3 ms·

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 ar

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Athletes are often held up as role models. Why shouldn't their character be relevant?
      - nnfy 10y ago
        Because they're sports players, first and foremost, and people aren't watching ESPN for evaluation of role model behavior? Scrutinizing the behavior of celebrities outside of their work is more along the style of gossip channels like E!.
        ubernostrum 10y ago
        The thing is, in our society athletes represent one of the few paths to life-altering financial success that's still somewhat open to people from poor or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds. While there are people who win the genetic lottery and get well-above-average physical capabilities, and people who win the birth lottery and get parents who can afford private coaching and training, there are still plenty of athletes who lack either of those advantages but still manage to succeed through putting in work. Which means they do end up being role models, because "work hard and you can succeed" is something we desperately want to teach children, even when it doesn't seem to be true. So athletes' stories get told as a means to inspire people to better themselves, and that makes their character extremely relevant.
brewdad 10y ago
I don't have a problem with Harold Reynolds (technically no longer with ESPN) because he sexually harasses women (I do, but I'm not changing the channel solely based on that). I have a problem with him because he's an idiot and I lose brain cells watching him. The same is true of so many network talking heads.
- endorphone 10y ago
  I later saw how terribly I worded that, however regarding the sexual assaults I was mostly talking about how extensively and forcefully ESPN covered incidents of sexual assault / domestic assault / etc of players in various sports (particularly football). To a certain contingent, doing so was being a "SJW", and many of that group decried it as leftist or liberal, absurdly.

dsfyu404ed 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Athletes are often held up as role models. Why shouldn't their character be relevant?
    - nnfy 10y ago
      Because they're sports players, first and foremost, and people aren't watching ESPN for evaluation of role model behavior? Scrutinizing the behavior of celebrities outside of their work is more along the style of gossip channels like E!.
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        The thing is, in our society athletes represent one of the few paths to life-altering financial success that's still somewhat open to people from poor or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds. While there are people who win the genetic lottery and get well-above-average physical capabilities, and people who win the birth lottery and get parents who can afford private coaching and training, there are still plenty of athletes who lack either of those advantages but still manage to succeed through putting in work. Which means they do end up being role models, because "work hard and you can succeed" is something we desperately want to teach children, even when it doesn't seem to be true. So athletes' stories get told as a means to inspire people to better themselves, and that makes their character extremely relevant.

brewdad 10y ago

I don't have a problem with Harold Reynolds (technically no longer with ESPN) because he sexually harasses women (I do, but I'm not changing the channel solely based on that). I have a problem with him because he's an idiot and I lose brain cells watching him. The same is true of so many network talking heads.

endorphone 10y ago
I later saw how terribly I worded that, however regarding the sexual assaults I was mostly talking about how extensively and forcefully ESPN covered incidents of sexual assault / domestic assault / etc of players in various sports (particularly football). To a certain contingent, doing so was being a "SJW", and many of that group decried it as leftist or liberal, absurdly.