July 10th, 2008
Washington DC
I watched ESPN’s First Take yesterday, and listening to Skip “To the Lou Gently” Bayless’s (that link gives you the rumor on Skip) latest rant about athletes who make too much, and teams who shouldn’t ever lose; when it hit me how fans could voice their concern, and have a real impact on ESPN.
This on the heels of tonights' PTI crew, who filled in for Cornheiser and Wilbon. Dan Shaughnessy and this fat, beefy chunk of a guy playing the Bermen wannabe role, took the opportunity to nail Giambi for his past use of legal drugs, while praising Josh Hamiltons' felonious use of illegal drugs.
These two said that the reason Hamilton deserves a second chance is because he was honest, despite everyones' knowledge of Giambi's honesty well over 5 years ago, much less Pettitte-who ESPN reminds us fans of every other day.
Giambi lessened his own market, was honest to a fault, and forced by Selig to coopperate for his knowledge about legal drugs, which turned out to be the biggest fraud of all. Indeed the dealers who were the only ones breaking the law, got deals from the government, and walked off scott free, while athletes are being set-up by the same government for "lying." Polticians would do well to beware if lying is the all out greatest sin, as ESPN pontificates to it being.
What is more is that these ESPN boradcasters then equate Barry Bonds not playing right now because of racsim. Mind boggling, huh? These three were all brought up within mere seconds of each other. Really what Bonds suffers from is a backlash brought on by none other than....ESPN.
As if anyone on ESPN is a priest with the power of absolution. Instead of just saying what ESPN wants to hear is true for their own financial benefit, maybe Bonds could go on an all out cocaine, and alcohol binge. He could then committ to a 12 step program, and afterwards go to ESPN for forgiveness, instead of a priest!
Good job ESPN, you report what you're told, or what makes you the almighty buck regardless of integrity that used to be required of all journalist. In other words you are fakes, bud.
Why do you think that ESPN is lushing over the Tampa Bay Rays right now, who flops every year after mid-season? Who is Tampa threatening to take out of this years post season run? We are only starting to see the dmise of Tampa Bay in the last couple of series, but it shouldn't surprise anyone-unless you buy what ESPN sell you. No offense intended to Rays fans, just illustrating the ESPN take here.
The market drives ESPN, and all small markets, or those who compete agasint ESPN, is the constant target of their inciteful bash fest. Tampa is the exception to the rule, which proves the rule. Where has the coverage been for the Mainers, another small marketer?
The vast majority of fans country wide belong to small market teams simply because most teams have a smaller fan base, than say the Red Sox. It is a vicious cycle too, because how is a team to grow in this day without ESPNs' support? They are the only national sports broadcast network, and they are huge! Some market have to go outside their physical location to grow, which means they depend on national coverage, aka -ESPN.
Instead of supporting, or at least being objective while covering small market teams, ESPN goes out of their way to "cheerlead" against them. When was the last time you heard ESPN offer high light reel commentary in support of the Blue Jays over the Red Sox? The Jays are a perfect example too, being from a separate country and in a smaller market.
The Yankees own their own broadcast network, where ESPNs' Fred Hicks used to work, before the earings. The Yanks comepete against ESPN, as if Joe Public couldn't tell by ESPNs take on them. So the Yanks do not care. ESPN only serves to tick out of state Yankee fans off, which will only serve to make ESPN all the more phony. Unless they can make up a team with NYY history, I think they are trying their hardest.
What an opportunity for Yankee fans to unite with smaller market fans against a common nusiance, ESPN. They might want to express their displeasure over their continually biased reporting, which is a far cry from the 1980s Chris Berman style of "rumbling, bumbling and stumbling" about for both teams. By the way, if you haven't heard his meltdown from last January, there is an embedded link to it towards the end of the article. It's a must-listen, but warning—adults only!
The MLB provided an opportunity for us, the fans who have fallen victim to ESPNs' constant favortism of bigger market teams who make them money. We can now voice our displeasure with ESPNs' sold out morality, and biased coverages through the use of MLB.TV.
All fans, regardless of market size, are eligible for one week of FREE MLB.TV, and their promotion for “every team, and every game.” I am just curious as to how a baseball-fan boycott would affect ESPN, its revenue, its advertisers and sponsors, its executives, all the way down to their ranting, raving reporters, save Mike and Mike.
Boycotting ESPN for one week would certainly hit them where it hurts: right in the fat ol' wallet!
Besides, Bleacher Report has partnered with Fox Sports. Fans could enjoy The Best Damn highlights after watching the games on MLB.TV; or watch the MLB reporters instead of the drama-queen style reporting found on the clearly biased ESPN. Fox is a competitor to ESPN, their ABC Sports, and NBC, which will all tie in as you read on.
This little suggestion is a Generation X'ers way of protest, but it would take the blogs to get the word out, because this writer has no discretionary budget, nor one for advertising or paying players off who I like in the form of commericals because they make me money.
Without fail, ESPN offends me every day, so much so that I have done a little research.
How did ESPN start?
In the 1970s Rick and his father Bill Rasmussen, being from Massachusetts, and hockey enthusiast were both working for the World Hockey League's New England Whalers, a small time team, in a small time market. Just a test, quickly name Bostons pro hockey team. It took me a mintue, I remebered the black and gold uniform, those orving hockey and Boston don't really mix so much.
Bill was also a sports reporter working for NBC, who paid him to cover the Whalers, not partner with them. Rasmussen was working both sides of the coin. At the same time he was a sales man for the Whalers, selling commercial spots while reporting on them too, thus providing the seed for ESPN's ability of crossing the lines. His son, Rick, was the Whalers' public-address announcer, too. How were teams covered who played against the Whalers back then, who knows?
The Rasmussens were hoping to collect enough scratch to start threir own broadcast network, to most teams and their fans peril, who find no benefit at all by ESPN's existence. Having placed himself, and his son in an apparent conflict of interest between NBC both Bill and Rick were fired.
Soon afterwards, in 1979, having learned that satellite technology was much cheaper than cable networking, Bill bought 24-hour blocks of time, and—"de-na-nah, de-na-nah"—ESPN was born.
Rick and Bill soon hired on Chet Simmons, who held the title of CEO for nearly two decades, before becoming the USFL’s first League Commissioner—seemingly one great benefit stemming from airtime exposure.
Later in 1998, George Bodenheimer took over as the Directing Officer and CEO of ESPN, and in 2003, ESPN acquired ABC Sports. NBC’s competitor sold out to Bill and Rick as karma would have it, and Bodenheimer was running both networks.
ABC was allowed to retain its title, which is a good thing, because for this kid from the 1970s, I would have been ticked if ESPN had openly taken over the Wide World of Sports accomplished by real journalist for cheerleaders with a mic.
Currently, Disney owns ESPN, is a competitor of YES (the Yankees Broadcast Network), and NBC. Boston knows this, as they have blamed our revenue for 10 years before winning their own title, thus alleviating any ring envy. I will stop right there.
Does Goofy know that he supports some pretty questionable morals and political views by way of ESPN, or is Goofy just turning the blind eye. Fans would do well if they equated ESPN with Walt Disney, and yes-Goofy too. Their highest baseball ratings in the last several years were the result of the Clemens trial, ex Massachusetts great, and now much maligned.
Karma is a funny thing sometimes, because a new cheap media is out there for anyone willing to take advantage. Although, many cannot benefit from family relationships in this area, unless your dad is Al Gore, who invented the Internet (joke). Oh what a tangled web we weave..... when the internet can show ESPN's ability to decieve.
Market Generatation is doomed by ESPN
ESPN roots agasint anyone whose market is not big enough to cover their costs, otherwise known as market generated coverages, and subsequent rants by ESPN for those markets that they find financially appealing. IN the words of Fred Durst, they did it all for the nookie. Meaning ESPN bolsters one team over another based on their own ability to profit.
ESPN is impacting small markets in a negative manner, and then turn around and sell you that it is the Yankees fault, so it's okay to hate the Yankees. When is the last time you heard any of these clowns cheerlead for Kansas City, or Seattle for more than one week, one month, or one year? Seen a Houston game lately, or how about the Marlins?
It is great seeing Milwaukee obtain CC Sabathia, who now looks to reach the postseason for the first time since 1982. Everyone likes the underdog. Been there, done that, too. But has ESPN covered them one time in the last couple of weeks? No, they’re more interested in the second-place team in the AL East. That is bad for baseball altogether.
The reason that ESPN hates the Yankees is because George Steinbrenner is a competitor. He owns YES, which is the broadcast network of the Yanks (Yankees Entertainment and Sports) and owns the rights to all Yankees games aired. They have to pay Steinbrenner to show Yankee games, instead of a local carrier who covers that team.
What other team gets direct revenue from the boradcast of their team? None do, broadcast networks buy the rights from the MLB, who then shares the revenue MLB wide. That is all but one.
Now, given that the almighty buck is what these ladies are really cheering for on ESPN, it is no wonder why they do not promote, nor air, small-market teams. But these beauts cheer for one team over another, and that is not something that journalist do. Simply put, they are not journalist. And they are having a negative impact on small markets, rahter than no impact at all, and these fans are the vast majority of fans as well!
Advertising money is based on ratings, which is based on market strength. Tah-dah, now you know why Boston, L.A., and Chicago all get love, and the Yankees, Kansas City, Seattle, Marlins etc. do not. Simply put, it is a matter of how many fans are upset, versus how much money is made from “flirting” only with the big boys on the block is the logic which drives ESPN cheer leaders.
Advertisers market directly to us, so fans have a lot of power, but little way of flexing that fan muscle—until now.
What would happen if fans boycotted ESPN Baseball for one entire week? Fans could view every game, and every team that they want; which really is a great deal for the price for a whole season at $120. You get all games on demand, plus hometown radio.
It suits this writer well, as I am a displaced fan in Washington DC. Through MLB.TV, I can listen to Sterling's pregame and postgame, and then mute Michael Kay, who is getting better. He did well against the Boston Mob on Sports Reporters two weeks ago.
It is a huge organization that needs a good bubble bursting! A bubble exists when the market has reached its potential, and with reporting like this, ESPN is over-extended at best. Not that we could pop that huge bubble, however we can take some revenue away by diminshing their ratings!
Doing that would only remind them they started with one honest sports man, in Chris Berman, who also snapped recently around media day before the Super Bowl. If you haven’t already, give it a listen. *Warning, harsh language. For adults only.*
Don’t even get me started on what these “people” did to Miggy Tejada, but let Pedro Martinez off the age hook, along with El Duque, too.
Here is the kicker. By boycotting ESPN for one week, fans would probably, more than likely, turn to Fox Sports and their highest-rated program, The Best Damn Sports Show Period.
Equally interesting is the fact that the Bleacher Report has recently partnered up with Fox Sports online, whose main competition is none other than ABC and NBC.
The difference is this: The Best Damn Sports Show Period has real athletes who have actually, at some point in their lives, played the sport for which they now report on except one, not all.
ESPN? Most went to law school, which is downright depressing, seeing as how they are doing the sporting page when possessing a law degree. Follow the money though. All lawyers do.
Need proof of ESPN's bias?
Here is a whole nationality that is boycotting ESPN. Some fans go back and forth about regional bias. Bob Ryan is certainly one who illustrates his regional bias on ESPN, aslo being from Boston. Shocker?
Here is one that points to ESPN's hatred of the Yankees. One of ESPN’s reporters was recently suspended for calling out fans of Boston, albeit in a not-so-flattering way, which is in line with…Skip Bayless, whom the girl had worked with several times before her suspension, and undoubtedly took cue from.
Then there is Peter Gammons, who goes goo-goo over Red anything, plus there is also Jackie McMullen. Of course, there is the infamous suspension of Notre Dame and Jesus hater, Dana Jacobson, which is interesting because ESPN didn’t even go on record for about a week after the incident.
To quote her directly, she said “F*ck Notre Dame, F*ck Touchdown Jesus," and look out for lightning, because she went with, "F*ck Jesus" too. Golic should have decked the self professed Michigan fan sooner, and it wasn't made public (at first) because it was a promoted by those who like Boston College. Rival this "lady of the night", you were discussing this religious rant while at a roast..open to the public, but you will never see that public event now. By the way, 70% of all Americans are Christian. And Notre Dame doesn't consider Michigan their rival team, sorry to disapoint, that prevlige is reserved for a more west coast team.
Trust me, we Irish Fans don't even know what team like Michigan, or Boston College is upset with, other than an "inter-religious war," as it's called. The Irish have 11 national championships, more than any other college football team around, and they get hit like that all the time with nary a response. So I say, F*ck Mssss. Jacobson! SHe was reportedly drunk, see above Hamilton remarks, and not on steroids or HGH.
Mike Lupica, long time presence of the Sports Reporters, is right there with her. He graduated from Boston College himself, along with other occasional Boston journalists who fill in from time to time. There are just too many to list.
So, have you banned your sportscaster today?
:o)~
comments (59) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Just a quick question regarding bias, and I'm not sure you would have the answer to this.
A network (ie ESPN or FOX) signs a contract with MLB to televise x amount of Nationally televised games on specific dates. Presumably they have a list to choose from. Does the regional networks, (Fox Sports, other team specific network-YES, STO, etc) just take one for the team? Or how does this work?
from 2 months ago
Just an off the cuff answer without no rsearch behind it, but no-the parent network has the rights to broadcast that teeam - ie YES, and get a dividend from ESPN's broadcast.
from 2 months ago
Brandon, YES is owned by the Yankees, so no matter how it is sliced up, when ESPN covers anything in NY that revenue is shared directly with the Yankees. Unlike any team in any sport. Local networks, comcast, NESN etc, purchase the rights from the MLB, who in turn share the profits league-wide. Now, when it is the Yankees, the MLB does not own the rights-it is said on the airing of all YES games that one requires "the permission for any re-broadcast or coverage (etc) of the afore mentioned NY Yankees," who own the rights straight out. Now, they also pay the MLB too, who then splits the money league wide as well...but the Yanks keep the vast majority of that pie. Otherwise the rights are owned by the broadcasting network in conjunction with the MLB.
from 2 months ago
I'm not sure if I follow.
Thats fine though.
2 months ago
You've got kind of an interesting idea here, but you make your case with very clouded, and often incorrect, judgments.
How can you say ESPN hates the Yankees? They're currently doing that "remembering yankee stadium" thing every day! Jeter was just on the Sunday Conversation! Its always, Sawks and Yanks stuff. And Mike Lupica is a New York writer.
Also, what does Dana Jacobson's rant have to do with their objectivity? She didn't say this stuff on TV. Do you honestly expect these people who work in sports for a living not to have strong feelings about various teams in their private lives?
And of course they're going to cover bigger markets more than smaller markets. Thats just how the world works! There are more fans watching ESPN that like the Red Sox than the Royals. Thats just a fact. Their airtime should reflect that. Why should we have to deal with them talking about a last place team all the time?
from 2 months ago
How? Take Giambi-who they tear apart, even though he was "honest" "co-operative" and overcame his adversity - and- compare his coverage to Josh Hamilton-cocaine and alcohol abuser who they lush over..all pun inteneded. What has killed more people, coke and alcohol (MADD??) or steroids / hgh?
Yes, it is all about the markets that fat guys feed on, that's why I wrote it. To make clear to fans that dont like the bias. Clouded? Yeah, I tried to cover 30 years of BS in less than 3 pages-I guess I could have done better, and for you I will try harder next time
from 2 months ago
Dan, I wrote this at 5:30 this am, and did not get a chance to edit it properly - I am doing it now.
To answer your question, ESPN has to cover Yankee Stadium, because -like the Red Sox-the Yankees have fans all over the dam country. Of course they took the opportunity to make a buck off the destruction of the Stadium - most are in awe that the Yanks are doing it to begin with
Diana Jacobson-just illustrates who is behind the mike. DO you think Mzzz Jacobson was saying this shit while at home, homes? She was at a journalist event, something for those in the media to slap each other on the backs...and were therefor comments made in PUBLIC
The fact that MIKE LUPICA graduated from BC, who writes for the Daily NEws (Screws i say) - and trashes the Yankees every chance he gets should be an indication of his biased...and yes, he is on ESPN too. Look at his articles, or better yet, dont.
2 months ago
I would say it's a situation where sports "reporters" (and indeed "reporters") get a little too full of themselves, more than a network issue. This in part is due to the media as a whole becoming more a part of the story, or even the story itself, rather than just reporting the story.
It is a nationwide problem, not just limited to ESPN. Reporters from coast to coast have these issues. It's called "Ego", and calculate (or sometimes unintentional) actions to garner ratings.
Skip-bo Bayless is just a loud-mouthed fool. He's more full of sh!t than a dirty porta-potty after a summer weekend rock-a-palooza festival.
I asked this question on a previous piece on the topic of reporting: Have you taken the time to write the network and voice your complaints (in a tactful, concise, yet specific way)?
That should be the first step in the process. I'd like to know what the result was.
from 2 months ago
Adam, I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. If you'd watch any network's coverage over a week, you'd get annoyed at reporters' annoying inability to "get out of the way" and just report the news. They want to "blog" on camera!
from 2 months ago
Oh, I have written them -First Take, and Mike and Mike are in a group mailing I do, about once a week. So is the NY Times and Post - sports pages, or rather specific reporters.
No response at all, but sometimes Golic addresses my concern. Outside of Golic and Buster Olney I could do without ESPN. I've actually had heated debates with some in the NY media while covering the same stories.
Pulling fans away from ESPN and moving them towards the MLB reporters can only be a good thing.
from 2 months ago
I should clarify, NY Post writers, along with the Times do cover some issues that I raise, to a degree. They often times email back and forth with me. I dont wirte about half the stuff I email, but then again most is in response to their coverages. I like the writer more than the broadcast guys. Writers have a higher standard, while boobs on TV just need to bhe boobs-that is look nice, and be thrilling. Sorry if that offends any female fans...wasnt the intent! Whenever boobs can be compared to actors on ESPN, I say its a good thing ;o)
2 months ago
I agree with you. Just check out my articles. I had MLB.TV until I had to cancel my subscription because I think the antivirus program my dad put on the computer doesn't fit well on here. Anyways, here's my articles I wrote:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/31969-espn-should-have-the-right-to-broadcast-games-that-local-tv-broadcast
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/33334-espn-should-broadcast-all-mlb-teams-part-one
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/33337-espn-should-broadcast-all-mlb-teams-part-two
from 2 months ago
good job Mike! Liked the articles too
from 2 months ago
you can adjust your anti-virus to allow mlb.tv permission past the firewall. or dont download mosiac, and just use what is given online...click the tv icon next to the game and watch the game that way. though mosiac, for those that hasve it, is a nice little program allowing for the fan to watch as many as 8 games on one screen
from 2 months ago
I am not sure how to adjust it or I did try to adjust it, but it wouldn't work. By the way, I think the only time I would boycott a sports network, it would be for NESN when they blackout the ESPN broadcast of the Red Sox games on Mondays and Wednesdays.
from 2 months ago
shouldnt be a problem - all computers have video capabilities. it sounds like you do have a virus, and you probably got it from an angry blogger - happens all the time. some sites have hackers that do not like the "vocals" contesting their opinions, thus the virus. a way around it, relatvely cheap too, is to buy an external hard dirve. keep all your data on it, and not your computers hard drive. check out ebay, they sell them with usb ports for about 50 bux.
Also, you prove that any sports fan can be offended by networks without boundries...
take care brother
2 months ago
ESPN hates the Yankees? I definetly haven't noticed that one.
from 2 months ago
Then youre not a Yankee fan. Ask any Yankee fan about ESPN - start by going to MLBs blog, or the yesnetwork blogs. It is not new. Of course their bias is kind of new, as YES wasnt founded until the late 1990s.
from 2 months ago
And Matt, I tried not to make this about the Yanks vs ESPNs love affair with the Sox - I consider ESPN an equal fan offender ;o)
2 months ago
espn is getting biased and quality is going downhill. I can't stand watching Baseball Tonight anymore for various reasons. Sportscenter this week didn't even think it was worth mentioning Matt Harrison of the Rangers won his first career appearance. Then earlier in the week Kuroda pitched the one hitter with very little coverage from them. No headline whatsoever, and Baseball Tonight only talked about it for 1-2 min. One hitter is something to talk about, Kuroda after all did have a perfect game untill the 8th inning. I for one am starting to watch more of fox sports. There quality and programming seems to be going up big time of late.
from 2 months ago
Ditto
from 2 months ago
the dodgers, and all west coast team get little coverage because they are three hours behind. I was watching sportscenter when they were getting ready to go off the air and they reported the "late breaking news" that Kuroda had a perfect game going, when they came back from their last commercial they showed highlights the minute the perfecto got broken up. By the time a game ends on the west coast, the east coast, and midwest is sleeping.
from 2 months ago
true that, the west coast is the victim of time zones that infringe on equal coverage...by the way, I saw that too. at least LA has one of the biggest markets, meaing physically-not dependent on espn to grow any further-than does Kansas, or Seattle or most all other markets. I cant recall the last time i heard any positive news from espn on say, the sf giants. espn is more interested in tearing them down, by way of zito, which only impact that market in a negative manner, based on espns' lack or journalistic integrity which would demand that reports be unbiased. certainly most fans think that espn affects there market equally as bad, because the highlight reels demand that their market not grow. these boobs only elevate thos markets that make them cash, so most markets are doomed to not growm at all, thus keeping them small. its one vicious cycle.
from 2 months ago
I agree with you on that. It also seems like they like to show a Red Sox game once a week and on a Monday or Wednesday, we get blacked out. It's stupid.
2 months ago
good post.
from 2 months ago
thanks brother
2 months ago
good post.
2 months ago
Giambi has been almost entirely let off the hook at this point. He's become almost adored by ESPN with all the mustache talk. They did a whole segment on it today with ya girl Dana Jacobson. Compare his treatment to that of Bonds, who will never, ever be welcomed back in the way Giambi has. And comparing steriod use to addiction is absurd. Hamilton's story is of personal triumph and strength in the face of tough challenges. Giambi makes no such claim of addiction. He was merely trying to get ahead. I don't think its fair to compare the two. Both are nice stories of people entering a new phase of their careers, but their pasts are in no way comparable.
I would agree with you if you were merely saying ESPN has slipped from where it once was. Its obvious some of their analysts aren't up to the same quality as they used to be. The reason is that they have way more shows now. They need to send people on assignment all over the place. They do like 5 different sportcenters. The talent runs thin. But thats what we demand as sports fans now. We want the news faster and more often. Its the nature of todays culture.
from 2 months ago
Hey Dan, wait a second bro. I just did the comparison. Yes it is absurd, after all - one broke the LAW. Do not glorify that as a triumph, because (like I worte) dealers of this shit kill people...kids and adults the same. As I state in the article I was watching PTI who just trashed Giambi, praised Hamilton and then they drew the distinction of racism with Bonds-who they equally trash! I did not watch Dana "F8CK Jesus and Notre Dame" Jacobson today, for obvious reasons.
THE almigty equalizer, that I clearly drew from ESPN, is ....ones ability to be honest, as made feverantly by ESPN. Steroids and HGH are legal, and clearly have benefits for the body...does crack? you tell me? I can tell you how Dana "F*CK JESUS AND NATRE DAME" JACOBSON was drunk when bashing 70% of Americans, and it wasnt the result of steroids or HGH. It was her abuse of alcohol, also relevant to Hamiltons case fo r which those at ESPN are easy to fiorgive, but not equally to forgive those that use HGH, or Steroids,,,that is a bad message altogether. Do illegal drugs that force some to committ murder, and as long as your honest you shall be forgivven, but do legal PEDs regardless of honesty and you will never be forgiven at all.
By the "looks of thing alone" (many say McGwire used because they can viusibly see the difference)...Dana "F*ck JESUS" Jacbson may have welkl used steroids as well...look at how big that ass has gotten! Its a joke brother, but at the same time it isnt.
Were not Daryl Strawberry, DOC K or Lawrence Taylor using coke to "just get ahead" too, or not? LT used before games so as to go out there "like a pack of wild dogs" and kill the other team, just ask Theisman. it increases awareness, and reaction time while provinding a numbing agent for the body, which is clearly a Performance Enhancing...if it matters to anyone at all, other than cops.
Yes, I am saying that the hournalism done by ESPN has taken a nose dive, pardon the pun. It is all about the cash, much like it is for any dealer. However, dealers of PEDs walked free with deals, and also lied to Congress as OUR athletes are doomed to jail for using LEGAL drugs obtained in an illegal fashion (BY DEALERS) by way of perjury...Clinton is laughing out loud over that one.
I think we can find common ground here Dan. Standards have diminshed, and morals are being steered by ESPNs ability to make money
from 2 months ago
I'll tell you what Dan, how about we do articles, because this is an interesting subject. You tell us why users of some drugs should be forgiven, even praised. And I will take the opposite stance saying how PED use should be forgiven.
I am saying this, ESPN and many media types are telling us that lying is worse than using illegal drugs. That might be the case for them, as any broacaster, writer and blogger can tell you, anything that is written or said is kept in the archives.
These same bozos who tell us that lying is the worst sin of all (contradicting every reliegion out there who says that all sin is equal in the Eyes of The One above) go out in strange cities, and stay at hotels that many players say at too. Do they expect us to believe that they really think lying is the worst thing, when the do the same thing to their wives upon arriival home? I betcha the wives are being told the exact truth of the escapades taken when out of town....
its an interesting debate though...I will write one up later to go the issue.
2 months ago
On e poster says that ESPN is all about the YAnks and Sawx...but he doesnt say who is on the recieving end of the whipping leash most times. Which is the reason for the article. Not only does ESPN love their sox, but they also give no love to smaller markets, like they do the bigger ones. the reason they love the Sawx is because of all these "free marekts" not owned by the team, the Sox are the biggest - a result of ESPN..or vice versa?? Reporters used to be held to certain journalistic standards, and now sell out for cash all the time instead
2 months ago
Can someone please stick a sock in Bayless' mouth? That guy is so freakin annoying it's not even funny.
ESPN is about ratings, just like any other TV station. They will prop certain guys up while tearing other guys down. Whatever is going to make ratings go up.
They are getting annoying as a whole really. Not many ESPN guys that I'm a fan of anymore.
from 2 months ago
A sock? I was thinking.... well, anyhow yes, ESPN is ,motivated by ratings in what games they chose to broadcast. But there news editorials, and highlight reels could show equal favor for all teams, like Bermen of the 1980s did. Good points, and there isnt a sock big enough for Skippys' mouth
2 months ago
I see your points, but ESPN is simply too much to let go for me. I love a lot of the shows, my favorite being SportsCenter, until they replay it for the 12th time of the day.
from 2 months ago
Hey Ben, I hear ya, I am a sports junkie too! There are worse things to be addicted to though ;o)
from 2 months ago
Ha, this is very true! I'm glad my addiction is only to BR and sports lol.
from 2 months ago
Who the hell cares about Matt Jones, and who is he anyhow? He just got popped for coke, all on the heels of ESPN telling us all what a good guy the Hamilton is...what a scam. Hamilton is a good human interest story though, but the same story can be found in any city with a church. of course ESPN cant make money off them though.
2 months ago
I am going to cut the Giambi Hamilton Bonds opener out and do a separate article. If anyone doesnt agree with my take on ESPNs lack of clearity on this subject, let me know ASAP, we can do a collaboration in an article, or maybe take the other side of the argument in a separate article. I asked Dan, but got no response. The offer is there for anyone interested in the topic
from 2 months ago
I'm interested in the topic you talked about, but I'm a little unsure where you're going with it. Post something on my profile to clarify and we'll try to hash something out.
2 months ago
Amen brother. If ESPN is not reporting Football than they are reporting Boston Red Sox. Every baseball fan should boycott.
from 2 months ago
Rock on my friend, and btw nice car there!
2 months ago
good post man. Completely right, i was born and raised in Pittsburgh, and i am admittingly a piratesfan (and i hate it). although this year the bucs have many player bating close to or over .300 but you never here their names on ESPN. as a matter of fact you hardly hear any coverage of pirates baseball on espn even if they win (which they wont but if they do that is a legit miracle... an apparently ESPN doesn't cover miracles)
from 2 months ago
Ahhhh yes. Pittsburh is in the house. Home of Willy Stargel and my man Dave Parker! Used to be a bucs fan as a kid, i liked all players back then and hated teams who traded them away. This should tell you that kids are stolen away from their home town teams every year by biased ESPN reports. The bucs are great this yr, but you have to go online outside ESPN TV to find about it. It dont pay ESPN enough to praise markets outside LA, NE, Chi-town, NY and select few other markets. How bout them Penguins! What are Pitts fans thoughts on Jagr going to Russia? And why doesnt ESPN report that as a story? because Jagr played for ...NY too! The crux of it all. You guys in Penn have a healthy intra-state competition too...especially considering both teams are NL'ers. Pitt isnt out of it, not considering last year. They should surprise every fan out there...again. THis is the point too, it shouldnt surpirse anyone, but does b/c of a lack of proper coverage. Cheer-leaders do the high light reels based on markets who make them money. When was the last ESPN commerical featuring a Buck? I couldnt say. Pitt has a shot at title town too, I used to like the Stealers as well when a kid, still do to a degree, more than Philly anyhow.
2 months ago
RE: ESPN's Red Sox bias.
I'm not a Yanks or Sox fan, but it seems to me whenever a player on either team makes a routine play, ESPN makes them out to be the greatest player in the history of the universe. During a SportsCenter broadcast earlier in the week, they showed a highlight of Jeter backhanding a ball deep in the hole and making a 30-foot throw to shortstop. The anchors lavished praise on this play, even though most good shortstops will make several similar plays over the course of a season.
ESPN definitely has a coastal bias, and with good reason. The two biggest media markets in this country are NY and LA. But you all are definitely right, ESPN gives events in those cities (and Boston) more coverage AND tends to slant their coverage. As a Midwesterner who roots for the Tigers and the Spartans, it can get very frustrating sometimes.
from 2 months ago
Don't forget about the Rangers right now either. They are certainly worthy of being talked about.
from 2 months ago
Yes, you nailed it. Joe, I can tell you this fan is displeased with Jeters leadership, or lack there of. But he is the face of baseball...we call him cpt america because he is so damn "good." not talent wise, but his attitude, and it drives me up the wall. I grew up with Munson as the Yanks Capt, and that is what I want a captain to be, kinda a ruff neck. Like Varitek, who is all to welling to put the dukes up. Jeter always has a smile on his puss, like he just smoked a massive bong hit ..its not funny, so quit laughing. ;o)
I want Jeter to get in somebody's face for once, instead of always smiling. He acts as if nothing is wrong, and it ticks me off especially when the Yanks are so bad this year.
Great points though. Why arent you a Kansas City fan, or Cardinals? Just curious is all. Either way, ESPN shows their bias every night...and that same bias keeps smaller markets small, and bigger markets big. That is their bread and butt-ah, ya know?
from 2 months ago
Ryan, I like Texas too, my man Nolan Ryan is thge president, but I have no clue who the head coach is, and the only thing ESPN reports on regarding the Rangers is that negative story, turned positive. You know what I am saying, right? I think that is a good human interest stroy, but what about the rest of the team, who is all in this year?
from 2 months ago
Patrick,
I actually grew up as a Kansas City fan, but was never close enough to KC to go to games regularly. My dad grew up just outside of KC and passed his fandom on to me. I grew up just across the river from Cincinnati, so you'd think I'd be a Reds fan, but I grew up when Marge Schott was in charge. I cheer for the Tigers because they're the first major league team that I've ever lived close enough to that I could go see games regularly. And for the record, I did go see some games in 2003 and 2004, pre-Jim Leyland :)
from 2 months ago
I see Joe. Gotta respect the displaced fans-theyre usually in it for life, since having caught the bug when a kid. ESPN is an equal opportunity offender, especially to displaced fans...like me too
2 months ago
So wait...They dont like the Yankees because of YES? Then wouldn't they not like the Sox because of NESN? I mean really, we all know that ESPN is really NESN2, but still. I don't get your argument. As far as I know, MLB is the one that makes money from ESPN broadcasts...not the Yankees.
When you watch the game, don't they say "without express written consent from Major League Baseball"? They don't say from George....er...Hal Steinbrenner. I really don't know. All I know is that ESPN hasn't been good for a long time and that cable sports networks piss me off. I shouldn't have to pay for 500 channels just to watch the Dbacks play on the road. To hell with you all, XM is the way to go.
from 2 months ago
No Glen.
That isnt what I am saying at all. Do you work for ESPN? If so than yes, that is what I am saying. The point about YES is that they are the only professional team who ---owns their own network. NESN isnt owned by the Sawx. Everyone has local networking that competes against ESPN, but only one team competes in the broadcast market against them. YES, owned by Steinbrenner, gets the money that normally would be shared with the local network responsible for covering that team Not too fair, but it is unique. It also involves revenue sharing, and the FCC.
Fans all over the place hate the Yankees, and NY fans dont care. Do you know how many teams consider the Yankees their rivals? BUT saying ESPN is good? Maybe so, but only if they can make a buck of your team do they give you props...that is what I am saying. Their journalistic integrity has sh*t the bed regarding the vast majority of teams, who are in small markets. The D-Backs, from what I hear, are in a super-rich market, though small in comparison to BOS or LA.
YES, they do say "without express written consent -of the afore mentioned NY Yankees" on YES, or if locally broadcast-"from the MLB." It is a unique situation, and a slap in the face of capitalism as the MLB shares profits from one team with all teams, but that is a whole different article. The Yanks dont have to do that with YES..which of course benefits the Yankees, and not...ESPN
I hope I served to answer the question Glen...good points, and thanks for bringing profit sharing up.
XM is indeed the way to go, but remember-it too is broadcast by the home team, so when youre D-Backs play in NY, guess who you get to listen to----JOHN STERLING on 880, and do you think that he will be fair in his coverage? NO, because he works for NYY. Kind of the same way ESPN is biased, so are local networks too...they placate to their "fan base"
Also-that involves revenue sharing too. Cable Networks piss everyone off btw. I am a displaced Yankee fan in DC...so, instead of doling out 200 bucks per year, I save 80 and go with MLB.tv
Sorry dude, no one here is disagreeing with you though...per the aforementioned YES Network" ..listen to it the next time you find yourself playing in NY. Or, as stated above, check it out for free this week on MLB.TV
Later brother-No harm, no foul?
from 2 months ago
I'm pretty sure the Dolan family owns "Sports Time Ohio" and owns the Indians. The Twins own "Victory Sports One" as well. Rogers owns the Blue Jays, the stadium, and the tv network.
Can you elaborate as to how these instances are different than the one in New York (other than the fact the Yankees charge more...but they should charge more because there is more demand)?
from 2 months ago
Other than not knowing all that, which I say good catch to you, then no-i cant, other than to say the market is bigger is NY, and there for involves more money. So yes, they might charge more but only becasue they make so much more. You cant hate NY for being th capitol of the free market, right? I dont see YS trashing other teams either, to the contrary they share more revenue than some owners pay their entire teams.
Are these broadcast of shows, and some games or classified as networks? Interesting, I'll get an answer for you-but the primary point wasnt the YES network-rather it was small markets who have no avenue for growth that are negatively impacted by ESPN. Toronto, Cleveland, and Seattle are only so big, so they require national coverages, or ESPN to grow their fan base-aka-market
from 2 months ago
I know you weren't trying to pick on YES, you were just using them as a model. I was just curious if the same thing happened with the other team-owned sports networks. I live in a market where FSN shows all of the Dbacks games ONLY on cable and that's the only way to see them out of town without traveling (I do a lot of traveling). It would seem to me, that in a free market, a company like FOX wouldn't sell the rights to the games to ESPN if they had a choice. In other words, if I get home late and missed the game, what channel am I going to go to in order to see highlights of the Dbacks? ESPN probably because I know every 10 minutes is the same stupid sportscenter shtick. If you're FOX and own 15 different Fox Sports Net companies in 15 different markets, you've already paid for the exclusive rights to show those games, you should be able to hold them and not let ESPN in on the party.
Of course, I would imagine that exclusivity agreements only apply to the areas that each baseball team is allowed to advertise (IE, people in DC trying to watch Orioles games) so your exclusivity doesn't apply on a national scale.
Hmmm, this is complicated.
Also, Toronto games are shown all across Canada (at least that's what I remember last time I was in Vancouver)...that's a pretty big market share.
All of this will become extremely confusing next season when MLBTV (not mlb.tv) comes to cable and dish. You will now have a channel that you don't have to pay for (I remember MLB made sure it was regular tier) on top of your cable bill that is just 24/7 baseball. All of the highlights from every game with smart people like Cal Ripken doing analysis. Basically a TV version of XM's MLB 175. My usage of ESPN Radio fell off completely when XM 175 showed up, I can imagine the same happening on cable.
from 2 months ago
No sheet? I didnt know that MLBTV was going to be inclusive with cable, and not paid any additional fees? I was wondering how MLB.TV was broadcasting all teams and in all markets, which no one other than the MLB has the rights to do. So, they're not in it for the buck, but the free sharing of baseball? No way, the dish and cable networks are okay with that? No way. they charge 200 bux for that package as is right now. Eww, that is going to set it off. Nice Glen
from 2 months ago
Well, let me clarify...
1st. MLB.TV doesn't show every game in every market. I can't watch Dbacks games on MLB.tv because I live in Phoenix. So as long as you aren't a fan of the team for the city in which you live, you're okay. Of course, you can download the games AFTER they are over, but good luck navigating to the MLB.tv page without seeing the score. MLB.tv is only good for if you live away from your favorite team...not if you want to watch the day game from your office or tell your cable company to suck it.
2nd. MLBTV was part of the ExtraInnings package that MLB was touting a few years back. Originally, they were offering it to both dish companies and all of the cable companies. In order for the provider to have rights to show ExtraInnings, they HAD TO AGREE to add a single MLB channel to the basic tier of channels. Dish (or maybe it was DirectTV, or both) agreed and cable didn't. This became a HUGE issue for people who weren't able to or weren't allowed to have SAT. They called and complained to both MLB and Cox/Comcast/etc. The cable companies were originally refusing to give up space on the basic tier in order to have ExtraInnings but I guess enough people complained so they gave in.
Finally, it's not 2009 year and none of this has happened yet. My understanding from all of the hype was that basic cable (and SAT) subscribers will get the MLBTV channel. That station should be full of highlight shows, classic games, and analysis shows like Ripken Baseball and Charlie Steiner. You then have to pay $200 or whatever it is to get the ExtraInnings package added on to that. In THEORY you should be able to watch highlights of baseball games pretty much as they happen because MLB will have the rights to show whatever they want. At the same time, if you are on one of those cable companies that makes ESPN a pay-extra channel (because it's so damn expensive), you should be able to get MLB without giving ESPN any of your money. Otherwise, just having cable pays Disney and ESPN.
Of course, I really don't know. This is what wiki says on the deal:
"On April 4, MLB and iN DEMAND finally reached an agreement similar to the one that MLB reached with DirecTV. Cable companies that carry iN DEMAND resumed carrying MLB Extra Innings and also agreed to add the MLB Network upon its launch. iN DEMAND only had the authority to negotiate directly for and agree to add the Baseball Channel on their owners' cable systems which are made up by Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and Advance/Newhouse as (Bright House Networks) in turn iN DEMAND got an equity stake in the Baseball Channel about the same as the one DirecTV received. Cablevision which had been asking for their own equity stake as terms for them to agree to add the MLB Network came to terms with iN DEMAND and Major League Baseball on May 4, 2007 which was iN DEMAND and MLB's deadline for cable companies and Dish Network to reach a deal. Cablevision agreed to carry the MLB Network without getting the equity stake in it. Charter Communications also reached an agreement with MLB."
2 months ago
That was a long article, but it was worth the "read." Patrick, you are one helluva SOB, arent you? In a good way of course. I am a Reds fan, and the only person covered by ESPN is Griffey Jr - not exactly fair and balanced coverage. Can you tell me who our manager is?
from 2 months ago
Dusty Baker, though I'm worried that he'll ruin Edinson Volquez and Johnny Cueto.
from 2 months ago
See Lou, you do have some Reds in the house...regardless of ESPN, who Baker worked for :o)~
write a new comment