It's Time for Some Changes at ESPN

[TMC]

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/07/16/i...anges-at-espn/

o Milton Kent
o Sports Media Writer

An open letter to ESPN/ABC Sports President George Bodenheimer:

Dear Mr. Bodenheimer,

As the leader of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports," not to
mention one of the most powerful men in two industries (sports and
broadcasting), you probably think you don't need much advice in running your
company.

Maybe you're right. After all, ESPN is the dominant force in sports media and
has been for a generation. There are literally millions of sports fans who can't
imagine life without your television channels, your radio network, your website,
your magazine, your award shows and your restaurants.

OK, so the restaurants didn't quite work out so well, but that's still an
impressive record of success you have there. You guys have a hand in every nook
and cranny of sports, and it is an extraordinary empire you lord over, to be
sure.

But like every good empire, it's showing signs of decay, signs you might not be
able or willing to detect from your castle in Bristol, Conn. There is growing
unrest among the sports masses, and it's not just coming from the handful of
nattering nabobs of negativism in sports media that don't work for you.

More and more, fans are expressing dissatisfaction not only with your product,
but with how it's delivered. The sense I get from a lot of people is that they
take in your product not because they want to, but because they have to. You
guys are sort of like a utility, in that everyone has to use your services, but
no one's especially thrilled about it. In the long run, that's not where you
want to be.

The phrase "Must See TV," in its best sense, stems from providing shows and
content that consumers take in because they're compelling, not because they're
forced down their throat.

The easy thing for you to do, of course, would be to sit back, watch the profits
roll in, and dismiss the criticism as so much chirping from the uninformed.

It would be easy, but it would also open the door to competition. One of the
more open secrets in the industry is that once the NBC Universal/Comcast merger
goes through, the Versus channel is going to be molded into something that could
go head-to-head with ESPN.

Being the astute leader you are, I'm guessing that you don't want to give anyone
reason to seek out a worthy, well-funded challenger with the distribution of
Comcast, the leading cable operator.

What follows, George (and I can call you George, right?) is a list of changes –
some subtle, some not – that you might consider making at ESPN.

The Decision should have been 'No':

It's been a little over a week since LeBron James made
known his choice to "take his talents to South Beach" with the Miami Heat this
fall. In case you hadn't noticed, his method of delivering The Decision --
namely a one-hour special -- didn't go over so well.

But while James has understandably taken most of the, um, heat, your channel,
which gave him the forum to deliver the news, as it were, has been taking on the
chin too, albeit to a lesser degree.

And while the numbers (10 million viewers) suggest that you did the right thing,
people in your newsroom would tell you that the James special might turn out to
be the most embarrassing moment in the more than 30-year history of ESPN.

How bad was The Decision, from both yours and James' vantage point? Consider
these words, uttered earlier this week: "But this decision was
ill‑conceived, barely produced and poorly executed."

That didn't come from a Cleveland columnist or a New York media critic, but from
NBA commissioner David Stern, the ultimate marketer, and while the
"ill-conceived" part clearly was aimed at James, the rest was likely fired right
at your company.

Just to recap: You cannot hand over an hour of time to someone that you cover.
You cannot let that person dictate where the proceeds from that hour will go,
and you cannot let that person make the call on who will interview him.

At some point, George, you, and not one of your lieutenants, need to come
forward and apologize for what happened last Thursday and pledge that, under
your watch, it will never happen again, ratings be damned.

Bring back "SportsCenter":

You say "SportsCenter" never went anywhere? You'd have a hard time convincing
anyone who watched the show in the 1980s or '90s that the current edition has
any connection to what they used to watch, besides the name.

"SportsCenter" is the rock upon which your church is built, the first place, in
theory, where people tune in to find out what happened. However, its reputation
has been sullied by the fact that it too often has become a promotional vehicle
for whatever event is coming up. To wit, the three hours before The Decision.

How about if you stick to news and highlights, get rid of the product-sponsored
segment (a la the "Coors Light Six-Pack") and leave the extraneous
interpretations and commentaries to the sport-intensive shows ("NFL Live,"
"Baseball Tonight," et al)?

Oh, and lose the screaming guitar music beds underneath the highlights. This
ain't MTV.

Lose the attitude:

NFL reporter John Clayton is one of the best in the business, and provides
quality information to viewers/listeners on a regular basis. So, why should such
a respected man be regularly subjected to having someone yell insults at him?

This is standard practice on "SportsCenter" and all the sport-intensive shows,
where every subject becomes a debate topic and the screaming commences between
analysts after the host throws out the question.

It turns those shows into low-rent versions of CNN's "Crossfire," and if we're
lucky, Jon Stewart will come on and kill those shows the way he did that
monstrosity.

Branding is for sodas and cows, not sports channels:

We know that the letters in ESPN don't stand for anything anymore, but that
hasn't stopped some wags from imagining that it means Endlessly Self Promoting
Network.

In hindsight, we should have known that we were in for the relentless
attempt to turn ESPN into a brand 15 years ago when Disney, the ultimate in self
promotion, bought ABC, your parent company.

On the morning the sale was announced, then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner went on
"Good Morning America" to affirm that the most important part of the sale was
ESPN.

In the nearly 12 years since you completed your meteoric rise from the mailroom
to the boardroom, George, you've endorsed the approach to never miss a chance to
hype your company, often attempting to make ESPN more important than the sports
it covers.

For goodness sakes, you wiped out the most prestigious name in sportscasting,
ABC Sports, a name that was home to such revered broadcasters as Jim McKay,
Keith Jackson, Chris Schenkel and Howard Cosell, and replaced it with ESPN's.

This strategy may be smart marketing, but it's wearying, because sports aren't a
commodity like sodas or hamburgers. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Leave the manufacturing to GM or Honda:

Before last Thursday, the previous nadir at ESPN was the November, 2005 days
where former New York Mets general manager Steve Phillips, who currently works
here at FanHouse, pretended to be the GM of different teams and fielded
questions about their respective needs from real reporters.

Come to think of it, that's really no worse than the ESPY Awards, the
annual attempt to marry the red carpet with the red zone, as if the two need to
be joined.

By chance, who was in the meeting when poker was deemed to be a "sport"
warranting extensive time? And why, when the suggestion was made, didn't
someone, preferably you, roll up a newspaper, swat that person on the nose and
say, 'No"?

And then there are the movies and series like "Playmakers", "3", the Yankees'
miniseries, the Pete Rose film and the upcoming Vince Lombardi biopic starring
Robert DeNiro. With all the naturally occurring drama inherent in sports, why do
you perceive the need to create some?

You're not the only game in town. Don't act like you are.

Did you know that the Arena Football League is back in business with games going
on? And did you know that the Chicago Blackhawks recently won the Stanley Cup
for the first time in nearly 50 years?

Fans of both the AFL and the NHL wouldn't be surprised to hear that you didn't
know either fact, given the paucity of their highlights on your air. From the
outside, it appears that if a sport doesn't have a relationship with ESPN, it
doesn't merit a mention.

Oh, and, from a journalist's perspective, there are few more insulting phrases
heard on sports news broadcasts than "ESPN's (fill in name here) has confirmed
that..."

The implication that flows from that statement is that news isn't news unless
ESPN says it is or unless one of its reporters who has been beaten on a story
has caught up. It's really bad form.

Well, George, that's about it from here, There's probably more, but your time is
valuable. There's a house on a block in Uzbekistan that doesn't get ESPN 3-D and
you'll want to do whatever you can to rectify that ASAP.

Do me a favor, though: Just don't forget about keeping your American audience
happy too, huh?

Sincerely,

Your biggest fan

[oldguywithsticks]

That...may seriously be the best article I've ever read in my life. Thanks for sharing.

[Tweety]

Sportscenter is, and has been for many years, a pathetic shadow of its former self.

I personally don't even watch it any more unless there's a specific story that I might want to get some details on. But that's rare.

Why do I get the feeling that every Sportscenter anchor is auditioning for an amateur comedy club? Only problem is, they're just really stupid, and never funny.

Now, the Sportscenter commercials, they're usually pretty funny. But one of the problems with ESPN is that they try to be too friendly with the athletes, instead of just reporting on them. And the athletes know this, which doesn't help.

But one of the worst things Sportscenter has done is change the way the games are played on the field. Now, every athlete's #1 goal is to get themselves on Sportscenter.

The reporting is also done on about a 5th or 6th grade level, which is not good.

Bob Ley is the only ESPN anchor who doesn't think that Sportscenter is about HIM. And every other SC anchor, male or female, is just so incredibly annoying. Then you have women like Linda Cohn, Hannah Storm and Michelle Tafoya who all underwent major makeovers in order to try to look "hot"... newsflash: it didn't work.

I like Pardon the Interruption and Around the Horn, but those are the only ESPN shows that I watch...well, and the Sports Reporters on the weekend. But I haven't sat through a Sportscenter in a long, long time...and I don't miss them at all.

Basically, ESPN has completely forgotten what it was that made it worth watching. Too bad, but what are ya gonna do? Trying to get Sportscenter to get back to reporting is like asking the networks to put good sitcoms and dramas on again, instead of these dopey reality series. Ain't gonna happen.

Being owned by Disney doesn't help either.

And their reporting on sports history is based on their perception that sports didn't exist prior to the creation of ESPN.

[TMC]

The basic problems with ESPN these days if you ask me, is that number one, without a strong rival or competitor (Versus is not quite there yet, Fox Sports Net is really more of collection of regional sports nets than a strongly concentrated entity, and Turner already tried and failed with CNN/SI), they'll continue to rest on their laurels so to speak. The same sort of thing happened to World Wrestling Entertainment when World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling went under in the year 2001. Also, ESPN seems more interested in being a "brand name"/marketing machine (a la Coca-Cola) than a viable journalistic source. In a way this is partially why I believe that if ESPN doesn't have a contract with your league (like the NHL at the moment), it's not going to get much press or exposure. This has become even more apparent when Disney came into the fold. ESPN is more interested in being the news and being in bed with pop culture than reporting it. In a way, it's arguable that ESPN has turned into the Fox News (where larger than life personalities, frequently delving into sensationalism, and carving your own personal ends/means take prescience more than anything) and/or MTV of sports television.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010...pn-part-i.html

http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010...t-ii.html#more

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by TMC

The basic problems with ESPN these days if you ask me, is that number one, without a strong rival or competitor (Versus is not quite there yet, Fox Sports Net is really more of collection of regional sports nets than a strongly concentrated entity, and Turner already tried and failed with CNN/SI), they'll continue to rest on their laurels so to speak. The same sort of thing happened to World Wrestling Entertainment when World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling went under in the year 2001. Also, ESPN seems more interested in being a "brand name"/marketing machine (a la Coca-Cola) than a viable journalistic source. In a way This is partially why I believe that if ESPN doesn't have a contract with your league (like the NHL at the moment), it's not going to get much press or exposure. This has become even more apparent when Disney came into the fold. ESPN is more interested in being the news and being in bed with pop culture than reporting it. In a way, it's arguable that ESPN has turned into the Fox News (where larger than life personalities, frequently delving into sensationalism, and carving your own personal ends/means take prescience more than anything) and/or MTV of sports television.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010...pn-part-i.html

http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010...t-ii.html#more

Well, Fox News is the only thing on TV that does any reporting at all. And they are the only network who fairly present both sides of the issues. It is only on Fox that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints are permitted to be expressed while allowing exactly equal time for each, thus it's the only network on which actual debate takes place between liberals and conservatives.

Other networks will have Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schummer on and claim to be presenting both sides of an issue...but all they're doing is presenting two liberals. But even Fox's commentary shows (O'Reilly and Hannity) have guests from both sides, and they give them equal time.

The exposure of the "journal-list" stuff proves that the rest of the so-called main stream media is a joke.


But back to ESPN... you're correct that there's no direct competitor for them... my cable system has several FSN channels, but it never had the main fox sports channel. In fact, does the fox sports network/channel even exist any more? I always wanted to check it out because I was curious about its coverage, but our Comcast cable system never carried it.

And yeah, when Disney bought ESPN/ABC, it was all all over. There's about as much real journalism going on at ESPN as there is at the Disney channel.

Oh, and yes, the Favre article is a perfect example. Thanks for that link

[Tweety]

Actually, if you want another example of a total lack of journalistic ethics at ESPN, here's one:

Go back to 2003: Rush Limbaugh is hired as a commentator for the ESPN Sunday football pre game show. Through the first four weeks (3 games) of the season, Donovan McNabb throws 3 picks and 0 TDs. Rush comments that he's overrated (at that time, McNabb was either the lowest or 2nd lowest rated starting QB in the NFL) and that the NFL and the media is very desirous of having a black QB do well (which was also 100% true).

Well, of course, ESPN goes crazy (and although show co-host Michael Irvin said "Rush has a point", that was buried). A few days later, Rush and ESPN severed the relationship.

So ESPN spends the ENTIRE 2003 season building up and defending McNabb.

Flash forward to the playoffs. In their divisional playoff game against the Packers (Eagles trailed 17-14 with less than 1:30 to play in the 4th quarter), you may remember that McNabb completed a 28 yard pass on a 4th-and-26, keeping the Eagles alive, and they eventually won the game to advance to the NFC title game vs. Carolina.

Well, for the next week, EVERYONE at ESPN piled on, saying Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about, blah blah blah... Mike Wilbon basically wrote in his WaPo column that week "screw you, Rush, how you like Donovan NOW?".

Fine and dandy... McNabb led a nice comeback. They got a FG on that final drive and then won the game in OT.

So, we advance to the conference championship games the following week.

In the early game (Colts at New England), Peyton Manning throws 1 TD and 4 INTs, and the Colts lose 24-14 in the snow. Manning, like a true leader, takes all of the blame for the loss, blaming himself as 100% responsible for what happened out there.

In the late game, Carolina beats the Eagles (at Philly) 14-3. McNabb is horrible, throwing 3 INTs (no TDs of course, score was 14-3) and going 10-22 passing with 100 yards and a QB rating of 19.3.

You could have heard a pin drop at ESPN. I actually missed a lot of the 2nd half of that game, something went wrong with the local cable transmission I think... I followed it online mostly. But after the game, I made sure to watch Sportscenter, because I wanted to see what they'd come up with to explain McNabb's performance.

Well, turns out that none of what McNabb did was his fault after all! Why, the receivers didn't run the right routes! Yeah, that's the ticket! They dropped a couple of passes, and that frustrated McNabb! (the Panthers weren't dropping his passes, that's for sure!). In Peyton Manning's case, he simply can't win the big one...but in McNabb's case, the receivers were suddenly so confused that they didn't know what routes to run!

So I learned a lot about ESPN's politics from that little episode (I hadn't linked ESPN to politics and political correctness up to that time). And now, of course, it's totally out of hand with them kissing Obama's a$$ on a daily basis. Oooo, the President wants a playoff system in college football. Oooo, the President thinks the Tar Heels are going to win the NCAAs...

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Tweety

Actually, if you want another example of a total lack of journalistic ethics at ESPN, here's one:

Go back to 2003: Rush Limbaugh is hired as a commentator for the ESPN Sunday football pre game show. Through the first four weeks (3 games) of the season, Donovan McNabb throws 3 picks and 0 TDs. Rush comments that he's overrated (at that time, McNabb was either the lowest or 2nd lowest rated starting QB in the NFL) and that the NFL and the media is very desirous of having a black QB do well (which was also 100% true).

Well, of course, ESPN goes crazy (and although show co-host Michael Irvin said "Rush has a point", that was buried). A few days later, Rush and ESPN severed the relationship.

So ESPN spends the ENTIRE 2003 season building up and defending McNabb.

Flash forward to the playoffs. In their divisional playoff game against the Packers (Eagles trailed 17-14 with less than 1:30 to play in the 4th quarter), you may remember that McNabb completed a 28 yard pass on a 4th-and-26, keeping the Eagles alive, and they eventually won the game to advance to the NFC title game vs. Carolina.

Well, for the next week, EVERYONE at ESPN piled on, saying Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about, blah blah blah... Mike Wilbon basically wrote in his WaPo column that week "screw you, Rush, how you like Donovan NOW?".

Fine and dandy... McNabb led a nice comeback. They got a FG on that final drive and then won the game in OT.

So, we advance to the conference championship games the following week.

In the early game (Colts at New England), Peyton Manning throws 1 TD and 4 INTs, and the Colts lose 24-14 in the snow. Manning, like a true leader, takes all of the blame for the loss, blaming himself as 100% responsible for what happened out there.

In the late game, Carolina beats the Eagles (at Philly) 14-3. McNabb is horrible, throwing 3 INTs (no TDs of course, score was 14-3) and going 10-22 passing with 100 yards and a QB rating of 19.3.

You could have heard a pin drop at ESPN. I actually missed a lot of the 2nd half of that game, something went wrong with the local cable transmission I think... I followed it online mostly. But after the game, I made sure to watch Sportscenter, because I wanted to see what they'd come up with to explain McNabb's performance.

Well, turns out that none of what McNabb did was his fault after all! Why, the receivers didn't run the right routes! Yeah, that's the ticket! They dropped a couple of passes, and that frustrated McNabb! (the Panthers weren't dropping his passes, that's for sure!). In Peyton Manning's case, he simply can't win the big one...but in McNabb's case, the receivers were suddenly so confused that they didn't know what routes to run!

So I learned a lot about ESPN's politics from that little episode (I hadn't linked ESPN to politics and political correctness up to that time). And now, of course, it's totally out of hand with them kissing Obama's a$$ on a daily basis. Oooo, the President wants a playoff system in college football. Oooo, the President thinks the Tar Heels are going to win the NCAAs...

Mcnabb was not the reason they lost in the NFCC in 04, the defense was at fault too along with the Panthers Strong Defense

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Mcnabb was not the reason they lost in the NFCC in 04, the defense was at fault too along with the Panthers Strong Defense

He was a HUGE reason that they lost...but that wasn't really my point. My point was, ESPN tried to tell us that McNabb had absolutely nothing to do with the loss...as though he was a spectator sitting in the stands, rather than being a QB who took the snaps. And this after they'd just gotten though telling us that Peyton Manning couldn't win the big games.

ESPN blamed the whole thing on his receivers.

Funny thing was, of the two games, it was actually the COLTS' receivers who were taken completely out of their routes in the first game by the Patriots' defense. But we heard none of that from ESPN...they blamed the whole thing on Manning.

In fact, what happened with Rush/McNabb insulated McNabb from EVER being criticized again by ANYONE at ESPN. You can't find a single critical thing ever said about McNabb by ESPN since 2003, doesn't matter what he does.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Tweety

He was a HUGE reason that they lost...but that wasn't really my point. My point was, ESPN tried to tell us that McNabb had absolutely nothing to do with the loss...as though he was a spectator sitting in the stands, rather than being a QB who took the snaps. And this after they'd just gotten though telling us that Peyton Manning couldn't win the big games.

ESPN blamed the whole thing on his receivers.

Funny thing was, of the two games, it was actually the COLTS' receivers who were taken completely out of their routes in the first game by the Patriots' defense. But we heard none of that from ESPN...they blamed the whole thing on Manning.

In fact, what happened with Rush/McNabb insulated McNabb from EVER being criticized again by ANYONE at ESPN. You can't find a single critical thing ever said about McNabb by ESPN since 2003, doesn't matter what he does.

I will always feel that if Rush never criticized Mcnabb, the Eagles would not have been in the playoffs that season.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

I will always feel that if Rush never criticized Mcnabb, the Eagles would not have been in the playoffs that season.

I think that's a good point... they did win the division by two games over Dallas (12-4 vs 10-6), and they tied for the best record in the NFC

Rams 12-4
Eagles 12-4
Panthers 11-5
Packers 10-6
Cowboys 10-6
Seahawks 10-6

I'm not sure McNabb was ever as motivated as he was that season. And when you look at his game log from 2003-04, you can see he really picked it up in the 2nd half of the year, and lifted the team with him. He was a big part of that 9 game winning streak.

Wow, and something I didn't notice before... through week 7, McNabb had 9 fumbles (losing 3 of them). After that, he had none in the regular season (he did fumble 2x against the Packers, losing one of them).

He REALLY turned it up a notch as the season went on! The team started 0-2, and then went 12-2 the rest of the season.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Tweety

I think that's a good point... they did win the division by two games over Dallas (12-4 vs 10-6), and they tied for the best record in the NFC

Rams 12-4
Eagles 12-4
Panthers 11-5
Packers 10-6
Cowboys 10-6
Seahawks 10-6

I'm not sure McNabb was ever as motivated as he was that season. And when you look at his game log from 2003-04, you can see he really picked it up in the 2nd half of the year, and lifted the team with him. He was a big part of that 9 game winning streak.

Wow, and something I didn't notice before... through week 7, McNabb had 9 fumbles (losing 3 of them). After that, he had none in the regular season (he did fumble 2x against the Packers, losing one of them).

He REALLY turned it up a notch as the season went on! The team started 0-2, and then went 12-2 the rest of the season.

What turned the season around that year when the Eagles was 2-3 was that Mircale play by Brian Westbrook at the Meadowlands when he returned a punt for a TD and stopped the Eagles from going 2-4. The winning streak started after that game. Boy was that a crazy season

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

What turned the season around that year when the Eagles was 2-3 was that Mircale play by Brian Westbrook at the Meadowlands when he returned a punt for a TD and stopped the Eagles from going 2-4. The winning streak started after that game. Boy was that a crazy season

McNabb always looked better because of Westbrook. I always feared Westbrook more than McNabb. We'll have to see what he does this year with the Redskins. Although he still is a good QB, I don't think he is what he used to be.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

McNabb always looked better because of Westbrook. I always feared Westbrook more than McNabb. We'll have to see what he does this year with the Redskins. Although he still is a good QB, I don't think he is what he used to be.

So did I and another example of that was the 2008 Wildcard Game at Minnesota when Westbrook scored a 45 yd TD off a screen pass from mcnabb in the 4th qtr to take the lead

[TMC]

In hindsight, we should have known that we were in for the relentless
attempt to turn ESPN into a brand 15 years ago when Disney, the ultimate in self
promotion, bought ABC, your parent company.

On the morning the sale was announced, then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner went on
"Good Morning America" to affirm that the most important part of the sale was
ESPN.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Ryan Nakashima of the Associated Press talks to former Walt Disney Co. CEO Michael Eisner about his decision to buy Cap Cities/ABC in the mid-1990s, stating that ESPN was really the crown jewel of that purchase.