Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN to lay off "talent"
Author Message
Bigdog731 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Tigers
Location:
Post: #61
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
I read somewhere a long time ago that the business model was something like 75% carriage fees 25% advertising. Make no mistake about it the primary method of payment for all these rights was based on carriage fees. My figures could be wrong but I do know the difference was staggering. I remember that much at least.

In regards to if ESPN overpaid or not some industry people sure seem to think so. Everyone has an opinion. Also, has it ever occurred to anyone that the competition simply was not ever going to break the bank for these rights because well they weren't worth the asking price.

ESPN isn't going anywhere for sure. However, the issues are real.


This from August 2014.You jut can't make this stuff up. Things haven't gotten any better since then.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...bs-and-fox

This is from 1 1/2 years ago..things havee't gotten any better since then
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-mist...fs-2015-10

This from January 2016
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13423508...tball.html

December 2016
http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/...1001574595

2017 love him or hate him this argument has merit and is just a valid as any counter argument
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-c...ent-030617

2017
http://fortune.com/2017/03/08/espn-cost-cutting/

2017
http://www.businessinsider.com/espns-lay...rts-2017-3

2017
http://www.barrons.com/articles/espn-dro...1486507112
03-08-2017 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #62
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-08-2017 06:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Generally bubbles pop when fundamentals change or the understanding of the fundamentals changes.

Housing market collapsed primarily because a number of people who could afford their house on Thursday, found out on Friday they were being laid off or cut back to part-time and couldn't make the payments. The only thing that changed was the capacity of consumers to pay.

The only thing changing for ESPN is not the capacity or willingness of consumers to pay for the product, what is changing is the method of payment.

Why is top level boxing rarely on free tv or cable channels? Because enough people will pay $65 for one night to make it a better deal than selling to ABC or ESPN or HBO.

ESPN is positioned to play this all sorts of ways in the future once the carriage economy dies out (if it does). They can sell individual events, day packages, week, month, year, one sport, one conference, etc. They can slice and dice and repackage to their heart's content.

There are 4 conference properties really worth paying for.

SEC (Football institution of the south)
B1G (Highest resource athletic conference)
PAC (Western 1/2 of USA)
ACC (Most media markets and basketball tradition)

Instead of ESPN signing all of them you might see 2 of them with ESPN and 2 of them with FOX for significantly higher offers. Enough to have a full stable of power games but not too much where extra second tier channels are needed to get everyone on the tube.

The other conferences value is going to be determined by the value of its basketball. They'll fill out the FS1's, ESPNU, CBS Sports channels with some OTA basketball.

B12 (5-10 mil after TX and OU go)
BE (5-10 mil)
AAC (3-5 5 mil with Wichita, Dayton, Army ect)
MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC (worth about 1 mil per school as FBS content)

There is enough money and exposure advantages in the second tier of conferences to keep the overall system intact. There are enough second tier networks and broadcast arrangements where CUSA/SBC will eventually get to MAC/MWC money, perhaps with some realignment between CUSA/SBC.

Present value should stay where it is but divided among more media partners.
03-08-2017 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,092
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 506
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #63
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.
03-08-2017 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AZcats Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,826
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 137
I Root For: stAte, af, zona
Location: Pike's Peak
Post: #64
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-08-2017 09:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.

04-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap2

And add that the announcers talk about the game in front of them instead of tomorrow's over-hyped matchup that usually ends up being a dud.
03-08-2017 11:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,615
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #65
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
b-12 will be fine, when contracts up.
they will expand by 8
then the tv market will be same size as b-10
03-09-2017 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #66
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-08-2017 11:34 PM)AZcats Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 09:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.

04-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap2

And add that the announcers talk about the game in front of them instead of tomorrow's over-hyped matchup that usually ends up being a dud.

ESPN learned a long time ago that two or three talking heads in an automated three camera studio is a hell of a lot cheaper than sending a ten to 17 camera crew and a couple of production trucks to an actual sports event.
03-09-2017 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #67
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 11:28 AM)lew240z Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 11:34 PM)AZcats Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 09:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.

04-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap2

And add that the announcers talk about the game in front of them instead of tomorrow's over-hyped matchup that usually ends up being a dud.

ESPN learned a long time ago that two or three talking heads in an automated three camera studio is a hell of a lot cheaper than sending a ten to 17 camera crew and a couple of production trucks to an actual sports event.

You're absolutely right.

Interestingly, the talking head shows tend to have very strong demographics with younger males (M 18-34). This is among the most difficult audiences for advertisers to reach.

These shows can also be repeated a number of times throughout the day on multiple networks, plus spun off into podcasts. In addition multi platform delivery of radio shows fills hours and hours of airtime.

The problem is not with the format, it's with the salaries. Paying folks $5, 7, and $10 million per year for this duty is unnecessary except for a handful of folks who can really move the needle. By virtue of its dominance in ownership of sport rights, ESPN, including its entire family of networks, is the go to place find out what's going on sports. The network is the primary draw.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2017 01:28 PM by orangefan.)
03-09-2017 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #68
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 01:22 PM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 11:28 AM)lew240z Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 11:34 PM)AZcats Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 09:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.

04-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap2

And add that the announcers talk about the game in front of them instead of tomorrow's over-hyped matchup that usually ends up being a dud.

ESPN learned a long time ago that two or three talking heads in an automated three camera studio is a hell of a lot cheaper than sending a ten to 17 camera crew and a couple of production trucks to an actual sports event.

You're absolutely right.

Interestingly, the talking head shows tend to have very strong demographics with younger males (M 18-34). This is among the most difficult audiences for advertisers to reach.

These shows can also be repeated a number of times throughout the day on multiple networks, plus spun off into podcasts. In addition multi platform delivery of radio shows fills hours and hours of airtime.

The problem is not with the format, it's with the salaries. Paying folks $5, 7, and $10 million per year for this duty is unnecessary except for a handful of folks who can really move the needle. By virtue of its dominance in ownership of sport rights, ESPN, including its entire family of networks, is the go to place find out what's going on sports. The network is the primary draw.

One thing that we need to correct here: ESPN actually IS showing more actual sporting events than ever. A lack of showing sports isn't their problem (so I wouldn't compare it to MTV not showing music videos anymore). In fact, you can go back through this thread and the debate about how much ESPN is spending on long-term sports rights contracts. There was a deliberate and concerted effort from ESPN to start buying up as many sports rights as possible about a decade ago. Does anyone remember the early-2000s when ESPN put on Playmakers and gave a talk show to Jay Mohr? *THAT* was when they were going through their "We want to be an entertainment network!" phase. They actually smartly shook that off and refocused themselves on actual sports rights again.

Now, what I do think is different over the past decade isn't so much that there are so many talking head shows - all of those have been on for a long time. Instead, it's the fact that these talking head shows are no longer being balanced out by legitimate journalism shows. It used to be that you could consistently find hard-hitting stories on SportsCenter and other shows, but now the only place that occurs is on Outside the Lines in a limited fashion and little promotion.

To be sure, this isn't just an ESPN problem - it's a SOCIETAL problem. We see the same thing with all of the news networks, newspapers and basically every news outlet in existence today (whether it's sports, politics or other realms of news). It's also the fault of all of us as consumers since the ratings and website hits for bloviating pundits and opinion pieces have shown to be much higher than those that do the actual difficult work of investigative journalism (which is unbelievably sad). A Facebook or Huffington Post blog post on a piece of journalism written elsewhere (where the journalist did all of the hard work) will generally get more views that the actual piece of journalism itself. The incentive/reward system in news today is completely out of whack. At a certain point, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror. When news and sports networks keep getting rewarded with higher ratings for putting on two talking heads screaming at each other while no one watches investigative journalism, how should we reasonably expect them to act?
03-09-2017 01:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #69
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 01:22 PM)orangefan Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 11:28 AM)lew240z Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 11:34 PM)AZcats Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 09:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.

04-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap2

And add that the announcers talk about the game in front of them instead of tomorrow's over-hyped matchup that usually ends up being a dud.

ESPN learned a long time ago that two or three talking heads in an automated three camera studio is a hell of a lot cheaper than sending a ten to 17 camera crew and a couple of production trucks to an actual sports event.

You're absolutely right.

Interestingly, the talking head shows tend to have very strong demographics with younger males (M 18-34). This is among the most difficult audiences for advertisers to reach.

These shows can also be repeated a number of times throughout the day on multiple networks, plus spun off into podcasts. In addition multi platform delivery of radio shows fills hours and hours of airtime.

The problem is not with the format, it's with the salaries. Paying folks $5, 7, and $10 million per year for this duty is unnecessary except for a handful of folks who can really move the needle. By virtue of its dominance in ownership of sport rights, ESPN, including its entire family of networks, is the go to place find out what's going on sports. The network is the primary draw.

One thing that we need to correct here: ESPN actually IS showing more actual sporting events than ever. A lack of showing sports isn't their problem (so I wouldn't compare it to MTV not showing music videos anymore). In fact, you can go back through this thread and the debate about how much ESPN is spending on long-term sports rights contracts. There was a deliberate and concerted effort from ESPN to start buying up as many sports rights as possible about a decade ago. Does anyone remember the early-2000s when ESPN put on Playmakers and gave a talk show to Jay Mohr? *THAT* was when they were going through their "We want to be an entertainment network!" phase. They actually smartly shook that off and refocused themselves on actual sports rights again.

Now, what I do think is different over the past decade isn't so much that there are so many talking head shows - all of those have been on for a long time. Instead, it's the fact that these talking head shows are no longer being balanced out by legitimate journalism shows. It used to be that you could consistently find hard-hitting stories on SportsCenter and other shows, but now the only place that occurs is on Outside the Lines in a limited fashion and little promotion.

To be sure, this isn't just an ESPN problem - it's a SOCIETAL problem. We see the same thing with all of the news networks, newspapers and basically every news outlet in existence today (whether it's sports, politics or other realms of news). It's also the fault of all of us as consumers since the ratings and website hits for bloviating pundits and opinion pieces have shown to be much higher than those that do the actual difficult work of investigative journalism (which is unbelievably sad). A Facebook or Huffington Post blog post on a piece of journalism written elsewhere (where the journalist did all of the hard work) will generally get more views that the actual piece of journalism itself. The incentive/reward system in news today is completely out of whack. At a certain point, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror. When news and sports networks keep getting rewarded with higher ratings for putting on two talking heads screaming at each other while no one watches investigative journalism, how should we reasonably expect them to act?

Your right on the societal issue--personally---I think it extends to "real journalism" as well. In fact, Id say real journalism is dead. Editorialism, on the other hand, is alive and thriving. The idea of an unbiased news media delivering all the relevant facts from all sides of any issue or event and leaving the reader/viewer to come to his own conclusions is a dead art. Its been dying for a long long time---but its completely gone in this day and age.

On the up side, unlike the last few decades, todays viewer/reader at least now understands that the medias claims of being an unbiased arbiter of fact are as false as many of their stories. I guess Im old. I liked it better when you had absolutely no idea whether Walter Chronkite was a republican or a democrat.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2017 02:41 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-09-2017 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
58-56 Offline
Blazer Revolutionary
*

Posts: 13,288
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 825
I Root For: Fire Ray Watts
Location: CathedraloftheDragon

BlazerTalk Award
Post: #70
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your right on the societal issue--personally---I think it extends to "real journalism". Real journalism is dead. Editorialism is alive and thriving. The idea of a unbiased news media delivering all the relevant facts and leaving the reader/viewer to come to his own conclusions is a dead art. Its been dying for a long long time---but its completely gone in this day and age.

On the up side, unlike the last few decades, todays viewer/reader at least now understands that the medias claims of being an unbiased arbiter of fact are as false as many of their stories. I guess Im old. I liked it better when you had absolutely no idea whether Walter Chronkite was a republican or a democrat.

Frank explains why very well: real journalism is hard and it's expensive. It can take you weeks to put together a real piece of journalism. Sometimes more.

On the other hand, I type 120 words a minute. I can take 20 minutes to read someone else's piece and bloviate out 1,000 words about why it's stupid in 10 minutes. Sixteen of those a day, 80 a week, 320 of them over the four weeks it might take to put together a real piece of reporting that fills the same spot on a website/paper/show. Guess which path gets chosen? Yee haw fer cap'lizm!

It started in the 1980's, when Wall Street discovered media companies. What we have today is the inevitable result.

It's not because of bias. It's pure profit motive at work.
03-09-2017 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,281
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #71
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-08-2017 11:34 PM)AZcats Wrote:  
(03-08-2017 09:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  So last night, I sat at my local bar eating wings and drinking some beer. They had one of the "ESPN's" on...and it was a succession of talk shows. "SportsNation." Something with that idiot Dan Lebatard on it. Around the Horn. PTI. On EACH and EVERY show they talked about THE SAME six or seven stories. Over and over and over again.

I like PTI. I even like "Around the Horn." But who the hell cares about these other shows? I do not care about what some basketball player wearing a stupid hat cares about anything. I do not care about what some reporter thinks about things.

ESPN has gone down the road that MTV did. Once upon a time, MTV showed music videos. That's why it existed. Now they don't show any sort of "music videos." Likewise, ESPN used to show sports. Even "Sportscenter" was sports. Now, ESPN is all about talk... They don't do "sports." They do talk. Most of the time it's not even about sports any more. One of the shows had a repeated video of some soccer fan falling over a 6' high fence and another had some kid who videos himself smacking his head on door lintels.

ESPN could turn this around by getting back to SPORTS. Just be the preeminent Sports network again. But I doubt they will.

04-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap204-clap2

And add that the announcers talk about the game in front of them instead of tomorrow's over-hyped matchup that usually ends up being a dud.

I don't know how MAC fans put up with it. You're games are on weeknights, and even when you're on, the commentators aren't talking about you.

And those talking head shows aren't putting you over, either.

That network took your football away. They really did.
03-09-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #72
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 02:45 PM)58-56 Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your right on the societal issue--personally---I think it extends to "real journalism". Real journalism is dead. Editorialism is alive and thriving. The idea of a unbiased news media delivering all the relevant facts and leaving the reader/viewer to come to his own conclusions is a dead art. Its been dying for a long long time---but its completely gone in this day and age.

On the up side, unlike the last few decades, todays viewer/reader at least now understands that the medias claims of being an unbiased arbiter of fact are as false as many of their stories. I guess Im old. I liked it better when you had absolutely no idea whether Walter Chronkite was a republican or a democrat.

Frank explains why very well: real journalism is hard and it's expensive. It can take you weeks to put together a real piece of journalism. Sometimes more.

On the other hand, I type 120 words a minute. I can take 20 minutes to read someone else's piece and bloviate out 1,000 words about why it's stupid in 10 minutes. Sixteen of those a day, 80 a week, 320 of them over the four weeks it might take to put together a real piece of reporting that fills the same spot on a website/paper/show. Guess which path gets chosen? Yee haw fer cap'lizm!

It started in the 1980's, when Wall Street discovered media companies. What we have today is the inevitable result.

It's not because of bias. It's pure profit motive at work.

Exactly. Pundits are cheap, require nothing more than a microphone and they aren't held to any type of factual standard. Real journalism requires a huge amount of time and money and there are legitimate negative consequences when they're wrong. When you see the ratings and website hits vastly exceed those of real journalists (which is what's occurring today), it's easy to see why corporate overlords have chosen the pundit path. To be sure, the general public is now getting the journalism that it "deserves" since they're the ones driving eyeballs to those pundits instead of the real journalists. This isn't a good thing.
03-09-2017 02:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #73
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 02:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:45 PM)58-56 Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your right on the societal issue--personally---I think it extends to "real journalism". Real journalism is dead. Editorialism is alive and thriving. The idea of a unbiased news media delivering all the relevant facts and leaving the reader/viewer to come to his own conclusions is a dead art. Its been dying for a long long time---but its completely gone in this day and age.

On the up side, unlike the last few decades, todays viewer/reader at least now understands that the medias claims of being an unbiased arbiter of fact are as false as many of their stories. I guess Im old. I liked it better when you had absolutely no idea whether Walter Chronkite was a republican or a democrat.

Frank explains why very well: real journalism is hard and it's expensive. It can take you weeks to put together a real piece of journalism. Sometimes more.

On the other hand, I type 120 words a minute. I can take 20 minutes to read someone else's piece and bloviate out 1,000 words about why it's stupid in 10 minutes. Sixteen of those a day, 80 a week, 320 of them over the four weeks it might take to put together a real piece of reporting that fills the same spot on a website/paper/show. Guess which path gets chosen? Yee haw fer cap'lizm!

It started in the 1980's, when Wall Street discovered media companies. What we have today is the inevitable result.

It's not because of bias. It's pure profit motive at work.

Exactly. Pundits are cheap, require nothing more than a microphone and they aren't held to any type of factual standard. Real journalism requires a huge amount of time and money and there are legitimate negative consequences when they're wrong. When you see the ratings and website hits vastly exceed those of real journalists (which is what's occurring today), it's easy to see why corporate overlords have chosen the pundit path. To be sure, the general public is now getting the journalism that it "deserves" since they're the ones driving eyeballs to those pundits instead of the real journalists. This isn't a good thing.

I agree its not a good thing. That said--its not an inherently bad thing. The "bad" thing is claiming to be an unbiased arbiter when one is not.

As long as its on the editorial page---everyone understood there was opinion tainting which "facts" are presented and which "facts" are not. When the editorial page began to bleed over into the front page without any real public knowledge or disclosure---that resulted in a disservice to both the public and the press.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2017 04:09 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-09-2017 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #74
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:45 PM)58-56 Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your right on the societal issue--personally---I think it extends to "real journalism". Real journalism is dead. Editorialism is alive and thriving. The idea of a unbiased news media delivering all the relevant facts and leaving the reader/viewer to come to his own conclusions is a dead art. Its been dying for a long long time---but its completely gone in this day and age.

On the up side, unlike the last few decades, todays viewer/reader at least now understands that the medias claims of being an unbiased arbiter of fact are as false as many of their stories. I guess Im old. I liked it better when you had absolutely no idea whether Walter Chronkite was a republican or a democrat.

Frank explains why very well: real journalism is hard and it's expensive. It can take you weeks to put together a real piece of journalism. Sometimes more.

On the other hand, I type 120 words a minute. I can take 20 minutes to read someone else's piece and bloviate out 1,000 words about why it's stupid in 10 minutes. Sixteen of those a day, 80 a week, 320 of them over the four weeks it might take to put together a real piece of reporting that fills the same spot on a website/paper/show. Guess which path gets chosen? Yee haw fer cap'lizm!

It started in the 1980's, when Wall Street discovered media companies. What we have today is the inevitable result.

It's not because of bias. It's pure profit motive at work.

Exactly. Pundits are cheap, require nothing more than a microphone and they aren't held to any type of factual standard. Real journalism requires a huge amount of time and money and there are legitimate negative consequences when they're wrong. When you see the ratings and website hits vastly exceed those of real journalists (which is what's occurring today), it's easy to see why corporate overlords have chosen the pundit path. To be sure, the general public is now getting the journalism that it "deserves" since they're the ones driving eyeballs to those pundits instead of the real journalists. This isn't a good thing.

I agree its not a good thing. That said--its not an inherently bad thing. The "bad" thing is claiming to be an unbiased arbiter when one is not.

As long as its on the editorial page---everyone understood there was opinion tainting which "facts" are presented and which "facts" are not. When the editorial page began to bleed over into the front page without any real public knowledge or disclosure---that resulted in a disservice to both the public and the press.

Unbiased journalism was an anomaly.

Newspapers from the settlement of the first villages in the US by Europeans to the early 20th century had an agenda. They would report bare facts (these ships arrived with this cargo, this man was arrested and flogged) but they had an opinion on the causes of the day.

The widespread adoption of radio started the change. Even before equal time and balance legislation, radio station owners recognized that they were operating on a license to operate in the public interest. To keep that money flowing you need to make sure you aren't so wrapped up in partisan politics that a change in who is in power results in you losing your license.

TV followed the same path PLUS TV even more than the early radio networks considered news a vanity project. To bring credibility to the medium, they wanted to have the prestige of being a serious player in news.

Newspapers began dying with fewer markets with multiple papers. The masses were now seeing unbiased news and expected it and newspapers traded on the prestige of being able to go in much greater depth than electronic media. The opinions moved to the editorial page.

The major networks began to be owned by large publicly traded companies that needed a good ROI. Vanity projects were pretty much out. News had to (at first) break even, then become a profit center.

Enter cable and the ability to broadcast news and make it biased to draw a more loyal audience.

All you see today is the news marketplace is returning to the norm or maybe regressing to the mean sounds better.
03-09-2017 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #75
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 05:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:45 PM)58-56 Wrote:  
(03-09-2017 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Your right on the societal issue--personally---I think it extends to "real journalism". Real journalism is dead. Editorialism is alive and thriving. The idea of a unbiased news media delivering all the relevant facts and leaving the reader/viewer to come to his own conclusions is a dead art. Its been dying for a long long time---but its completely gone in this day and age.

On the up side, unlike the last few decades, todays viewer/reader at least now understands that the medias claims of being an unbiased arbiter of fact are as false as many of their stories. I guess Im old. I liked it better when you had absolutely no idea whether Walter Chronkite was a republican or a democrat.

Frank explains why very well: real journalism is hard and it's expensive. It can take you weeks to put together a real piece of journalism. Sometimes more.

On the other hand, I type 120 words a minute. I can take 20 minutes to read someone else's piece and bloviate out 1,000 words about why it's stupid in 10 minutes. Sixteen of those a day, 80 a week, 320 of them over the four weeks it might take to put together a real piece of reporting that fills the same spot on a website/paper/show. Guess which path gets chosen? Yee haw fer cap'lizm!

It started in the 1980's, when Wall Street discovered media companies. What we have today is the inevitable result.

It's not because of bias. It's pure profit motive at work.

Exactly. Pundits are cheap, require nothing more than a microphone and they aren't held to any type of factual standard. Real journalism requires a huge amount of time and money and there are legitimate negative consequences when they're wrong. When you see the ratings and website hits vastly exceed those of real journalists (which is what's occurring today), it's easy to see why corporate overlords have chosen the pundit path. To be sure, the general public is now getting the journalism that it "deserves" since they're the ones driving eyeballs to those pundits instead of the real journalists. This isn't a good thing.

I agree its not a good thing. That said--its not an inherently bad thing. The "bad" thing is claiming to be an unbiased arbiter when one is not.

As long as its on the editorial page---everyone understood there was opinion tainting which "facts" are presented and which "facts" are not. When the editorial page began to bleed over into the front page without any real public knowledge or disclosure---that resulted in a disservice to both the public and the press.

Unbiased journalism was an anomaly.

Newspapers from the settlement of the first villages in the US by Europeans to the early 20th century had an agenda. They would report bare facts (these ships arrived with this cargo, this man was arrested and flogged) but they had an opinion on the causes of the day.

The widespread adoption of radio started the change. Even before equal time and balance legislation, radio station owners recognized that they were operating on a license to operate in the public interest. To keep that money flowing you need to make sure you aren't so wrapped up in partisan politics that a change in who is in power results in you losing your license.

TV followed the same path PLUS TV even more than the early radio networks considered news a vanity project. To bring credibility to the medium, they wanted to have the prestige of being a serious player in news.

Newspapers began dying with fewer markets with multiple papers. The masses were now seeing unbiased news and expected it and newspapers traded on the prestige of being able to go in much greater depth than electronic media. The opinions moved to the editorial page.

The major networks began to be owned by large publicly traded companies that needed a good ROI. Vanity projects were pretty much out. News had to (at first) break even, then become a profit center.

Enter cable and the ability to broadcast news and make it biased to draw a more loyal audience.

All you see today is the news marketplace is returning to the norm or maybe regressing to the mean sounds better.

Good points. I think we all sometimes have a tendency to view everything as though history began with our own lifetime experiences. Im clearly guilty of that in this instance.

That said, my point remains. Im ok with an opinionated press---as long as they stop tying to claim they have the journalistic integrity of being a non-biased source. My issue is most of todays mainstream press wants to have it both ways.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2017 08:37 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-09-2017 08:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
No More Wire Hangars!
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 1263
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #76
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-09-2017 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good points. I think we all sometimes have a tendency to view everything as though history began with our own lifetime experiences. Im clearly guilty of that in this instance.

That said, my point remains. Im ok with an opinionated press---as long as they stop tying to claim they have the journalistic integrity of being a non-biased source. My issue is most of todays mainstream press wants to have it both ways.

Amen brotha...... The bullshitting flies from every direction and the press fans the flames.

The moral high ground of the press is no higher than a Louisville recruiting bender.

Kinda reminds me of a Ted Kennedy hearing when he is looking down over the top of his glasses in disgust like he is above it all......
03-10-2017 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #77
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-07-2017 12:49 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  $100MM in talent cuts: that's a seriously large chunk of money. BIG-name cuts coming, no doubt.

The various SportsCenter shows --- there are seemingly 24 separate episodes per day anymore --- how many of them draw eyeballs because of the anchor? Van Pelt at Midnight ET, sure.

SVP drives me away, LOL. 07-coffee3
03-11-2017 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #78
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-07-2017 05:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lee Corso
Aaron Boone
Trent Dilfer
Mike Ditka
Ray Evernham
Mike Golic
Scott Goodyear
Brian Griese
Tim Hasselbeck
Merril Hoge
Brock Huard
John Kruk
Jamal Mashburn
Mark May
Jesse Palmer
Dick Vital? He has been there since 1986.
Andre Ware
I think Chris Bergman is retiring.
Jonathan Coachman
Mike Greenberg
Kenny Mayne
Woody Page
Stephen A. Smith
Allen Bestwick (he sucked at being a NASCAR announcer which he was fired from NBC because people did not like him.)
Gary Gerould (NHRA announcer since they lost NHRA.)
Shannon Spake she was mainly NASCAR.
Scott Van Pelt

I think these are the likely ones to go. Was Brent Musburger retiring as well?
Jesse Palmer would be a mistake.
03-12-2017 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #79
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
(03-12-2017 01:15 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 05:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lee Corso
Aaron Boone
Trent Dilfer
Mike Ditka
Ray Evernham
Mike Golic
Scott Goodyear
Brian Griese
Tim Hasselbeck
Merril Hoge
Brock Huard
John Kruk
Jamal Mashburn
Mark May
Jesse Palmer
Dick Vital? He has been there since 1986.
Andre Ware
I think Chris Bergman is retiring.
Jonathan Coachman
Mike Greenberg
Kenny Mayne
Woody Page
Stephen A. Smith
Allen Bestwick (he sucked at being a NASCAR announcer which he was fired from NBC because people did not like him.)
Gary Gerould (NHRA announcer since they lost NHRA.)
Shannon Spake she was mainly NASCAR.
Scott Van Pelt

I think these are the likely ones to go. Was Brent Musburger retiring as well?
Jesse Palmer would be a mistake.

Mushmouth is retiring. And Jessie Palmer being a mistake? I like him, but The network could survive with Rosie Palmer.
Cheers!
03-12-2017 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,005
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 394
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #80
RE: ESPN to lay off "talent"
ESPN can reduce their staff all they want, but it won't fix the problems that they have created for them self.

ESPN generally gives the lions share of their coverage to a few winning programs. The problem with this model is that most viewers aren't fans of the Bamas, Buckeyes, and USCs of the world. In the age of digital media, why would we pay to tune in and watch infomercials about programs we don't care about? Simple answer, we won't.

Add in the fact that ESPN felt it is necessary to introduce their politics into their sports programing. Whoever made this decision at ESPN should be fired. People don't watch football, basketball, or baseball because they feel like getting into political arguments. Just let sports be sports.

ESPN made poor choices and now they are suffering for it. It wouldn't bother me one bit if ESPN and Disney both went under.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2017 03:44 PM by Side Show Joe.)
03-12-2017 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.