Sports Media: The Circus of Delivering Information

Justin MorganCorrespondent INovember 5, 2010

TALLAHASSEE, FL - OCTOBER 26:  ESPN College GameDay announcers (l to r) Chris Fowler, Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit comment during the NCAA football game between Notre Dame and Florida State at Doak Campbell Stadium on October 26, 2002 in Tallahassee, Florida.  The Notre Dame Fighting Irish defeated the Florida State Seminoles 34-24.  (Photo by Craig Jones/Getty Images)
Craig Jones/Getty Images

As a sports fan, the majority of the time I'm not busy is spent soaking up sporting news on TV, the Internet and magazines.

Days off while I was in school were spent watching the same episode of ESPN's SportsCenter, over and over. I had to; what if I missed something?

My mother would, and still does when I'm home, ask how I can watch sporting news shows for hours on end. Her argument was that these shows have the same stories as the previous show.

"But mom, each show has different viewpoints, opinions, and possibly more information."

This does not change the fact that she still doesn't understand.

The majority of the sports information I get is from the TV, which like most people, comes from ESPN. Although we spend many hours watching ESPN, many complain about the way the company operates or delivers information, the BCS issue being one example.

I've read many comments on many articles and threads about how ESPN is pro-BCS and using their influence to prevent a playoff in college football.

Did you know ESPN also has biases towards certain schools? Or that some of their analysts are also on TV saying whatever the company want them to say?

Come on, guys! I'm pretty sure the heads of the company know that a playoff would get more viewers and subsequently more money. BCS bowls amount to five games, while a 16-team playoff would be 16 games (assuming they had the contract rights). You do the math.

What about the biases towards certain schools? Doesn't College Gameday go to a different campus every week, and didn't they even go to Boise State a few weeks ago, and aren't they going to Utah this weekend?

I believe the answer to all of those questions is yes. No, I know the answer is yes.

Do ESPN analysts really say what ESPN wants them to say? I highly doubt it, but who's to know for sure?  I'm sure Mark May and Lou Holtz agree on more than is shown, but this is for the sake of debate. If every analyst said the same thing, then you might have an argument. 

If you have an issue with the way ESPN operates, just be quiet and don't watch. By doing that, your voice would be louder then running your mouth on comment and thread pages. However, the few people willing to turn it off is not going to change a thing.

Now this is not to say I do not have an issue with ESPN and the way they deliver information. Many times they way they present the information makes the story bigger than it really needs to be. But this is the money maker for them. Big stories get people watching.

Along with making stories bigger than they should be, it seems they are not big fans of collecting all of the information first. One little piece of information, which may or may not be true, becomes "Breaking News," instead of them collecting the whole story first. All I want is a story, not five pieces of a story that make up one.

TV media is not the only place to find these little annoyances. The Internet is a place where you, I, and the rest of the world also get sporting news. ESPN, Sports Illustrated, FoxSports, Sporting News, and even B/R are just a few. Now I'm not trying to blast the media, just pointing out little things which could be better.

Sports headlines on the Internet are often spiced up and misleading to get us to read them. I don't know how many times I've clicked a link to find the title of the article was a lot more interesting than the article itself.

Don't get me wrong, I know the point is for the writer to get their article read, but some pieces could be better.

Now that I've been down on the media for a bit, it's time for you, the reader, to step it up. Many places allow you to comment on the article, which is great, but misused. While it is your right to comment how you please, why waste your and the rest of our time?

Advertisement links, discouraging or belittling comments, or comments which have nothing to do with the articles are unnecessary and really childish.

By doing this, you are showing your maturity level while hiding behind your username. Just show some class while voicing your opinion.

Do I realize this article will not change the articles? Yes. Do I realize people are still going to make their ridiculous comments? Yes. Bottom line is we will still watch the TV., read these articles, and voice are opinions on the articles.

This article was not meant to change that, but was just my opinion on the media and our reaction to it.