixed with politics & the social strife of whatever group the left have deemed the special flavor of the month.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

And I'll go out on a limb & say those types prob don't appreciate their sports being mixed with politics & the social strife of whatever group the left have deemed the special flavor of the month.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. 

Michael Sam could give blowjobs on the sidelines as long as he was getting 2-3 sacks a game.

Kaep could take a massive shit on the flag, during the anthem, wearing an Assad is my People t-shirt if he came out and threw 425/4/0.

It's a cliche, but "Just win, baby!".  How many 2nd and 3rd tier guys fart at the wrong time and find their contract terminated?  Arians cut a guy (Okoye) for parking in the wrong spot to prove a point. 

Talent supercedes politics, gender identity and sexual preference, so when you start programming around the latter 3 and the players aren't putting up a bunch of "W"s, it's going to turn people off.

[RattlerGator]

Hm, yes, they promoted some black people and have suggested transgender people are human beings who deserve respect. Pretty damning stuff, RattlerGator.

Real nice of you to throw in "fake the funk" and "shiznit" when discussing said black people, too. Establishes street cred.

Yeah, that's the ticket. It bothers me that they promoted some black people. And yeah, I come to MetroJax to get some street cred.

Wowza. Did Stephen Dare do a damn mind-meld with you?

[bill]

If you're denying that ESPN has *seriously* and blatantly invoked leftwing politics into its broadcast, you need to wake the hell up and you're probably seriously surprised Donald Trump is President of these United States.

Because what they've done isn't open for debate.

When you have a young-ish black male and young-ish black female who are bigtime Barack Obama fans as the anchors for your flagship evening sports show -- well damn, what is there left to say? Anchors, by the way, who don't even know how to fake the funk while theoretically attempting the process of going down the middle of a sports-related political issue (mind you, I like what both of them do but I'm smart enough to know, and sensible enough to know, that shiznit just ain't gonna fly nationally).

When you force a fawning and one-sided discussion of Bruce Jenner, who many people believe is mentally disturbed with sex identity confusion -- well damn, what is there left to say?

When you have to be shamed, shamed!, to take down an essay from a cop-killing fugitive from your espnW website -- -- well damn, what is there left to say?

They made a series of idiotic decisions and have gift-wrapped a ready-made audience for competitors. That's not smart. Not smart at all.

Really,the non sports people do not get a say. ESPN jumped the shark in the 90s now it is MSNBC. CNN thinks they are too liberal.

[spuwho]

The Caitlin Jenner courage award thing in particular sat VERY poorly with me. No issue whatsoever if Bruce is now Caitlin-America is a free country, and she has every right to live her life in her manner.

My frustration in this is twofold:

1. Bruce Jenner won the decathalon in 1976. He (now she) has been completely irrelevant in the sports world since shortly after this. Nearly 40 years later, how is she relevant to sports?
2. There were two MUCH better candidates: Lauren Hill and Noah Galloway. Both were relevant in the sports world in 2015.

The homosexuality coverage I have no issue with-it's a locker room dynamic discussion, and I'm fine with it.

The Black Lives Matter coverage I think is MUCH less relevant. Not really sure what they hoped to accomplish there.

In short, ESPN has gotten too far away from on field coverage. Watch a tape of ESPN's prime time lineup from 1996, and compare it to today. Much more subjective analysis. When you enter a world where people have personal feelings, it's a no-win situation.

Anyone who has read Bruce Jenner's biography and the ones by his ex-wives will get a good picture that sports was never that important to him.  Golf perhaps. Girls underwear, most definitely.

When he finished his last event (pole vault) in the Olympics that confirmed his gold, he didn't even go back and pick up his gear.  He got his medal, left town, hired a publicist and immediately went to work to cash in on the recognition.  He treated his drive for recognition like he treated his training for the gold.  His first wife was just there to pay the bills and keep him company.

Some do sport for fun, some do it for the money, he did it because he wanted to be famous, strictly a means.  After all these years, he hasn't changed, it has been the same person the whole time.

[JBTripper]

Who's going to tune in to see a few hand-selected highlights that are inevitably going to be 98% large-market teams that you don't care about anyway?

A lot of people used to tune in for these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/v/U7c0vzeXxGw

That's a clip from 1998 that's now available on-demand on YouTube. I think you just proved my point.

[JBTripper]

Just show more sports highlights, plain and simple. Show me how the game progressed, what plays changed momentum, and keep the drama to the what occurred on field.

Not to mention, the coverage is completely biased toward large market teams. That is understandable to a large extent, but don't expect me to watch NFL Tonight if its all about the Cowboys.

This ship has sailed. They might as well describe the sports highlights in writing, print them on broadsheets, and deliver them to your house the next day. That is to say, a sports highlight show in 2017 is as outdated as a newspaper.

If I'm watching a Gator game on TV and a highlight happens, the Gators' Twitter account posts the clip before the commercial break. Fans can watch the exact highlight they want to see on demand literally seconds after the highlight occurs. Who's going to tune in to see a few hand-selected highlights that are inevitably going to be 98% large-market teams that you don't care about anyway?

I feel that way, too - I only care about the Jags and to an extend teams we are playing, I don't want to sit through an hour of clips and analysis of teams I couldn't care less about. On the other hand, I don't need to see *every* clip from a game I've just watched. Maybe in the future someone will perfect curating the best clips to each team in one place. I'd watch that a lot more than I'd watch Sports Center.

It's not perfect, but your Facebook feed is already pretty good at this. Like the official pages of the teams you care about, and your timeline will serve up highlights for all the teams you care about. Already lots more people watching Facebook than ESPN!

[TimmyB]

As if their extreme self-promotion (the ESP from their name) wasn't enough, they continue to show how in touch they are with reality with their wonderful "bottom line" on the screen.  Yeah, in 2017 we really need that to keep up with scores of other games in other sports, right?  It was nice, but as others have said, IN THE NINETIES!  Trying to stay relevant, not really succeeding with it.

[I-10east]

I stopped watching ESPN a long time ago. Their collapse was inevitable. I'm sure that they will continue to double down with the liberal propaganda; they pretty much are doing that now (by retaining the most divisive 'personality' on there, Jemele Hill). Fox Sports 1 is quickly becoming the preferred sports choice for many. Disney basically turned ESPN into left leaning mainstream news. Another reason to hate Disney.     

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Who's going to tune in to see a few hand-selected highlights that are inevitably going to be 98% large-market teams that you don't care about anyway?

A lot of people used to tune in for these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/v/U7c0vzeXxGw

That's a clip from 1998 that's now available on-demand on YouTube. I think you just proved my point.

I hope so.   I am agreeing with you.

[JBTripper]

Who's going to tune in to see a few hand-selected highlights that are inevitably going to be 98% large-market teams that you don't care about anyway?

A lot of people used to tune in for these guys.

https://www.youtube.com/v/U7c0vzeXxGw

That's a clip from 1998 that's now available on-demand on YouTube. I think you just proved my point.

I hope so.   I am agreeing with you.

Word. People so seldom agree with me so I'm never sure how to respond.

[Tacachale]

It's interesting that so many comment here are about ESPN's politics, when even original article says that "An obsession with politics didn't doom ESPN" compared to the other factors, and that "politics was a symptom, rather than a root cause, of all these current issues." Even if it's a problem for them, it's not nearly so much as the cost of cord cutting, declining ratings, distaste with "Sports Shouting"-style programs, budget issues like overpaying for broadcast rights, and increasing competition with free content providers like social media, team websites, local sports radio for those in the car, etc. Other than occasional games I want to see when I'm in a place that gets ESPN, I tuned it out so long ago that I didn't even know it's adopted a political slant, and I doubt I'm the only one.

[Adam White]

Sweet sassy molassy!

[thelakelander]

It's interesting that so many comment here are about ESPN's politics, when even original article says that "An obsession with politics didn't doom ESPN" compared to the other factors, and that "politics was a symptom, rather than a root cause, of all these current issues." Even if it's a problem for them, it's not nearly so much as the cost of cord cutting, declining ratings, distaste with "Sports Shouting"-style programs, budget issues like overpaying for broadcast rights, and increasing competition with free content providers like social media, team websites, local sports radio for those in the car, etc. Other than occasional games I want to see when I'm in a place that gets ESPN, I tuned it out so long ago that I didn't even know it's adopted a political slant, and I doubt I'm the only one.

Ditto!

[spuwho]

It's interesting that so many comment here are about ESPN's politics, when even original article says that "An obsession with politics didn't doom ESPN" compared to the other factors, and that "politics was a symptom, rather than a root cause, of all these current issues." Even if it's a problem for them, it's not nearly so much as the cost of cord cutting, declining ratings, distaste with "Sports Shouting"-style programs, budget issues like overpaying for broadcast rights, and increasing competition with free content providers like social media, team websites, local sports radio for those in the car, etc. Other than occasional games I want to see when I'm in a place that gets ESPN, I tuned it out so long ago that I didn't even know it's adopted a political slant, and I doubt I'm the only one.

You do raise a good point.

When ESPN last paid out to the NFL for their access to football, they turned right around and raised the fees on their radio network carriage rights.

Much of ESPN Radio carriage is by small local stations who wanted access to the sports talk. When ESPN raised their rates, many of these stations revolted and switched to Fox Sports Radio. They had no way to pass on the cost of carriage to their advertisers, as many of these small town broadcasters work on a shoe string budget as it is.

How do you explain to Harry's Furniture in Smalltown USA that he has to pay 25% more for his ads, when the stations ratings havent changed in 15 years?

Knowing they cant absorb the ESPN increase, they switch. ESPN loses carriage revenue gradually.