WSJ: How a Weakened ESPN Became Consumed by Politics
- Thread starter Shikamaru
- Start date
-
- Tags
- espn jemele hill trump
Can't appease both sides....
DynamoEAR
All Star
A lot of people conservative and "moderate" said 
to Michael Sam and especially Caitlyn Jenner getting the Ashe Courage award back to back years; that pissed a lot of people off.
to Michael Sam and especially Caitlyn Jenner getting the Ashe Courage award back to back years; that pissed a lot of people off.
ESPN is caught between the contradictions of a majority white make audience and the 3 biggest sports leagues being majority minority, and the biggest 2 overwhelmingly so. Nothing they can do to change that.
Forever salute Kaep for escalating this shyt.
Forever salute Kaep for escalating this shyt.
cartierhoe
Veteran
Dude has been ghost
They tried to please too many people.. Hell I even hear complaints when they show the sickly kids who get to visit their favorite teams segments. 
panopticon
Superstar
When you're running a business depending on a broad & shallow reach (rather than a narrower, but deeper one) , its best to stay away from politics
Kap definitely escalated this, and IMO that was his prerogative as a citizen of this country
Always support anybody exercising their right to free speech - I don't give a damn what the cause is, how "legitimate" or "illegitimate" it is - that isn't for me to judge.
But it was up to ESPN to decide how they would cover it
From a business perspective, they clearly fukked it up...you can't toe the line or play both sides of the fence with these sorts of things - you can't pile on with #metoo type shyt, running all sorts of coverage on players that are (often falsely) accused of domestic violence, and then turn around and be "uncomfortable" addressing racial issues because of how they (will) affect your bottom line.
Any executive worth his salt would've established one of three clear coverage policies, and they would've never found themselves in this situation:
1) ESPN doesn't do politics, period. No #metoo, no Kap coverage & commentary, no domestic violence - none of it. Sports, scores, and related commentary only.
2) ESPN does politics, and does politics from a particular viewpoint and perspective that it makes clear to its audience (whether liberal, conservative, racist, pro-black, whatever - just make it clear and stick to that perspective).
3) ESPN does politics, and does it in as neutral and balanced a way as is humanly possible. That means alongside interviewing and featuring Kap and other protesting players, giving players opposed to the protests equal billing. That also means when covering (unproven) DV accusations, giving equal billing to those who point out the inconsistencies in victims' stories and the long history of DV accusations being used as leverage in divorce settlements and child support cases.
Policy #1 shrinks the audience by those who believe politics has a place in sports reporting and commentary. Policy #2 shrinks the audience by whatever demographic feels alienated by ESPN's political perspective. Policy #3 shrinks the audience by those uninterested in hearing about anything political, but deepens the relationship between ESPN and all those who want some level of political commentary alongside their sports.
With a commitment to a clear policy, ESPN would get a pretty good handle on how many viewers it would lose with any given choice. At this point it becomes a business decision - what policy loses the least viewers? Additionally, what policy gives ESPN the best chance to gain new viewers?
This halfway bullshyt is just terrible fukking business.
Kap definitely escalated this, and IMO that was his prerogative as a citizen of this country
Always support anybody exercising their right to free speech - I don't give a damn what the cause is, how "legitimate" or "illegitimate" it is - that isn't for me to judge.
But it was up to ESPN to decide how they would cover it
From a business perspective, they clearly fukked it up...you can't toe the line or play both sides of the fence with these sorts of things - you can't pile on with #metoo type shyt, running all sorts of coverage on players that are (often falsely) accused of domestic violence, and then turn around and be "uncomfortable" addressing racial issues because of how they (will) affect your bottom line.
Any executive worth his salt would've established one of three clear coverage policies, and they would've never found themselves in this situation:
1) ESPN doesn't do politics, period. No #metoo, no Kap coverage & commentary, no domestic violence - none of it. Sports, scores, and related commentary only.
2) ESPN does politics, and does politics from a particular viewpoint and perspective that it makes clear to its audience (whether liberal, conservative, racist, pro-black, whatever - just make it clear and stick to that perspective).
3) ESPN does politics, and does it in as neutral and balanced a way as is humanly possible. That means alongside interviewing and featuring Kap and other protesting players, giving players opposed to the protests equal billing. That also means when covering (unproven) DV accusations, giving equal billing to those who point out the inconsistencies in victims' stories and the long history of DV accusations being used as leverage in divorce settlements and child support cases.
Policy #1 shrinks the audience by those who believe politics has a place in sports reporting and commentary. Policy #2 shrinks the audience by whatever demographic feels alienated by ESPN's political perspective. Policy #3 shrinks the audience by those uninterested in hearing about anything political, but deepens the relationship between ESPN and all those who want some level of political commentary alongside their sports.
With a commitment to a clear policy, ESPN would get a pretty good handle on how many viewers it would lose with any given choice. At this point it becomes a business decision - what policy loses the least viewers? Additionally, what policy gives ESPN the best chance to gain new viewers?
This halfway bullshyt is just terrible fukking business.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
You read my mind.WSJ
publication
John Mexico
All Star
Oops
panopticon
Superstar
WSJ reporting is probably the highest-quality journalism done anywhere, brehWSJ
I take them over the NYT any day - especially when it comes to potentially controversial stories.
Their op-ed page on the other hand...bunch of maniacs
panopticon
Superstar
Nah.You read my mind.
Op-ed page, definitely
But reporting? Shyt is top-notch.
Linda Cohn, one of ESPN’s most prominent female anchors, in April 2017 gave a radio interview opining that ESPN’s politics were pushing away viewers and the network had overpaid for NBA rights.
Several ESPN employees later told Mr. Skipper that Ms. Hill should have been suspended for her Trump tweet because she violated the company’s social-media policy.
“To me it was clear-cut that these are areas to stay away from regarding racial topics, religion, sex orientation, politics,” said Tim Legler, an ESPN basketball analyst and 17-year company veteran.
Well before Ms. Hill’s tweet controversy, network icon Bob Ley had approached Mr. Skipper to say “there was a problem with balance internally,” people familiar with the matter said. Reached for comment, Mr. Ley said Mr. Skipper “was always extremely receptive.”
Conservative ESPN staffers grew frustrated by increased political commentary, including from ESPN executives during the presidential election, and worried about #BoycottESPN hashtags cropping up on Twitter. “Our viewers turned to us for sports,” said Jay Crawford, a longtime SportsCenter host who was laid off a year ago. “Realizing there’s never been a time in my lifetime where our country has been more divided, I saw no value in adding to that division.”
Several ESPN employees later told Mr. Skipper that Ms. Hill should have been suspended for her Trump tweet because she violated the company’s social-media policy.
“To me it was clear-cut that these are areas to stay away from regarding racial topics, religion, sex orientation, politics,” said Tim Legler, an ESPN basketball analyst and 17-year company veteran.
Well before Ms. Hill’s tweet controversy, network icon Bob Ley had approached Mr. Skipper to say “there was a problem with balance internally,” people familiar with the matter said. Reached for comment, Mr. Ley said Mr. Skipper “was always extremely receptive.”
Conservative ESPN staffers grew frustrated by increased political commentary, including from ESPN executives during the presidential election, and worried about #BoycottESPN hashtags cropping up on Twitter. “Our viewers turned to us for sports,” said Jay Crawford, a longtime SportsCenter host who was laid off a year ago. “Realizing there’s never been a time in my lifetime where our country has been more divided, I saw no value in adding to that division.”
Last edited: