9 ms·

I don't watch sports networks of any kind, but I've seen anecdotes online that ESPN, especially sportscenter, is losing viewers because of politicization of con

by nnfy 9y ago

I don't watch sports networks of any kind, but I've seen anecdotes online that ESPN, especially sportscenter, is losing viewers because of politicization of content, where people just want sports talk.

m52go 9y ago
Not sure since I don't watch much ESPN either but this is a trend across media properties. I just saw MIT Technology Review tweet something about Trump's politics...didn't make me very happy.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  MIT is an institution of higher learning. When the president says that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to ruin the American economy, it goes beyond politics. Science isn't conservative or liberal. Science institutions are right to speak out against foolish policies that aren't rooted in science.
  - m52go 9y ago
    > MIT is an institution of higher learning. MIT Technology Review is not an institution of higher learning. It's a magazine supposedly focused on reporting about science and technology. > When the president says that climate change is a hoax The tweet I mentioned had nothing to do with climate change...not sure where you got that from. https://twitter.com/techreview/status/858577857110528000 https://twitter.com/techreview/status/858577857110528000
    - burkaman 9y ago
      This is a pretty interesting, fact-based article, what's the problem? I understand not wanting political opinions in a publication like this, but there's no discussion of whether the wall is a good idea or anything like that in here. "The mission of MIT Technology Review is to equip its audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology." I don't think ignoring any story that happens to involve a politician would help serve that mission.
      - nnfy 9y ago
        >I understand not wanting political opinions in a publication like this But that's exactly the problem.
        burkaman 9y ago
        Where in that article is there a political opinion?
  - geodel 9y ago
    Science funding is conservative or liberal. And when people force funding to a particular program, it is politics.
    - blackguardx 9y ago
      I think directing funding away from things can be political. It is like saying, "we don't want this question answered." Directing funding towards answering certain questions isn't political in my mind, though.
      - hackuser 9y ago
        How about directing funding toward creationism, or alternative views of the causes of climate change (i.e., non-human ones), or the benefits of authoritarianism? How about when the Koch brothers fund research into the benefits of their brand of libertarianism? Anything can be used politically.
        blackguardx 9y ago
        Funding research is different than funding a specific result. The latter is definitely political.
        LanceH 9y ago
        The fact that there were votes to take someone's money away and give it to someone else makes it political no matter what it is spent on.
        hackuser 9y ago
        That description is a misconception, IMHO. First, it's an investment; it's not taking away money; it's not robbery. It has a return, a benefit that generally exceeds the cost (I'm not sure how much I paid to fly Cassini to Saturn, but wow was it worth it). People make investments all the time and are happy to do it, in everything from houses to the local homeless shelter to a new computer. Second, people normally and frequently participate in group decisions, even though they rarely get exactly what they want. To suggest that anything besides an individual choosing alone is extraordinary - that isn't how people really operate.
itbeho 9y ago
I like to watch sports for the competition, not preachy politics. Life in America is already too polarized politically. It's a shame broadcast sports can't be at least one place for common ground.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > It's a shame broadcast sports can't be at least one place for common ground. I don't know. There's a "sportsmanship" mythos out there, but I'm not sure it's the dominant one. I see a lot more of the love-my-team-hate-your-team culture in sports that looks a lot like modern "my team" politics. I'm just struggling with the implication of that. Do we encourage rabid sports fandom to give a relatively harmless space for the tribal impulse? Or does it just train people to support their parties and politicians the same way they support their favorite jerseyed heroes?
  - 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
    Also, trying to exclude politics often plays out as the majority promulgating their own "neutral" political positions and traditions unchallenged. It's much harder to create a truly apolitical space than it is to just get people with grievances to shut up or leave.
maxerickson 9y ago
It doesn't really matter to ESPN if people watch all of Sportscenter or not.
endorphone 9y ago
is losing viewers because of politicization of content They're losing viewers because we're turning away from television. That much is obvious to all. There are many ways to view, every event has countless streams, we get our sports news in granular form on our mobile, etc. However in the wake of that, some very sad people have decided to get on their soapbox and claim that they're really declining because they don't parrot whatever their personal position is. I've seen these people claim that ESPN is faltering because they have a problem with players who rape or beat women. Others -- the same ones who say that they don't want it to be "preachy" -- get up in arms if ESPN isn't preachily attacking the Colin Kaepernick's of the world. Etc. So as is often the case, the most partisan of all are the ones claiming that everything is some crazy partisan slant.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  It's not even about personal opinions. Every second they spend talking about whichever pro-athlete got a misdemeanor this week or scolding some college because its athletes were at a party where shit went down is a second they're not talking about actual sports content.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The professional leagues all have conduct policies. So do colleges with sports teams. If a player violates those policies and faces consequences such as being suspended from play, how is that not "actual sports content"? You might as well say that if a politician commits crimes, political coverage shouldn't mention it -- after all, that's not "actual political content", right?
    - nnfy 9y ago
      Criminal behavior is generally presumed to be a reflection of a politician's character, which may affect a politician's decision making in office. I doubt the same inferences should be made so strongly regarding sports players.
      - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
querulous 9y ago
espn's best performing shows (other than live broadcasts of actual sports events) are it's most politicized. 'First Take', 'Highly Questionable', 'Pardon the Interruption', 'Around the Horn', etc the same is true for Fox Sports 1. it's simply not true that consumers are watching sports programming that isn't politicized more than that which is
- zaroth 9y ago
  My first thought is, what's the ratio of those shows live vs. on-demand viewers? If you're looking at mostly live viewers, the time-slot the show is given could be the driver of the volume of eyeballs as much as the content. In otherwords, perhaps their best watched shows are the ones in the worst decline / their best watched (i.e. tent pole shows) are bleeding the most viewers. I can't speak to the cause.
- cardiffspaceman 9y ago
  Is it possible that ESPN/sports channels are facing a demographic change and are guessing that mainstreaming their content, by appealing to non-sports fans by way of personality content that's just like an entertainment channel? This would be no different than the weather channel that changes from hardcore weather data to reality shows about bad weather.
  - querulous 9y ago
    no. these shows have been popular for years. pardon the interruption first aired in 2001. around the horn in 2003. first take in 2007. espn isn't flailing around looking for a new business model, it's following the money espn's problems are overpaying for content (live sports), paying a huge number of employees who barely move the needle in the twitter age (all of their reporters, basically) and the rise of alternatives to cable like netflix, amazon prime, hulu and bamtech
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Also: the sports themselves starting to get savvy. MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL all have their own television networks, and MLB is setting a strong example of how to do a streaming sports service right. In fact, ESPN has announced they'll start airing one of the MLB network's daily shows and massively scaling back their own daily baseball show (which will now only air once a week). Add in rumors that the NFL influences its schedule to give ESPN less-desirable games for Monday Night Football, and the NBA strongly favoring TNT/TBS, and what's left? They can't run Sportscenter 24 hours a day.
redthrowaway 9y ago
ESPN would be in trouble without pushing progressive politics. The business model simply isn't holding up. But alienating half of your consumers probably isn't the best way to deal with a failing business model.
- xienze 9y ago
  > ESPN would be in trouble without pushing progressive politics. The business model simply isn't holding up. I agree that ESPN's decline has more to do with over-extending themselves on rights deals while cord-cutting has become "a thing" than politics. However, I don't think you can discount the politics angle as a reason that a sizable number of people have finally decided "you know, I can do without ESPN." The amount of people who I've seen, online and in person, citing the absolutely insufferable, constant politicization of ESPN (and the media in general), regardless of which side of the aisle these people sit on, leads me to believe that a lot of people are simply exhausted and just want "sports". Barring that, they're quite willing to just drop ESPN. I think it really is a legitimate factor here.
  - redthrowaway 9y ago
    >However, I don't think you can discount the politics angle as a reason that a sizable number of people have finally decided "you know, I can do without ESPN." I don't. In fact I agree entirely with the notion that ESPN is shooting itself in the foot by constantly pushing politics that play well in NYC & LA, but actively turn off viewers in the rest of the country. I'm just saying it would still be failing; albeit more slowly if it "just stuck to sports".
  - hackuser 9y ago
    > The amount of people who I've seen, online and in person, citing the absolutely insufferable, constant politicization of ESPN ... How many?
golemotron 9y ago
I see the politicization as an effect, not a cause. They are trying to get market by becoming "more than sports." MTV tried to become "more than music" in the same way decades ago. It's a not a trend limited to cable but there are many examples.
ubernostrum 9y ago
What is "political" about it?
hackuser 9y ago
I don't see ESPN's content as politicized. Politicized content would be to support a candidate or political policy (e.g., for or against national health care). I see ESPN addressing social issues, such as abuse of women, but I don't call that political. Of course, any person can say: X is against my politics; but on that basis everything is politics. The reality is that there's a segment of the public that's part of an ideological political movement. Consistent with such movements, everything and everyone that doesn't share the political ideology are viewed as political enemies; the goal is to wipe out all apostates and non-believers. If ESPN doesn't share their ideology, they are portrayed as political enemies. In the end, that group is a small minority (per surveys, not per online volume or representation on cable news); we can't be intimidated into silence on important social issues. > I've seen anecdotes online As a basis of knowledge, that has been so misleading for so long, especially regarding politicized issues like this one, that IMHO repeating it mostly magnifies misinformation.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  I don't see ESPN's content as politicized. It isn't. A simpler way to explain what you're getting at is: if reporting is about someone the viewer identifies with, or an issue the viewer sees as relevant to/personally affecting them, then they see it as fine. But if it's about someone the viewer doesn't identify with, or an issue the viewer doesn't see as relevant to/personally affecting them, well, that's "politics". Thus: male viewers see it as "political" to cover women or issues affecting women. White viewers see it as "political" to cover people of color or issues affecting people of color. And there is some research to show that even small amounts of representation get perceived as a much higher percentage, by an audience used to zero as the baseline representation of people unlike themselves. Oddly, they never seem to realize just how much "politics" had to happen to create and maintain the situation in which those other people and issues weren't considered fit to cover or even mention.

by nnfy 9y ago

m52go 9y ago

Not sure since I don't watch much ESPN either but this is a trend across media properties. I just saw MIT Technology Review tweet something about Trump's politics...didn't make me very happy.

blackguardx 9y ago
MIT is an institution of higher learning. When the president says that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to ruin the American economy, it goes beyond politics. Science isn't conservative or liberal. Science institutions are right to speak out against foolish policies that aren't rooted in science.
- m52go 9y ago
  > MIT is an institution of higher learning. MIT Technology Review is not an institution of higher learning. It's a magazine supposedly focused on reporting about science and technology. > When the president says that climate change is a hoax The tweet I mentioned had nothing to do with climate change...not sure where you got that from. https://twitter.com/techreview/status/858577857110528000 https://twitter.com/techreview/status/858577857110528000
  - burkaman 9y ago
    This is a pretty interesting, fact-based article, what's the problem? I understand not wanting political opinions in a publication like this, but there's no discussion of whether the wall is a good idea or anything like that in here. "The mission of MIT Technology Review is to equip its audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology." I don't think ignoring any story that happens to involve a politician would help serve that mission.
    - nnfy 9y ago
      >I understand not wanting political opinions in a publication like this But that's exactly the problem.
      - burkaman 9y ago
        Where in that article is there a political opinion?
- geodel 9y ago
  Science funding is conservative or liberal. And when people force funding to a particular program, it is politics.
  - blackguardx 9y ago
    I think directing funding away from things can be political. It is like saying, "we don't want this question answered." Directing funding towards answering certain questions isn't political in my mind, though.
    - hackuser 9y ago
      How about directing funding toward creationism, or alternative views of the causes of climate change (i.e., non-human ones), or the benefits of authoritarianism? How about when the Koch brothers fund research into the benefits of their brand of libertarianism? Anything can be used politically.
      - blackguardx 9y ago
        Funding research is different than funding a specific result. The latter is definitely political.
        LanceH 9y ago
        The fact that there were votes to take someone's money away and give it to someone else makes it political no matter what it is spent on.
        hackuser 9y ago
        That description is a misconception, IMHO. First, it's an investment; it's not taking away money; it's not robbery. It has a return, a benefit that generally exceeds the cost (I'm not sure how much I paid to fly Cassini to Saturn, but wow was it worth it). People make investments all the time and are happy to do it, in everything from houses to the local homeless shelter to a new computer. Second, people normally and frequently participate in group decisions, even though they rarely get exactly what they want. To suggest that anything besides an individual choosing alone is extraordinary - that isn't how people really operate.

itbeho 9y ago

I like to watch sports for the competition, not preachy politics. Life in America is already too polarized politically. It's a shame broadcast sports can't be at least one place for common ground.

humanrebar 9y ago
> It's a shame broadcast sports can't be at least one place for common ground. I don't know. There's a "sportsmanship" mythos out there, but I'm not sure it's the dominant one. I see a lot more of the love-my-team-hate-your-team culture in sports that looks a lot like modern "my team" politics. I'm just struggling with the implication of that. Do we encourage rabid sports fandom to give a relatively harmless space for the tribal impulse? Or does it just train people to support their parties and politicians the same way they support their favorite jerseyed heroes?
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  Also, trying to exclude politics often plays out as the majority promulgating their own "neutral" political positions and traditions unchallenged. It's much harder to create a truly apolitical space than it is to just get people with grievances to shut up or leave.

maxerickson 9y ago

It doesn't really matter to ESPN if people watch all of Sportscenter or not.

endorphone 9y ago

is losing viewers because of politicization of content They're losing viewers because we're turning away from television. That much is obvious to all. There are many ways to view, every event has countless streams, we get our sports news in granular form on our mobile, etc. However in the wake of that, some very sad people have decided to get on their soapbox and claim that they're really declining because they don't parrot whatever their personal position is. I've seen these people claim that ESPN is faltering because they have a problem with players who rape or beat women. Others -- the same ones who say that they don't want it to be "preachy" -- get up in arms if ESPN isn't preachily attacking the Colin Kaepernick's of the world. Etc. So as is often the case, the most partisan of all are the ones claiming that everything is some crazy partisan slant.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
It's not even about personal opinions. Every second they spend talking about whichever pro-athlete got a misdemeanor this week or scolding some college because its athletes were at a party where shit went down is a second they're not talking about actual sports content.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The professional leagues all have conduct policies. So do colleges with sports teams. If a player violates those policies and faces consequences such as being suspended from play, how is that not "actual sports content"? You might as well say that if a politician commits crimes, political coverage shouldn't mention it -- after all, that's not "actual political content", right?
  - nnfy 9y ago
    Criminal behavior is generally presumed to be a reflection of a politician's character, which may affect a politician's decision making in office. I doubt the same inferences should be made so strongly regarding sports players.
    - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

querulous 9y ago

espn's best performing shows (other than live broadcasts of actual sports events) are it's most politicized. 'First Take', 'Highly Questionable', 'Pardon the Interruption', 'Around the Horn', etc the same is true for Fox Sports 1. it's simply not true that consumers are watching sports programming that isn't politicized more than that which is

zaroth 9y ago
My first thought is, what's the ratio of those shows live vs. on-demand viewers? If you're looking at mostly live viewers, the time-slot the show is given could be the driver of the volume of eyeballs as much as the content. In otherwords, perhaps their best watched shows are the ones in the worst decline / their best watched (i.e. tent pole shows) are bleeding the most viewers. I can't speak to the cause.
cardiffspaceman 9y ago
Is it possible that ESPN/sports channels are facing a demographic change and are guessing that mainstreaming their content, by appealing to non-sports fans by way of personality content that's just like an entertainment channel? This would be no different than the weather channel that changes from hardcore weather data to reality shows about bad weather.
- querulous 9y ago
  no. these shows have been popular for years. pardon the interruption first aired in 2001. around the horn in 2003. first take in 2007. espn isn't flailing around looking for a new business model, it's following the money espn's problems are overpaying for content (live sports), paying a huge number of employees who barely move the needle in the twitter age (all of their reporters, basically) and the rise of alternatives to cable like netflix, amazon prime, hulu and bamtech
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Also: the sports themselves starting to get savvy. MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL all have their own television networks, and MLB is setting a strong example of how to do a streaming sports service right. In fact, ESPN has announced they'll start airing one of the MLB network's daily shows and massively scaling back their own daily baseball show (which will now only air once a week). Add in rumors that the NFL influences its schedule to give ESPN less-desirable games for Monday Night Football, and the NBA strongly favoring TNT/TBS, and what's left? They can't run Sportscenter 24 hours a day.

redthrowaway 9y ago

ESPN would be in trouble without pushing progressive politics. The business model simply isn't holding up. But alienating half of your consumers probably isn't the best way to deal with a failing business model.

xienze 9y ago
> ESPN would be in trouble without pushing progressive politics. The business model simply isn't holding up. I agree that ESPN's decline has more to do with over-extending themselves on rights deals while cord-cutting has become "a thing" than politics. However, I don't think you can discount the politics angle as a reason that a sizable number of people have finally decided "you know, I can do without ESPN." The amount of people who I've seen, online and in person, citing the absolutely insufferable, constant politicization of ESPN (and the media in general), regardless of which side of the aisle these people sit on, leads me to believe that a lot of people are simply exhausted and just want "sports". Barring that, they're quite willing to just drop ESPN. I think it really is a legitimate factor here.
- redthrowaway 9y ago
  >However, I don't think you can discount the politics angle as a reason that a sizable number of people have finally decided "you know, I can do without ESPN." I don't. In fact I agree entirely with the notion that ESPN is shooting itself in the foot by constantly pushing politics that play well in NYC & LA, but actively turn off viewers in the rest of the country. I'm just saying it would still be failing; albeit more slowly if it "just stuck to sports".
- hackuser 9y ago
  > The amount of people who I've seen, online and in person, citing the absolutely insufferable, constant politicization of ESPN ... How many?

golemotron 9y ago

I see the politicization as an effect, not a cause. They are trying to get market by becoming "more than sports." MTV tried to become "more than music" in the same way decades ago. It's a not a trend limited to cable but there are many examples.

ubernostrum 9y ago

What is "political" about it?

hackuser 9y ago

I don't see ESPN's content as politicized. Politicized content would be to support a candidate or political policy (e.g., for or against national health care). I see ESPN addressing social issues, such as abuse of women, but I don't call that political. Of course, any person can say: X is against my politics; but on that basis everything is politics. The reality is that there's a segment of the public that's part of an ideological political movement. Consistent with such movements, everything and everyone that doesn't share the political ideology are viewed as political enemies; the goal is to wipe out all apostates and non-believers. If ESPN doesn't share their ideology, they are portrayed as political enemies. In the end, that group is a small minority (per surveys, not per online volume or representation on cable news); we can't be intimidated into silence on important social issues. > I've seen anecdotes online As a basis of knowledge, that has been so misleading for so long, especially regarding politicized issues like this one, that IMHO repeating it mostly magnifies misinformation.

ubernostrum 9y ago
I don't see ESPN's content as politicized. It isn't. A simpler way to explain what you're getting at is: if reporting is about someone the viewer identifies with, or an issue the viewer sees as relevant to/personally affecting them, then they see it as fine. But if it's about someone the viewer doesn't identify with, or an issue the viewer doesn't see as relevant to/personally affecting them, well, that's "politics". Thus: male viewers see it as "political" to cover women or issues affecting women. White viewers see it as "political" to cover people of color or issues affecting people of color. And there is some research to show that even small amounts of representation get perceived as a much higher percentage, by an audience used to zero as the baseline representation of people unlike themselves. Oddly, they never seem to realize just how much "politics" had to happen to create and maintain the situation in which those other people and issues weren't considered fit to cover or even mention.