Photo

National Sports Media (2012-2019)


  • Please log in to reply
2192 replies to this topic

#1 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 21,252 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

How ESPN Ditched Journalism and Followed Skip Bayless to the Bottom: A Tim Tebow Story

http://deadspin.com/... ... socialflow
  • BSLChrisStoner, Greg Pappas and DuffMan like this

#2 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:18 PM

Good article. It's sad that Skip Bayless has in a lot of ways become the face of ESPN. When you start allowing guys who are all schtick to drive your content you know you're headed down a bad path.
  • Greg Pappas likes this

#3 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,415 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:28 PM

Awesome article. Now we know why they force certain teams and players down our throats...because they can and people continue to watch. Well, not me.

I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#4 DuffMan

DuffMan

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,765 posts
  • LocationLinthicum, MD

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:44 AM

Fantastic article. Hadn't really realized how bad they've gotten, but I guess that will happen as I stopped watching their shows years ago.
  • Greg Pappas likes this

#5 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,027 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:56 AM

The problem is that it is a self-perpetuating cycle. They started doing more debate crap and fewer highlights, so people start looking elsewhere for those, be it on branded networks (MLB, NFL, etc.) or online. The people who are left want more debate crap so that is what ESPN puts on, and more people start looking for news elsewhere.

This is a TV-wide problem. The primary music networks (MTV, VH1, CMT) show almost no music; it is mostly reality programming with some scripted shows mixed in. TLC went from The Learning Channel to Kate Gosslin, Sarah Palin and Honey Boo Boo. The History Channel is all Pawn Stars and Ancient Aliens. Networks start coming up with shows in different genres that still fit their brand, they become extremely popular so the networks come up with more ideas and eventually move away from what made them worth watching in the first place.

It is also why the next media revolution is going to be a revolt against cable television as people cut off their service in favor of online and on-demand streaming.
  • Greg Pappas likes this

#6 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,483 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:52 PM

The problem is that it is a self-perpetuating cycle. They started doing more debate crap and fewer highlights, so people start looking elsewhere for those, be it on branded networks (MLB, NFL, etc.) or online. The people who are left want more debate crap so that is what ESPN puts on, and more people start looking for news elsewhere.

This is a TV-wide problem.

Right, but it's even worse than the examples you used. It's true about what we laughingly refer to as TV-news. Those folks don't follow what matters about how the country's doing, they just take turns following the same distractions and reporting on how other people among them are reporting on the same BS.

That's how we got an entire national election with virtually no discussion of the things that actually matter to the country's well-being. That's how we have all kinds of morons spreading BS stories about the non-cliff "fiscal cliff". That's how we have them all giving 47 updates per day about David Petraeus while none of them are talking about important stuff. That's how we had both candidates talking as if they think American jobs matter while neither one of them talked about how a factory in Illinois that made record profits is right now being moved to China when the Illinois workers are making just $17/hour to make megabucks for the company that's firing them all.

What we don't have is journalism that adds-value in the sense of sifting through the BS and telling us what's important to know. That happens nowhere. It's not that it can't be done in ways that hold interest. Hollywood and TV-types know how to make anything riveting if they want to. The reason they're not doing it is because it's easier to do the crappy stuff. You don't have to do any homework, you don't have to know what you're talking about, all you have to do is follow a formula and churn it out... no brain required, just makeup...

 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#7 Adam Wolff

Adam Wolff

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,261 posts
  • LocationWaynesboro, PA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:55 PM

Great article.

I heard this while watching the Butler/Xavier game, but Deadspin put an article up about it as well..

Bob Wischusen says..

Didn't we get word from Bristol that we had actually allowed like 11 minutes of ESPN airtime to go by without mentioning Tebow? I think that's the standard company rule. Every 15 minutes of every program, regardless of what sport is being aired, Tim Tebow must be mentioned. So good job of you following the company line.


http://deadspin.com/... ... socialflow

@AdamWolff


 


#8 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:26 PM

It will get harder and harder to maintain any level of quality in journalism. As for websites and mobile, the issue is that a company knows EXACTLY what draws clicks online and what does not. The unfortunate reality is that a cheerleader gallery draws more clicks (hence ad money) than well-reported, worthwhile stories....and it's cheaper.

#9 BSLMichaelWeber

BSLMichaelWeber

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,447 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:35 AM

Skip Bayless is a total joke and it's sad that they employ him, let alone feature him.

It's even more sad that his shtick influences the rest of ESPN so much.

With that said, I actually like the format of First Take, but of course they need more intelligent, logical debaters.
  • Greg Pappas likes this

#10 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,854 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:39 AM

It is also why the next media revolution is going to be a revolt against cable television as people cut off their service in favor of online and on-demand streaming.


If I could figure out how to get ESPN without cable/satellite (the live sports, obviously, not the other garbage) then I'd have already cut the cord. But the cable providers quickly caught on and got in cahoots with ESPN to take more events off of their internet streaming medium (ESPN3) and migrated it to WatchESPN, which you can only access if you have a cable TV account. And since ESPN's business model relies so heavily on the subscribers fees they collect, they of course are going to do whatever they can to help the cable/satellite providers protect their business model (bundling hundreds of channels to customers who mostly watch only a few of them). There are some RSNs that are doing the same thing too....the new Pac-12 Network among them.

You mentioned the History Channel....most of the things they showed back in the day, the shows that I liked, are now on the new H2 channel. I'm sure a chunk of the recent increase in my bill was so I could have the "privilege" of getting that channel. But that's not why I still keep my DirecTV subscription. I'm sure I could find that programming online somewhere whenever I felt like it. It's the live sports that will keep most people hooked....that's the one thing that "on-demand" programming doesn't seem to have influenced. People still want to see sporting events as they happen. If that weren't the case, the next media revolution may have already happened.

#11 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,027 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:01 PM

If I could figure out how to get ESPN without cable/satellite (the live sports, obviously, not the other garbage) then I'd have already cut the cord. But the cable providers quickly caught on and got in cahoots with ESPN to take more events off of their internet streaming medium (ESPN3) and migrated it to WatchESPN, which you can only access if you have a cable TV account. And since ESPN's business model relies so heavily on the subscribers fees they collect, they of course are going to do whatever they can to help the cable/satellite providers protect their business model (bundling hundreds of channels to customers who mostly watch only a few of them). There are some RSNs that are doing the same thing too....the new Pac-12 Network among them.

You mentioned the History Channel....most of the things they showed back in the day, the shows that I liked, are now on the new H2 channel. I'm sure a chunk of the recent increase in my bill was so I could have the "privilege" of getting that channel. But that's not why I still keep my DirecTV subscription. I'm sure I could find that programming online somewhere whenever I felt like it. It's the live sports that will keep most people hooked....that's the one thing that "on-demand" programming doesn't seem to have influenced. People still want to see sporting events as they happen. If that weren't the case, the next media revolution may have already happened.

Right now it's a game of chicken. Most cable networks know that without guaranteed subscriber fees they couldn't survive, so cable companies refuse to offer a la carte options to avoid getting the big corporate parents of those networks angry. Then the big networks (like HBO and ESPN) can't try to create their own options on their own at risk of angering the cable companies.

HBO offers a subscription streaming service internationally. You have to figure that they will launch the same thing in the US at some point in the near future. At that point, who knows what will happen?

#12 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,854 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:04 AM

Fox wants to take on the big boys at ESPN. It's quietly been in the works for some time, and while no official announcement has been made, details are gradually coming forth. Some highlights:

- It will be called Fox Sports 1, and you may already have the channel as part of your cable/satellite package, as consensus in the industry is that Fox will create it by re-branding the Speed Channel, which is currently in about 81 million US homes.
- Expect the launch in August 2013, although the big coming-out party will likely be the week leading up to Super Bowl XLVIII in New York, which Fox network will broadcast.
- Their live sports will mostly come from current rights deals with MLB, NASCAR, college basketball and football, soccer and UFC.
- They will also have studio programming and an evening news program, a la SportsCenter.
- They plan to run in-game advertising as part of a “double box” — an ad that runs in a box on-screen alongside the event footage, even during timeouts and other stoppages. When a game goes to commercial, a second box will pop up showing the ads, with video from the stadium or arena in a smaller box still on the screen.
- If Fox Sports 1 is successful, we could eventually see a Fox Sports 2 and even Fox Sports 3. Both of those channels could also end up being re-branded versions of existing Fox channels like Fuel TV and Fox Soccer Channel.

If anyone can compete with ESPN it's FOX. NBC's cable sports network hasn't been able to get much beyond second-tier sports properties, and is probably struggling big time right now with the NHL work stoppage. And CBS barely even tries with its cable sports network. But Fox already has enough good content for an all-sports network....and they have the money, plus willingness to spend it, to go after even more (the NBA in 2016, the Big Ten in 2017).

Here's a link that discusses some of the details I mentioned.
http://www.sportsbus...FoxSports1.aspx

#13 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 112,326 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:34 AM

I actually like a lot of things about what the NBC Sports Network is doing, but I agree that Fox is better prepared to compete.

I really despised the previous Fox Sports Net from back in the day.

Interesting, with the recent news around here, I see that Fox owns the Big Ten Network.

#14 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,415 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:29 AM

CBS is doing this too.

Over saturation, IMO.

I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#15 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,854 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

I actually like a lot of things about what the NBC Sports Network is doing, but I agree that Fox is better prepared to compete.

I really despised the previous Fox Sports Net from back in the day.

Interesting, with the recent news around here, I see that Fox owns the Big Ten Network.


I think NBC Sports Net does a great job covering events, they just don't have a lot in the way of top-tier events to offer. Even with Comcast's war chest, they've really only spent big for the Olympics thus far....although they did really try to get the Pac-12 a while back until Fox and ESPN actually teamed up against them.

Yeah, Fox owns 49% of BTN....and considering that partnership, plus the desire for more programming for their new venture, I think they will bid big for the Big Ten in 2017. Good news for the Terps!

#16 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,854 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:25 PM

CBS is doing this too.

Over saturation, IMO.


CBS's effort has been weak all along. They really only have mid-lower tier college sports. It only appeals to a small niche and many people probably wouldn't notice its gone if their cable company dropped it. But it's cheap, so no need to.

It's not over-saturation if you think about it. Fox is just re-branding an existing channel, but with better programming.

#17 Tucker Blair

Tucker Blair

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • LocationElkridge, MD

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:31 PM

Cool.

I know they are going to have the Australian Baseball League on this as well. Unfortunately, the Perth Heat (Orioles partnership club) already had their scheduled games broadcasted, so many of us were not able to see them.

Really wanted to see how Ohlman was doing. Oh well.

#18 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:45 PM

Basically every broadcast network will have a full-time cable sports network now, assuming you count ABC and ESPN as one (technically it's a joint venture with Disney owning ~80% and Hearst owning the remaining %). Only sports property I absolutely can't see ending up on cable is the Super Bowl(and likely Conference title games), good chance you'll eventually see more marquee events go to cable though.
@levineps

#19 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 12,854 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:09 PM

Basically every broadcast network will have a full-time cable sports network now, assuming you count ABC and ESPN as one (technically it's a joint venture with Disney owning ~80% and Hearst owning the remaining %). Only sports property I absolutely can't see ending up on cable is the Super Bowl(and likely Conference title games), good chance you'll eventually see more marquee events go to cable though.


The NFL has been the lone standout with regard to keeping the majority of its games on OTA. Pretty sure all of the recently negotiated extensions, save for the ESPN and NFL Network ones of course, do not allow for migration over to cable.

#20 Why Not?

Why Not?

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • LocationCharles Town, W.Va.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:27 PM

The more networks the merrier. I don't have cable or satellite TV, so I just want to be able to see what I want online.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners