Not sure if it was a guilty conscience, or if he was instructed to be a shill for the network, but did anyone else catch Chris Fowler's ridiculous defense of ESPN and their bias on GameDay?
No, did I miss something?
He had a bit of a rant about how "stupid" it is, to think that ESPN has an interest in the SEC being dominant. But he was careful to present it as people contending that ESPN has a vested interest in seeing 3 SEC teams get into the playoffs(a contention that I have never heard, by the way). Basically he was saying that anyone who thinks that ESPN is biased for the SEC is an idiot.
ESPN isn't biased towards the SEC, they're biased towards ratings and money. And right now ratings + $$$ = SEC.
I literally despise Fowler's smug face and snarky comments. He's the only one I truly can't tolerate.
he's a typical modern day commentator.
he thinks the general public values his opinion and couldn't be more wrong.
much like the brent mussbergers and brad nesslers of the tv world.
they've all gotten too big for their britches, much like everyone who's been on that network for a decade or so
They may use their bias as a tool in the pursuit of revenue, but that doesn't change the fact that they are biased. And to go on a national show and try to claim that you aren't, and call people "stupid" for realizing that you are; that's almost the textbook definition of douchebaggery.
Right, exactly. RIGHT NOW they have SEC bias as a product of their business decisions, because anything but SEC bias would hurt their properties/revenue.
In a couple years that might change depending on XYZ and what they're invested in. But for anyone to argue they don't have -- at minimum -- a conflict of interest as a "journalistic" entity is ignorant of business.
I love how he mentioned how he hates when stupid uninformed information is repeated again and again.. . . . I thought he was talking about how the refs got the call at the end of the FSU game right.
All want to be Howard Cosell or Keith Jackson, who wanted to be Walter Cronkite.
I liked Jackson's style of game calling but he was the biggest homer on the networks. ND v UM or ND v USC didn't matter, ABC carried those game and Keith openly rooted for the Rose Bowl (carried on ABC) prospects. Raved ad nauseam about the superiority of the BIG and PAC conferences which played in "The Granddaddy of the them all".
And another thing that bothered me, about this morning's GameDay: When referring to the end of the ND/FSU game, each ESPN personality called it "the drama".
Call it what it was: a blown call, or calls, depending on your view.
How does them calling it 'the drama' bother you? That's what it was/has been since it happened.
Because they are not shy about calling them "blown calls" for other teams. So why not call it a "blown call" for ND?
Maybe because they're supposed to appear impartial and it's a fact that many people do not see it as a blown call?
There's no better way to term it for them, IMO.
Meh! I said it bothered me. I never said it was rational.
Literally everyone with an ounce of logic or business knowledge in their being knows that corporations are self-interested.
When one of those assets is a network that gets "second pick" of games... it's extremely important that ALL teams be perceived as good so that the "second tier" game is still considered a premium matchup that people want to watch.
On top of that, they put their name in the SEC Network branding/logo.
And they do live cut ins to "SEC Nation" during game day.
ESPN isn't biased towards the SEC, they're biased towards ratings and money. And right now ratings + $$$ = SEC.
For the CFB playoffs, they will be biased towards whichever 4 teams they think get them the most eyeballs.
They may use their bias as a tool in the pursuit of revenue, but that doesn't change the fact that they are biased. And to go on a national show and try to claim that you aren't, and call people "stupid" for realizing that you are; that's almost the textbook definition of douchebaggery.
Right, exactly. RIGHT NOW they have SEC bias as a product of their business decisions, because anything but SEC bias would hurt their properties/revenue.
In a couple years that might change depending on XYZ and what they're invested in. But for anyone to argue they don't have -- at minimum -- a conflict of interest as a "journalistic" entity is ignorant of business.
He said ESPN is full of businessmen and they don't care about the SEC, B1G, etc. All they care about is what brings them the most money/ratings. He said if the B1G were to bring in the big bucks then they would be promoting the B1G ad nausea.