|
|
 |
|
 |
|
THE CONTINUING DECLINE OF ESPN |
by By Brad Oremland
There's a lot happening in sports right now, and I'm skipping a number of topics I'd hoped to write about: Sidney Crosby and Alexander ovechkin, the Indianapolis Colts, the absurd and irresponsible overreaction to a piece written by my colleague Mert Ertunga (http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2005/12/28/best_and_worst_of_wta_tour_in_2005.php), women's college basketball, and especially the U.S. Treasury Department's arbitrary and malicious decision not to allow Cuba to choose a team that will play on U.S. soil in the World Baseball Classic, which had been a source of massive international goodwill and sportsmanship.
It kills me not to spend more space skewering the issues surrounding Cuba in the World Baseball Classic, but I can not ignore the current state of ESPN. As a sports fan in the United States, you can't avoid it, and the network's lineup affects virtually every sports fan in the country.
It's been almost 18 months since I wrote "The MTV-ization of ESPN” (http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2004/08/05/the_mtvization_of_espn.php), by far the most popular article I've done since joining Sports Central in 2002.
Since then, some of the problems I identified have been addressed, and the ESPN family of networks — I apologize for using that phrase — continues to do a good job of covering a number of sports events.
But ESPN also used 2005 to introduce simulated press conferences, ESPN Hollywood, an hour-long show devoted to Stephen A. Smith, and SportsCenter's inane "History in the Making” segment, not to mention lots of Chris Berman and the "1st and 10” guys. Between its television networks, radio programming, and immensely popular website, though, ESPN has also garnered an extraordinary amount of criticism and fan dissatisfaction. The self-proclaimed "worldwide leader” responded in July by hiring an ombudsman, George Solomon.
Many news outlets — especially newspapers — employ ombudsmen to serve as advocates for readers and publicly give an outsider's take on reporting. It is a difficult and demanding job which frequently leads to conflict with both readers and reporters, and ESPN's case is no different. None of that will stop me from criticizing Solomon, who has done a questionable job.
Among people who were qualified to assume the position, Solomon was probably the single worst choice available. By his own admission, he knows "nothing” about television, and Solomon had pre-existing relationships with many people at ESPN, including — but not limited to — Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser, Rachel Nichols, and most egregiously, his son, Aaron, the producer of "Around the Horn." Neutrality is central to an ombudsman's function, and it's hard to see how Solomon could be capable of that characteristic, given the circumstances.
To my mind, Solomon comes across more as an apologist than as a critical observer. His frequent defenses of ESPN aren't necessarily the problem here, but I see Solomon mostly as a barometer of perceived public opinion, defending stories and tactics that aren't harmful from a P.R. standpoint, and taking aim at those everyone else has already condemned. And because Solomon's column is published only once a month — most ombudsmen report weekly — he has plenty of time to gauge public reaction before responding to something. To some extent, that is precisely the ombudsman's function, but a responsible journalist should be more than a reflection of conventional wisdom.
Many of ESPN's problems come back to something Solomon identified in his October column: the blurred line between (neutral) reporting and (opinionated) commentary. In "The MTV-ization of ESPN,” I spoke about the distinction between "good ESPN" such as "Outside the Lines" and "bad ESPN," which to my mind includes anything where "analysts” scream at each other.
One problem, I wrote then, was that "bad ESPN" "has infiltrated previously 'good' shows: SportsCenter anchors ... think the show is about them, not the sports they cover." SportsCenter remains ESPN's most important show, a way for fans to catch up on the day's most salient games and stories in just an hour. Analysis has always been part of the show, but now commentary threatens to overwhelm the news aspect of the broadcast. Viewers may wade through the inanity of a simulated press conference, or the drive to anoint this year's Trojans the greatest football team in the history of ever, but most fans would part with those features in exchange for a sober discussion in the studio — or better yet, more game highlights.
ESPN, for better or worse, is a news outlet, and it should make an effort to divide shows like SportsCenter or NFL Primetime — which most viewers watch in search of scores and highlights — from commentary programs such as PTI or Rome Is Burning, which are entertaining because of the spin hosts put on sports stories. Viewers who want straight news can choose which shows they watch accordingly, and those who prefer Woody Paige can watch any of the three or four shows he appears on. ESPN does its viewers a disservice when anchors or correspondents inject opinion into their reporting. No legitimate news outlet would allow that, and it shouldn't happen in sports reporting, either.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
04/28/06 Louise writes...
I just want to say thank you to this website. I have met the man of my dreams here. We had our first date at a Clippers game a few months ago, and the sparks flew...and not just on the court. We ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
