ESPN's loss will be a gain to other networks. But hopefully only the good ones let go will benefit.
ESPN cutting on air jobs in latest effort to stop the bleeding.
- Thread starter Redwood Forrest
- Start date
There are really two issues. One is whether the sports media should be mixing in political advocacy or opinion during sporting events at all. I guess in general for all the reasons mentioned above I'd prefer not to hear it unless there is a really good reason, but on the other hand as sports has become our public religion, I'm not sure we can totally avoid it.
The second problem here is that ESPN is not a safe space for open political dialogue. It is only a safe space for one narrow albeit powerful viewpoint, and it is frankly a very dangerous space for any opinion that runs afoul of the very narrow interpretation of reality which smug ESPN corporate gurus have decided is the one to align themselves with. ESPN's position is first of all aligned with their own self-interest in making money and keeping their core constituency happy. It is also aligned with the wealthy corporate coastlines with their new Imperial morality - nothing is bad unless it hurts our bottom line. It may be that they have miscalculated who that core constituency really is and it may be they would have been better off with less politics, but it's not hard to see what they are thinking. Even the ombudsman didn't say there was too much political commentary, but too much liberal political commentary. Even if ESPN has accidentally stumbled upon the true moral position, they cannot claim to be a space for open dialogue, so why anyone is defending them as preserving a safe space for discourse is beyond me.
If there were a truly open dialogue then it would be annoying, but not offensive. As it is, when commentators are being made to apologize, or suspended, or even fired, for opinions that are sometimes really quite mainstream, when you know the real opinions of the TV personalities are almost certainly not what is being expressed in public because they don't want to lose their jobs, how can anyone stand to watch that?
The second problem here is that ESPN is not a safe space for open political dialogue. It is only a safe space for one narrow albeit powerful viewpoint, and it is frankly a very dangerous space for any opinion that runs afoul of the very narrow interpretation of reality which smug ESPN corporate gurus have decided is the one to align themselves with. ESPN's position is first of all aligned with their own self-interest in making money and keeping their core constituency happy. It is also aligned with the wealthy corporate coastlines with their new Imperial morality - nothing is bad unless it hurts our bottom line. It may be that they have miscalculated who that core constituency really is and it may be they would have been better off with less politics, but it's not hard to see what they are thinking. Even the ombudsman didn't say there was too much political commentary, but too much liberal political commentary. Even if ESPN has accidentally stumbled upon the true moral position, they cannot claim to be a space for open dialogue, so why anyone is defending them as preserving a safe space for discourse is beyond me.
If there were a truly open dialogue then it would be annoying, but not offensive. As it is, when commentators are being made to apologize, or suspended, or even fired, for opinions that are sometimes really quite mainstream, when you know the real opinions of the TV personalities are almost certainly not what is being expressed in public because they don't want to lose their jobs, how can anyone stand to watch that?
This is really a great point. ESPN doesn't really have the depth in politics to be a good "space" for the discussion. What they have typically been big on championing are prejudice/equality issues and I don't think anyone is against "tough on sexual assault" and the golden rule. They get out of their depth sometimes and can't cover the material with the depth needed. Did great work on campus sexual assault in my opinion though.
At either rate, I don't think they've repelled a significant number due to increased political leanings. This is about dollars and cents. They're losing "lower enthusiasm" sports fans who can live without readily available live sports in their home. They're losing them like a bucket with a leak and have been for the last few years.
I would never trade my netflix password for an espn app password...
But I do have a lightning to HDMI plug. My only issue is not being able to DVR those games and sometimes a date with momma is more important than a game.
And I also used tvfool.com to aid in my cord cutting. I got a directional antenna of amazon that went in my attic. Picked up a channel master DVR, 100ft of new coax and was good to go. The only thing I pay for now is my netflix subscription and my internet. The channel master DVR downloads the schedule off the internet and works almost as well as the big cable company DVRs, good enough that I'm more than pleased with it. I'm saving $87 a month and only miss being able to DVR espn games. If I ever figure out how to stream something off my phone or tablet and run that through my DVR to record then I'd be set!
HUH?
You have gone from "possibly the most arrogant thing" posted here, to possibly the most absurd ("safe space"), in a few short posts. I hate to tell you, but the misguided concept of "safe space" is not the creation of "garbage human beings", like me, or folks of my viewpoint. No, bub, that is your side!
I know that the 2 of us will never agree on philosophical points (which is why I avoid NS), as I also understand you probably hate all of my schtick, over in NS. (Some of which is intentional, to goad folks who I think have a closed mind.) But, over here, you are a mod in both football and basketball. So, I pay close attention to what you post, as I am assuming you have much more insight, to any of this sports stuff, than I do. I'm even sure that I have "liked" or "thanked" your posts, in those 2 forums. So, I welcome what you have to say about football or basketball.
And then you blurt out this stuff.
It hurts your credibility. I wish it wouldn't.
There, I've said my peace, and I have some work to do.
Maybe I will go and watch Fox News now.
"Who are you fooling? We all know that you can not afford cable."
Uh..................correct!
rgw
there is a thread similar to this on non sports, why don't you go there. and thanks for the reminder of why I bailed on all the political threads.
there is a thread similar to this on non sports, why don't you go there. and thanks for the reminder of why I bailed on all the political threads.
You guys need to learn how to negotiate. I have DirectTV for $60/month. 3 TVs hooked up + HD DVR. Yes, I have to call once a year when my current promotion falls off and threaten to cancel then they add it back. I could switch to a streaming service and save maybe $20/month. Not worth it to me..
Last edited:
I respectfully submit that you're missing the point.
There's another, frankly better, word for "viewers," and that's "customers." If any business elects to stray from serving the customers' wants/needs, it risks losing them in significant numbers because they're no longer getting the product for which thought they were paying.
There was an article years ago in which Chris Berman attributed ESPN's early success at least in part to the decision to treat seriously every sport they covered, no matter how "niche" it might be. The thinking was that the fans (ESPN's customers) took it seriously, and deserved to have ESPN honor that with their coverage. How interesting that, in finding so much success over the years, in the process perhaps they've lost that internal compass.
Most ESPN customers (probably all, but let's leave a little wiggle room), subscribe for the S. I'd bet a plurality, probably a majority, don't even remember what the "E' stands for; but this much is certain - the "P" in ESPN doesn't, and shouldn't, stand for politics...
I agree with much of what you're saying, but I don't think Disney cares much about the fact that their "internal compass" is much different than that of most of their customer base. IMO, that was probably an attraction to them: a captive audience on which to foist their views. I.e, set straight one of the last bastions of "bigotry, religion, ignorance, etc" - the "dumb jock watchers, especially the football Cro-Magnons". Profit matters to them, but it doesn't seem to as much as their agenda. ESPN is protected somewhat by their inclusion in a massive corporation, and though they are hemorrhaging subscribers, they are still making money. (If my rough calculations are correct, ESPN represents about 13% of Disney's annual revenue). Of course they can only bleed so much and their audience is not as captive as it once was, as many in this thread have illustrated.
Again, there are more powerful forces at work in ESPN's decline, but politics is a contributing factor and it prevents ESPN from ever getting the benefit of the doubt from most of its customers. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
Indeed. I quit watching the news because ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and their ilk like to lecture me. I want news, not lectured. I want sports too, not more lectures.
The harsh reality - you want to hear your world view reinforced. We all do. Like it or not, it is a part of the human condition. When we hear things that do the opposite, our mood is effected. We can't help it. Even if the programing is amazing, an interjection of a single item that argues against our world view upset us and impacts our viewing experience. This is science. I just wonder why so many media outlets have not caught on and made changes.
Or maybe they have. Because the opposite is also true - when we hear our world view parroted back to us, our mood is impacted in a positive way. We are likely to continue watching something that we really don't care for just because they are saying things that reinforce our world views.
That is why a certain type of people enjoy conservative programming while others enjoy progressive programming. Very few people enjoy both, or are able to even tolerate both. The show Hannity & Colmes was an interesting experiment in which both view points were offered. But viewers vacillated between feeling happy and angry while watching the show, depending on who was speaking, no matter what that person was saying. One was mentally labeled as a conservative and the other a progressive. So, depending on your world view, conservatives dismissed the views of Colmes and progressives the views of Hannity - even when they were espousing views that should have been well received by their opposites.
The human condition is very strange. None of us is as independent as we believe ourselves to be. We are all driven by external forces and internal biases which we neither see nor fight. For the most part, we just drift along - even those among us who believe themselves dedicated to "change".
As one who has worked in an arena (religion) where viewpoints are rigid on both sides (claiming ultimate truth) I could not agree more. Most of us fail to realize our own partiality in any discussion. None of us are totally objective...never...no matter how much we claim to be. I just accept, ignore and move on...enjoy the games, ignore the clutter...no matter the source.
Personally I consider the cost of cable, etc., to be small compared to going to even a few games a year. However, I do not like to throw away money..especially since I am now retired! Building a new house soon and need some advice:
1. Do I wire the house with fiber optic cable? Or, should I rely on wireless devices?
2. Do I plan on using a satellite dish provider? (Never have...but they are cheaper.)
3. What's coming and how can I set my home up to be ahead of the curve -- without breaking the bank?
LOL, people didn't watch Hannity & Colmes because Hannity was a asinine frat boy and Colmes was the dork who kept getting wedgied.
The original experiment may have been Crossfire with Braden and Buchanan. Now there was a show where you could hate both of them and still you had to watch because there was only one tv in the house and this was Dad's choice. But then afterwards there was the A-team. Or there was Magnum PI, but I always hated that show. Back then, the start of baseball season not only ushered in the start of summer, but the Braves game starting at 6:30 gave us something to distract dad from watching Crossfire -- Halleluia!
And this is why we don't want politics mixed with our sports!
At one time, Sportscenter was a daily staple for me but I have not watched it years. On occasion, I do watch a football or basketball game on the network but the rest of it they can have.
I have Coosa Cable, maybe 50 channels but some are just repeat digitals. I watch fox news, History, Discover and when it's football season I watch them on ABC, CBS, NBC and Espn. I have 7 TV's hooked up and together with internet I pay $90 per month.
I had the internet, TV, and phone bundle with my cable company. Every year I'd do the dance with the cable company and negotiate a lower price than what they first proposed... but it was still higher priced than the prior year. For 2017 the after-negotiation price would be around $200 per month. Enough.
In January (after college football season) I bought a Roku device along with a WIFI router and extender. I kept my internet service with my cable provider but dropped TV and phone. I subscribed to Playstation Vue. I bought a Magic Jack for VoIP telephone. I checked with AntennaWeb.org to see if I can get local channels over the air via external antenna (I can't... so no local channels but I barely watched them anyway). Roku provides a Watch ESPN link which, after inputting the ESPN-provided code into Playstation Vue, allows me to watch way more sports on my big-screen TV than was available to me on regular cable. No annual commitment; payment is month to month and can be dropped anytime. I also bought PBS Passport ($60/year).
End result: HD TV reception is every bit as good as I received from the cable provider. Toggling between TV programs is much more awkward on Playstation Vue than it was with my former cable TV service. Phone quality on Magic Jack is only fair but that may be a function of my antique phone devices. All the Bama baseball and softball games have been available for viewing on my big-screen TV via Watch ESPN so I have every expectation that all Bama football games will also be available this fall. My total internet-TV-phone monthly cost is $110/month.
Last night I watched the Bama v. Loyola-Chicago softball game and this evening I'll watch the Bama-Valparaiso softball game.
In January (after college football season) I bought a Roku device along with a WIFI router and extender. I kept my internet service with my cable provider but dropped TV and phone. I subscribed to Playstation Vue. I bought a Magic Jack for VoIP telephone. I checked with AntennaWeb.org to see if I can get local channels over the air via external antenna (I can't... so no local channels but I barely watched them anyway). Roku provides a Watch ESPN link which, after inputting the ESPN-provided code into Playstation Vue, allows me to watch way more sports on my big-screen TV than was available to me on regular cable. No annual commitment; payment is month to month and can be dropped anytime. I also bought PBS Passport ($60/year).
End result: HD TV reception is every bit as good as I received from the cable provider. Toggling between TV programs is much more awkward on Playstation Vue than it was with my former cable TV service. Phone quality on Magic Jack is only fair but that may be a function of my antique phone devices. All the Bama baseball and softball games have been available for viewing on my big-screen TV via Watch ESPN so I have every expectation that all Bama football games will also be available this fall. My total internet-TV-phone monthly cost is $110/month.
Last night I watched the Bama v. Loyola-Chicago softball game and this evening I'll watch the Bama-Valparaiso softball game.
Why fiber? It was never intended for short runs. Cable works better, for short runs.
Yes, fiber optics has come a long way, in the last 30 years. Most notably the repeatability of core concentricity. But, the laws of physics have not changed.
A buddy, who owns his own home theater install outfit, told me about a fiber optics seminar he attended, at CES one year. And how much he learned at it.
He was amazed that fiber was not as cut and dry as you would think. Of course, I had already told him everything they told him, but it somehow meant more when he paid money to hear it from someone else!
PM me, if you have any questions.
(BTW, I despise wireless. An even longer explanation.)
Fiber was successfully introduced in 1995 (used 2- 6' lengths per link) as a means of linking arcade video games (Sega Daytona). But this may be the exception to your argument.
I also love my wireless network, except that when it goes down, everything goes down with it. TV, internet and phones are all down as well.
Latest threads
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 4
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0