Pa Golden Tate Fan
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 162
Is it just me or has Sports Journalism especially ESPN has gotten worse over the years? Does there need to be stricter libel laws?
Sports Journalism
- Thread starter Pa Golden Tate Fan
- Start date
stlnd01
Was away. Now returned.
- Messages
- 13,386
- Reaction score
- 10,247
Care to elaborate?
Pa Golden Tate Fan
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 162
Like with Manti, Michael Sam, Jason Collins etc.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
Manti DID get catfished and Michael Sam IS gay. Truth is an absolute defense against libel.
Getting maximum ad exposure from minimum journalistic input.
The Bleacher Report model.
tussin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,153
- Reaction score
- 1,982
You mayyyyyyybe have a point with Manti. I think the Michael Sam and especially Jason Collins coverage has only enhanced their public perception.
The Manti libel issue had to do with accusations that he fabricated a tragedy for personal gain, a Heisman campaign ploy.
stlnd01
Was away. Now returned.
- Messages
- 13,386
- Reaction score
- 10,247
Uh, Michael Sam and Jason Collins both outed themselves with the cooperation of major media outlets. In Sam's case, in particular, a number of outlets had known the story for a long time but didn't pursue it out of respect for his privacy.
Manti's case was a little trickier. The initial stories got his motivation wrong - and Deadspin certainly should have tried a little harder to get his side of the story before it hit "publish" - but mostly because the truth was so unbelievable. Their basic facts were correct.
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here. It's easy to paint journalists as sleazeballs. In reality most are anything but.
NDohio
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,869
- Reaction score
- 3,060
What perturbs me the most about news journalists today, compared to new journalists twenty years ago, is that they will often take a story and make it more than what it truly is.
Michael Sam is a perfect example. He has been gay for a long time. He made his sexuality known to his team a year ago. Nothing - no locker room turmoil - no hatred sent his way - nothing. Now, both ESPN and NFL Network cannot do a segment on the combine without mentioning him in some way. Is it really that big of a story?
I have basically turned ESPN off with the exception of watching live events. I catch SC every once in a while during peak times(Super Bowl, Bowl Season, World Series, etc), but for the most part do not watch or listen to them anymore because of the way they turn news into something more than what it truly is.
Michael Sam is a perfect example. He has been gay for a long time. He made his sexuality known to his team a year ago. Nothing - no locker room turmoil - no hatred sent his way - nothing. Now, both ESPN and NFL Network cannot do a segment on the combine without mentioning him in some way. Is it really that big of a story?
I have basically turned ESPN off with the exception of watching live events. I catch SC every once in a while during peak times(Super Bowl, Bowl Season, World Series, etc), but for the most part do not watch or listen to them anymore because of the way they turn news into something more than what it truly is.
wizards8507
Well-known member
- Messages
- 20,660
- Reaction score
- 2,661
They've gone from reporting the news to making the news. If you watch ESPN, the story is not "Michael Sam is gay," the story is "ESPN analyst Mike Wilbon comments on Michael Sam's locker room impact."
stlnd01
Was away. Now returned.
- Messages
- 13,386
- Reaction score
- 10,247
It may be old news inside the Mizzou football program, but an openly gay NFL player is a really big story to a lot of people. Is there overkill in the coverage? Sure. But if people weren't interested, ESPN wouldn't be talking about it. And by the time October rolls around Sam will be just another linebacker making a living in the NFL, kind of like Teo.
I agree the professional blowhards like Wilbon are annoying and self-important. The 24/7 news cycle - without an attendant 24/7 increase in actual news - has made talking heads a bigger piece of the news media ecosystem (and this is not just true in sports; it's CNN, CNBC, across the board). They've got to fill that air time somehow. If you don't like them, don't watch. I don't. But they're not really hurting anybody, which was the OP's contention.
gkIrish
Greek God
- Messages
- 13,184
- Reaction score
- 1,004
Yup.
I too have stopped watching ESPN unless I'm watching live games. I also like most of their 30 for 30s.
- Messages
- 37,545
- Reaction score
- 28,995
They are kind of "hurting someone" though in the grand scheme. When ESPN (a "news" entity) launches their own SEC Network, it matters if their "reporting" is completely biased towards their other financial stakes. This is my main issue with the way things are these days... ESPN devotes such a large chunk of their energy towards pimping their other products and such little of their effort towards actual investigative journalism or reporting. That's a shame, and my main grip with reporting.
Sports "journalism" is now far more about opinion, sensationalism, and agendas than actual "reporting"... because there is scarcely a need for any real investigative journalism with how everything breaks instantaneously over Twitter.
stlnd01
Was away. Now returned.
- Messages
- 13,386
- Reaction score
- 10,247
I would agree that ESPN is a complicated entity, and by no means pure of heart (killing their participation in Frontline's concussion documentary over concerns from the NFL is just Exhibit A in their tremendous rolling conflict of interest. Also what happened to Bruce Feldman - for my money the best reporter covering college football today.). The massive influx of TV money driven largely by ESPN has had huge, not-always-good impact on our beloved sport of college football. But remember, the E stands for "entertainment." They've never claimed to be The New York Times.
On the other hand no one - no one - has more reporting/investigative boots on the ground in sports journalism than ESPN. They employ many of the best sportswriters in the country, and give them the time and resources to do great work, which they do every day. See: 30 for 30, a lot of the projects undertaken by ESPN Mag, Wright Thompson, Jeff MacGregor, Chris Jones, countless on-the-ground reporters who are among the smartest and best-sourced in their respective sports. This may get lost amid the endless blather on SportsCenter, but it's there if you look for it.
Like anything, there's bad and there's good. But it's not nearly as simple as "Journalism's getting worse. We need tougher libel laws." And my point about not really hurting anyone was strictly about the professional bloviators. ESPN as a whole has certainly made some mistakes.
Last edited:
irishtrain
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,359
- Reaction score
- 157
Thanks guys for this thread and comments that make me feel better about my loathing for this mess which is now called sports media. what they did to Teo last year really bothered me and now with some of the recent issues I think he almost needs an apology-but that will never happen. I remember being in a major league locker room as a player in 1979 (first year of female open locker room ) and seeing this circus begin. What a freaking cluster _____. If I were playing today the first thing I would do would be to say that I am not comfortable with interviews for whatever made up reason and never do any. Just put my clothes on after a shower and go home.
NDohio
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,869
- Reaction score
- 3,060
First bolded part:
Yes - the first openly gay man in the NFL will be big news. You can't tell me though that the news agencies are not using this story in order to sell their coverage. I have a problem with that. I watched NFL Network over the weekend to catch up on the combine. They spent so much time on the draft status of Sams, how he is going to be accepted into the locker room, how fans will perceive him, etc. I grew tired of hearing about the guy. I especially think the entire conversation about how he will be accepted into the locker room is blown completely out of proportion. His Missouri teammates - college students that are less immature than NFL men - had no problem with him in the locker room. People watch to find out about their team and the players they are interested in, they then get force fed the stories that the network wants to push.
Second bolded part:
Mostly what LAX said, but also people do get hurt when a story is made bigger than should be. Especially when the story is released prematurely. Once the initial statements are out there, it's next to impossible to make it right. The Manti story is a perfect example of this.
I also agree that this is not necessarily just a sports journalism issue, it's across the board. Because of social media and the speed of the news cycle it seems many in the industry strive more for being first as opposed to being accurate. That's a problem.
rikkitikki08
Well-known member
- Messages
- 4,262
- Reaction score
- 3,097
Did anyone happen to watch the report on Jason Collins first game with the nets? It was basically "ohh its Jason Collins the gay athlete setting a screen". In the story they went out of the way to show his stats, he had 1 rebound and 1 steal....
I have no issues with him being gay but that whole segment was ESPN fishing for hits, it was a sad attempt at making something out of nothing
I have no issues with him being gay but that whole segment was ESPN fishing for hits, it was a sad attempt at making something out of nothing
- Messages
- 19,128
- Reaction score
- 11,077
I know many schools are trying to battle this trend overall, not just in sports journalism, but it's hard because many journalism professors are "older" and aren't as in-touch with advances in media, reporting and technology as their students are. It sounds exaggerated, but technology/media are advancing daily in informatics/communication... students can keep up with this pace, but professors are often a bit behind in the uptake (at least this is my experience, and also the experience of friends that studied journalism at other institutions).
Students understand how to use current tech and media, and are up-to-date on the latest uses and applications of these things (such as breaking news, sharing stories, etc.), but they don't have the experience in terms of acting responsibly/professionally. Professors have the experience to properly use these channels, but they aren't familiar with them until students have already developed their own (often flawed) ideas and applications. Another problem is that professors are so busy trying to be "up-to-date" that programs lack an overall direction to create well-rounded journalists. While students are trying to figure out how to break open a big controversy (and often in misguided ways), professors are distracted from core lessons by simply trying to keep up with a changing industry.
I focused on sports journalism in school, and was fortunate enough to have a pretty good group of professors. Some were a bit behind on modern tech/media, and none of them knew a thing about sports specifically, but enough of them were familiar with all of the new changes in tech and media that we never fell behind on learning the basic principles that help create actual "professionals." They were able to control and nearly eliminate any focus on the sensational and overly-opinionated type of reporting by limiting the amount of columns/editorials that could go in our newspaper.
As a result, my institution had a pretty awesome weekly publication. Only editors could run opinion pieces, and even then we were taught that opinion should not be construed as "reporting." When we had breaking news, hot takes, and investigative pieces in our publication, they were clearly being reported simply based on facts, and not based on the speculation/extreme-opinions angle that is rampant in the professional world.
The problem is that those things will never truly go away. Someone will always be paying the bills for these outlets, and so some outlets will never resemble what would be considered "professional reporting" ever again. But there will be some holdouts, and (hopefully) the many students that are being taught the problems with "sensationalism" can make a push in a new, more responsible direction in the professional world after learning about modern media at responsible institutions.
Last edited:
stlnd01
Was away. Now returned.
- Messages
- 13,386
- Reaction score
- 10,247
News organizations are like any almost other company. They're in business to make money. Without that, there is no journalism, because there are no salaries to pay journalists, and few professionals want to work for free.
New organizations make money two ways: By selling subscriptions and by selling eyeballs to advertisers, often they do combination of both. Sensationalism, to a point, sells. So they do it. Always have. Always will. (If you think today's bad, consider that Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst basically incited the Spanish-American War in order to sell newspapers). But at some point, people - including many in this thread apparently - get turned off by sensationalism, and they stop watching.
The smarter news organizations (and certainly the smarter individual journalists, who are increasingly becoming their own brands) realize that their long-term brand is more important, and more valuable. So they focus on good reporting, smart analysis, great stories, the things you can't get everywhere. There's still a market for that, and there's actually more better journalism being done today - especially in sports - than perhaps at any time ever. You just have to look for it.
So if that's what you want, turn off the crap you're force-fed and go find it. It's not hard. But don't declare a whole industry broken beyond repair just because SportsCenter annoys you.
New organizations make money two ways: By selling subscriptions and by selling eyeballs to advertisers, often they do combination of both. Sensationalism, to a point, sells. So they do it. Always have. Always will. (If you think today's bad, consider that Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst basically incited the Spanish-American War in order to sell newspapers). But at some point, people - including many in this thread apparently - get turned off by sensationalism, and they stop watching.
The smarter news organizations (and certainly the smarter individual journalists, who are increasingly becoming their own brands) realize that their long-term brand is more important, and more valuable. So they focus on good reporting, smart analysis, great stories, the things you can't get everywhere. There's still a market for that, and there's actually more better journalism being done today - especially in sports - than perhaps at any time ever. You just have to look for it.
So if that's what you want, turn off the crap you're force-fed and go find it. It's not hard. But don't declare a whole industry broken beyond repair just because SportsCenter annoys you.