You're the outlier here, which is understandable since you work for the company; but IE isn't exceptional in its dislike for how ESPN goes about its business.
You're crisscrossing cause and effect here. I don't like ESPN
because I work for them. I work for them because I like them. Actually, I
really work for ESPN because I like The Walt Disney Company but hate both Florida and California. They treated me well in Orlando and they treat me well here in Bristol. My "brand affinity" is much more aligned to Mickey Mouse, Captain America, and Disney Infinity than it is to SportsCenter or Mike and Mike. For full disclosure, the only ESPN products that I go out of my way to enjoy as a customer are 30 for 30 and College GameDay. I also think that ESPN's live sports productions are the best in the business, with come commentators obviously being better than others.
ESPN is a publicly-traded company, and is therefore concerned first and foremost with maximizing shareholder value.
This seems to be a problem you have with "the media," yet criticism is leveled at ESPN almost exclusively. NBC, which airs Notre Dame games and is far more blatantly pro-ND than any media entity is anti-ND, is owned by Comcast. I'm not sure why you have a problem with The Walt Disney Company pursuing shareholder value but not Comcast.
ESPN, like every other cable "news" network, has determined that the best way to do that is through sensationalism, and not by providing unbiased coverage.
My first response would be that ESPN is
not a "news" network, air quotes or otherwise. ESPN is, first and foremost, an entertainment network.
Secondly, there are different standards of "journalism" that apply to specific products within ESPN. Bret Baier and Wolf Blitzer are held to a different standard of journalism when they're hosting election coverage than Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow are when they're hosting their
opinion shows. None of them should be outright
lying to the audience, but O'Reilly and Maddow are under no obligation to walk the center line when that's clearly not the purpose of their programming.
Likewise, if Stuart Scott was bashing ND as the host of SportsCenter or Bob Ley was anything less than fair in an Outside the Lines piece, then there might be room for complaint. Programs like GameDay, First Take, or any of the radio shows are opinion and commentary shows, not reporting shows. Sometimes, individuals wear two different hats and that can complicate things. Scott Van Pelt is different on SportsCenter than he is when he's hosting SVP and Russillo. Kirk Herbstreit won't pick games that he's calling because College GameDay is an opinion and commentary show, while announcing a game requires a different demeanor and level of neutrality.
That's all well and good--there's clearly a huge market for this sort of entertainment--except for the fact that ESPN is by far the loudest voice in CFB, which, due to small sample sizes and poor schedule overlap, is predicated almost entirely upon public perception.
This seems like more of a problem with the system than with ESPN. When I watch GameDay or another program, I can agree or disagree with the opinions of the hosts because I have my own eyes and brain. If the AP voters, Coaches, or the Committee base their votes on what Desmond Howard says at 10:15 on a Saturday morning, we have bigger problems.
Thus, NDFB--in which we're all emotionally invested, and which generates a ton of cash for our alma mater--is frequently at the mercy of whatever narrative ESPN chooses to spin.
"Spin" implies that there's some way to possibly cover sports "straight." I'm not sure I'd want to watch any programming that checked all opinions at the door and strictly "stuck to the facts." Can you imagine how terribly boring that would be? "Florida State plays Clemson today. In other news, Notre Dame plays USC today. At 10:00, Stanford will play Oregon," followed by the evening edition, "Florida State beat Clemson 20-17, Notre Dame fell to USC 24-10, and Stanford defeated Oregon 10-6. Thank you and good night." I'll pass.
Also, a lot of people seem to think that there's a master-crafted "narrative" that's pushed from the top-down. There isn't. When Desmond Howard talks crap about ND, it's because Desmond Howard feels like talking crap about ND. If Jesse Palmer thinks Dak Prescott is the best college quarterback on the planet, then he's going to say so. There's no mandate from on high that says "promote the SEC, Yankees, LeBron, and Tiger while bashing Notre Dame and the Big 10 and ignoring everyone on the west coast." Things that get more coverage than other things are the culmination of decisions from individual producers and talent, not some elaborate scheme to "steer the narrative" in a certain direction.
Sorry I don't like seeing ND's fortunes influenced by an amoral corporation that employs Paul Finebaum, Colin Cowherd, Skip Bayless, etc. because #HotTakes.
Many posters are looking at "amorality" in the rear view mirror and have moved on to accusations of flat-out
immorality. It's those kinds of ridiculous posts that I have the biggest problem with. As to the rest of your comment, I've already discussed how those individuals are opinion-based have no bearing on the reporting or live-event coverage at ESPN.